Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856, Vol. 4 (of 16) (part 2 of 8)

Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856, Vol. 4 (of 16) (part 2 of 8)

Mr. J. G. JACKSON moved to strike out the "fourth" Monday in May, and insert the "last," stating as a reason, that as the Virginia elections took place in April, the Representatives could not arrive here in time.

Mr. MACON wished a division of the question so as first to strike out, with a view to insert "September," instead of May. The motion to strike out was negatived--62 to 35. It was supposed that this question tried the principle of the bill.

The committee rose and reported the bill.

Mr. D. WILLIAMS moved to strike out May for the purpose of inserting "September."

Mr. MILNOR hoped the motion would not be agreed to. If the new Congress could commence its session on the 4th day of March next, he said he should think it extremely proper that it should do so. And, if he could think that the majority would fix an earlier day than the fourth Monday of May for the meeting, he should vote for the present motion. He agreed with gentlemen that this was a momentous crisis; that the country was in a situation of extreme difficulty and danger. It appeared to him, therefore, that Congress, who were the guardians of the public welfare; to whom were confided the destinies of the nation, so far as the nation could control them, should be constantly in session, till a more favorable state of affairs took place. It was possible, but was it probable that any event would occur to alter our situation for the better? There was no hope that the belligerents would recede from their injurious restrictions on our commerce. It was not probable that any thing would occur which would do away the necessity of an extra session. The present Congress having determined to persevere in the embargo and the present system of measures a while longer, the peace and welfare of the country required that a different system should be adopted. The present had been sufficiently tested, and would never produce those effects anticipated from it. It was proper that an early opportunity should be given to the next Congress to approve the present system, or give it up and adopt some other in its stead.

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS said he was opposed to Congress coming here at the time proposed. Why should they come here then? He wished some one to answer, and let him understand why they were coming. In his opinion there was every possible objection to such a procedure. On the fourth day of March, a new President comes into power. Is it not presumable that the President would choose to have some communication with our Ministers abroad before the meeting of Congress? Could any man say that it was not proper that he should have it? Mr. W. said he hoped that the President would send special messengers, unfashionable as that policy was. If you are willing to wait for a declaration of war till the fourth Monday in May, will there be any necessity of declaring it before the first Monday in June or July? You have suffered the public mind to assuage in its resentment, and I very much doubt, that before a full experiment be made of the embargo, it will be wholly allayed. It has been said through the nation, and indeed avowed on this floor, that the Administration does not wish for peace. Having failed to take hold of the affair of the Chesapeake for a declaration of war, you have nothing now to give the people that interest which I hope they always will have in a declaration of war. Suppose you were to send special Ministers, and they were to be treated as our Ministers to France were under a former Administration, would not this treatment make every man in the nation rally around you? Would it not prove beyond doubt that the Administration was sincere in its wishes for peace? Undoubtedly it would. Why are your Ministers now loitering in foreign Courts? With a hope of accommodation, sir, I would send other Ministers there, and if they failed of immediate accommodation, would order them all home. If they are compelled to return, you will have the whole nation with you, which you must have when you go to war.

Mr. J. G. JACKSON replied to Mr. WILLIAMS. The gentleman had asked emphatically why Congress should convene here in May. Occurrences of every day, said Mr. J., are presenting themselves in such a way as to render it highly important and necessary that some other ground should be taken. Are we to adhere to the embargo forever, sir? I have said, and again say, that a total abandonment of the ocean would be submission. I think, by passing this bill, we give the nation a pledge that it shall be the ne plus ultra, which shall give to foreign nations time to revise their conduct towards us, and will give them time to consider whether or not they will have war with us. The gentleman wants a special mission. Sir, are we to continue in this state any longer? Shall negotiation be spun out further? No man can doubt the capacity of our Ministers abroad, and their disposition to represent their Government correctly. The doors are shut in the face of our Minister at the Court of St. James, and worse than shut at the Court of St. Cloud--for, from the latter, contemptuous silence is all the answer we have received, if indeed silence can convey an answer. Are we to renew negotiation, then, when every circumstance manifests that it would be useless? Need I refer to what took place the other day--I allude to the publication of a letter by Mr. Canning, in a highly exceptionable manner, through Federal presses, or presses more devoted to the interests of that country than any other? One universal burst of indignation accompanied the publication of that letter in this House. And are we, under such circumstances, to renew negotiation by extra missions? I conceive that the cup of negotiation and conciliation is exhausted to the dregs, and that we should but further degrade ourselves by sending further extra missions. It has been stated to me that a proposition had actually been reduced to writing by a member of this House the other day for sending away foreign Ministers and calling our Ministers home, and I am sorry that the proposition was not offered to the House, for, under present circumstances, it might not have been improper to have adopted it.

Mr. SMILIE said, if there were no other reason, the present suspension of commerce, and discontents at home, were sufficient reasons for calling Congress earlier than the first Monday in December. When the new Administration should come into office, it was proper that they should have an opportunity of meeting Congress as early as possible. It was his opinion that, at the next session, a change of measures would take place. What would be the substitute for the present measure he could not say; but, at this time, he must say that he could see no way of avoiding war. With regard to extra missions, he really had no idea of a measure of that kind. If there should be any other means to secure the interest and honor of the nation but war, he hoped in God that it would be adopted, but he did not now see any such prospect.

Mr. RHEA, of Tennessee, said it was of no importance in the consideration of the present question what the next Administration should think or do. He wished that there could be an understanding with foreign nations for our good, but he much doubted such a result. He would not undertake to say whether war, or what other measure, ought to be adopted at the extra session; but, it was his opinion, that Congress ought to meet, and he should vote against every proposition going to defeat the object of the bill. Although this nation had not immediately retaliated the attack on the Chesapeake, would any man rise on this floor and say that the act of dishonor was done away because the House refused immediately to avenge it? He believed not; and, as long as it remained unatoned, it was cause for this nation to act. The only question for the House now to determine was this: Are there reasons to induce gentlemen to believe that a meeting of Congress is necessary on the fourth Monday of May next? As it appeared to him that such reasons did exist, he said he was bound on his responsibility to vote for the bill.

Mr. DURELL asked if gentlemen meant to continue the embargo forever. He believed somewhat in the doctrine that an explosion might take place under it in a certain portion of the country. Gentlemen said an extra session was, therefore, necessary to save the nation. Mr. D. asked if the nation was to be saved by long speeches? He had seen almost two whole sessions of Congress pass away, the one of six months, the other of three, and the nation in the same situation still, and still told, in long stories, from day to day, that it was in a critical situation. He had no idea that the nation was to be saved by much speaking. He did firmly believe, that more than forty-eight hours would not be necessary to pass all laws to meet the impending crisis. If a declaration of war was thought proper, this would be sufficient time for it; if an extraordinary mission, as suggested by the gentleman from South Carolina, forty-eight hours would be time enough for the House to decide on recommending it. The present was a state of suspense, from which the nation ought to be removed, and he was unwilling to prolong this state by the passage of the bill.

Mr. BURWELL said he was one of those who would vote for an earlier meeting of Congress than usual. In Great Britain, in whose government there were some features approximating to ours, there was always an uneasiness, lest the Parliament should not meet often enough. Whence could be the objection to Congress meeting at an earlier day? If the public sentiment was not then prepared for war, it would not be adopted. It appeared to him that an early session, instead of producing mischief, would essentially contribute to tranquillize the minds of the people. If peace was attainable, we must have peace; but if not, we have no choice but war. The gentleman from South Carolina suggests the propriety of sending a special mission, said Mr. B. Let me ask him, if Administration should not take this course, whether it would not be perfectly proper that Congress should be in session? Certainly it would. With respect to a special mission, Mr. B. said he was perfectly at a loss to conceive what could be the nature of any proposition which could be made to Great Britain. A proposition had already been made to her, in effect, to go to war with her against France, and insultingly refused; for no other interpretation could be made of the offer to suspend the embargo, if she would rescind her Orders in Council, except Mr. Canning chose to misunderstand everything that could be said. Unless gentlemen would point out some new proposition, which could be made to Great Britain or France, he could not see the propriety of the course recommended. As to the continuance of the embargo, Mr. B. said it seemed to be perfectly well understood by every man, that when the Government determined on that course, it did not determine to persevere in it eternally. If it could be made manifest to him that any particular favorable consequence would be produced by postponing the session beyond the fourth Monday in May, he might be induced to accede to it. As to the disposition of the Administration to preserve peace, could the gentleman conceive it possible to remove the impressions of those who were determined not to be convinced? This nation had sued for peace, but in vain; they had offered to give up almost every thing in contest, if Great Britain would yield a thing which neither Mr. Canning nor any other member of the British Government ever said they had a right to do, and which was only justified on the ground of necessity. There was therefore no plausibility in the assertion that peace had not been earnestly sought for.

Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL said that if nothing occurred between this time and the time proposed by the bill for the next meeting of Congress, which would particularly render a change necessary, he was yet of opinion that it would be then necessary to change our situation; for this reason: that at that period, time sufficient would have elapsed to give us information as to what ground Great Britain would take, after she had heard of the position which Congress had maintained. After that ground was taken, Congress would know how to act. I never voted for the embargo as a permanent measure, said Mr. C., nor did I ever use an expression which would authorize such a supposition; nor do I suppose that any other gentleman entertained such an idea. As to a special mission, I should as soon think of sending a special messenger to the moon as to Great Britain or to France, for the cup of humiliation is exhausted already, and I will never put it in their power to offer us another cup.

Mr. MACON said he had not intended to have said any thing, but that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. BURWELL) had broached a doctrine which he did not approve--that this Government was like that of Great Britain.

Mr. BURWELL explained that he had said that the Governments were, in some of their features, alike.

Mr. MACON said that the reason of the fear in Great Britain that the Parliament would not meet often enough, was extremely obvious. The only voice which the people had was in the House of Commons, and they wanted them to be always in session, to keep the King and nobility off from them. In Great Britain the King dissolved Parliament at his pleasure. Here, he said, there was no power to dissolve Congress. Indeed, there was no similarity in the two Governments. He said he had no fear of any mischief being done by Congress meeting earlier; but he was opposed to their meeting earlier, because they would do more good by staying away. Could any man say what would take place between this day and the third of March? And yet the House were now called on to determine on an extra session. He was for giving such time, after the deliberations of the present session closed, as that Great Britain might see what we had done, and consider whether she would retract or go to war, for if she did not retract, war must be the consequence. Mr. M. said he would give every opportunity for peace; he would not be for hurrying the matter. He had no opinion that Congress being in session would have any effect on the people. The cry of an intention to destroy commerce was not to make him do a single thing which he would not otherwise do. No man can believe that we who raise produce should wish it to lie on our hands, as is now our situation. It is maritime rights for which we contend. For these we planters are making sacrifices, and we know it. As to the grower it is immaterial in point of interest into what ship or wagon his produce goes; but he is contending for the interests of his mercantile brethren. A great deal has been said about repealing the embargo to put an end to discontents. Let gentlemen beware of it, lest in trying to please everybody, they please nobody. Let us do what is right, that is the only ground for us to take. Whenever we begin to temporize, that principle is abandoned. I disagree with the gentleman from Tennessee as to the expediency of continuing the embargo; I do not believe that it would be inexpedient to try it beyond May. I believe we ought to try it beyond September. This is my opinion. What effect do gentlemen expect that the embargo will have had in May? Not more than at this moment. While every day from that time till September, it will be more and more effectual. I never voted for it as a permanent measure; but my opinion was, as I stated it, that it might be necessary to hold on to it for one, two, or three years. I might be wrong, but this was my opinion then, and I have not changed it. As to an extra session, I have never thought of it; but I am willing to leave it to the Executive. It has been so suddenly suggested, however, that I would not undertake to decide positively on the subject. I should rather incline to let them send to us now; we have sent to them long enough. As to the people being tired of the embargo, whenever they want war in preference to it, they will send their petitions here to that effect. When gentlemen from the Eastern States say, that the people there are tired of it, perhaps they speak correctly. As to all the talk of insurrections and divisions, it has no effect on me. When the sedition law was passed under the former Administration, it was said that the people would not bear it. I thought then as now, that the elections would show their disapprobation, and that they would manifest it in that way alone. When the people are tired of the embargo, as a means of preserving peace, they will tell you so, and say, "Give us war!" But none have said so; and yet, sir, I know well that myself and some others are blamed for our adherence to this measure. I can only say, that it is an honest adherence. I do believe that the continuance of that measure, with the addition of a bill now on your table, (non-intercourse bill,) is the best thing you can do; and if I thought that Congress would declare war in May, I should be much more averse to meeting then than I am now; but I do not believe it will.

The question was now taken on the motion of Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS to strike out the words "fourth Monday in May," and lost.

No other amendment being offered to the bill, it was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. The bill being brought in engrossed, a motion was made that the same be read the third time to-morrow: and the question being put thereupon, it passed in the negative.

A motion was then made by Mr. SMILIE, that the bill be now read the third time; and the question being taken thereupon, it was resolved in the affirmative.

The said bill was, accordingly, read the third time: Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER stated the question from the chair, that the same do pass? And, the question being taken, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 80, nays 26.

MONDAY, February 6.

Presidential Election.

Several petitions having been presented, in addition to those heretofore stated, against the mode in which the late election in the State of Massachusetts was conducted--

Mr. BACON offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Clerk of this House do carry to the Senate the several memorials from sundry citizens of the State of Massachusetts, remonstrating against the mode in which the appointment of Electors for President and Vice President has been proceeded to on the part of the Senate and House of Representatives of said State, as irregular and unconstitutional, and praying for the interference of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, for the purpose of preventing the establishment of so dangerous a precedent.

Mr. J. G. JACKSON said he saw no objection to the resolution, or even to going farther than it proposed. The constitution had declared that the election of Electors in each State should be held in such manner as the Legislature should direct; and, he said, he never could consent to the doctrine that any set of men, without the authority of law, could make an election of Electors. He believed that the case was not provided for; and as the present case could not vary the general result of the Presidential election, gentlemen appeared not to be disposed to interfere in it. But, he hoped it would operate on the House to induce them to consider the propriety of providing some mode of hereafter distinguishing between legal, and illegal or surreptitious election.

Mr. VAN HORNE moved to strike out the words in italic, as he understood them as committing the House to express an opinion on the subject of the petitions. Motion lost--yeas 18.

Opening and Counting the Electoral Votes for President and Vice President.

Mr. NICHOLAS offered the following order:

Ordered, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that this House is now ready to attend them in opening the certificates and counting the votes of the Electors of the several States, in the choice of a President and Vice President of the United States, in pursuance of the resolution of the two Houses of Congress of the 7th instant; and that the Clerk of the House do go with the said message.

Mr. RANDOLPH said it had sometimes been the case, he did not say it had been the practice, that this House had met the other branch of the Legislature in their Chamber, for the purpose of counting the votes; in which cases, very properly indeed, this House being in the Chamber of the Senate, the President of that body had taken the chair. Mr. R. said he now understood that it was proposed, without any vote of this House for the purpose, that the President of the Senate was to take the chair of this House; that the Speaker was to leave the chair, to make way for the President of another body. To this, he, for one, could never consent. I conceive, said he, that such a proceeding would derogate, very materially, from the dignity, if not from the rights of this body. I can never consent, Mr. Speaker, that any other person than yourself, or the Chairman of the Committee of the whole House, should take the chair, except by a vote of the House. I hope, therefore, that this matter may be well understood. I conceive it to be a respect which we owe to ourselves, and to the people, whose immediate representatives we are, never to suffer, by a sort of prescriptive right, the privileges of this House to be in anywise diminished, or its dignity to fade before that of any other assembly of men whatever.

Mr. NICHOLAS said he was as unwilling as any other gentleman to surrender the privileges of the House. When assembled as the House of Representatives, he agreed that none but the Speaker should take the chair; but, on the occasion of counting out the votes, he did not consider the House of Representatives to be formed as a distinct body. In meeting on this occasion, he said, it always had been usual, since the establishment of the Government, for the Vice President of the United States, or the President pro tempore of the Senate, to take the chair. There was, also, a propriety in this course, because, by the constitution, the Vice President is to open the votes. For twenty years the practice had been that the President of the Senate presided in joint meeting.

Mr. NICHOLAS moved, in order to do away any difficulty in this case, that when the members of the Senate were introduced, the Speaker should relinquish the chair to the President of the Senate.

Mr. DAVENPORT supported this motion. He had no doubt of the propriety of the President of the Senate presiding at a joint meeting, more especially, as he was the person designated by the constitution for counting out the votes.

Mr. RANDOLPH said that if this course were taken, the Senate ought to be notified of this act of courtesy on the part of the House; if not, it might appear that the President of the Senate took the chair as a matter of right. He said he knew that, to many persons, matters of this sort appeared to be of minute importance, but in every thing touching the privileges of this House, as it regarded the claims of the other co-ordinate branches of the Government, he would stickle for the ninth part of a hair. It was well known that, in England, the privileges of the Commons had been gained inch by inch from the Kings and Nobles by a steady perseverance; and that man must have very little knowledge of mankind, indeed, who was not persuaded that those privileges might be lost, as they were gained, by gradual and imperceptible encroachment on the one hand, and tacit yielding on the other. This was not a matter of great consequence in itself; but power always begot power. It was like money, he said; any man could make money who had money. So any man, or body of men, who had power, could extend it. I have no objection, said Mr. R., very far from it, to the constitutional exercise of the powers and privileges of the Senate. Let their President count the votes, sir; there is a very good chair for him in which the Clerk now sits. But, on what principle is he to come into the House with the consciousness that he has a right to throw you out of the chair, sir, and take possession of it? I have no idea of suffering a man to come through those folding-doors with such a sentiment. If he comes into this House, he comes from courtesy, and cannot assume your chair, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of right, but as a favor. And, if the President of the Senate takes possession of your chair as a favor, it ought to be announced to the Senate as such; for, the mere vote on our side amounts to nothing, provided that he, and the body over whom he presides, come into this House under the knowledge, (without an intimation from us,) that you are to leave your chair, and he is to take possession of it.

Mr. SMILIE observed that there was no fear of the privileges of this body being encroached upon by any other, for there was a written constitution, prescribing the powers of each body; and, at the same time that it was proper to be careful of their own rights, he said the House should be careful not to infringe on the rights of the other body. In respect to this question, there was a case in point. In one instance while Congress sat at Philadelphia, the Senate had come into the Representatives' Chamber to count out the votes, and the President of the Senate had taken the chair as a matter of right. We, said Mr. S., are sitting as a convention of the two Houses, for a special purpose, viz: to count out the votes. Who is properly the presiding officer in this case? Unquestionably the officer directed by the constitution to open the votes. And I consider the Speaker of the House, on this occasion, as acting in the same capacity as any other member of the House.

After some further observations on the subject from Messrs. MASTERS, LYON, and MACON, the motion of Mr. NICHOLAS was agreed to--yeas 98.

Mr. RANDOLPH then moved that the Senate be acquainted, by message, of this arrangement. Agreed to--yeas 73.

The resolution first offered by Mr. NICHOLAS was then agreed to.

On the suggestion of Mr. VAN DYKE, it was agreed that the members should receive the Senate standing and uncovered.

The time for counting the votes having arrived, the members of the Senate, preceded by their Sergeant-at-Arms, entered the Representatives' Chamber, Mr. MILLEDGE, the President pro tempore, took the Speaker's chair, and the members took their seats on the right hand of the chair. The tellers were ranged in front, and the Clerks of each House on the right and left of the tellers. The President of the Senate opened the electoral returns, one copy of which was handed to the teller of the Senate, Mr. S. SMITH, who read it; the tellers of the House, Messrs. NICHOLAS and VAN DYKE, comparing the duplicate returns handed to them.

When this business, which occupied about two hours, was concluded, the tellers handed their report to the President of the Convention, who was proceeding to read it, when

Mr. HILLHOUSE observed that the returns from one of the States appeared to be defective, the Governor's certificate not being attached to it. He thought that this might be as proper a time to notice it as any.

Nothing farther being said on the subject, however, the President of the Senate read the following statement of the votes, as reported by the tellers:

(For the statement of the votes see Senate proceedings of the same day, ante, p. 27.)

THURSDAY, February 9.

Non-Intercourse.

Mr. TAYLOR said it would be recollected that, in the course of the public business of this session, a resolution reported by a committee on our foreign relations arising out of a motion of a member from North Carolina, for the purpose of interdicting commercial intercourse with such belligerents as had in force decrees or edicts against the lawful commerce of the United States, had been agreed to and referred to the same committee, who had reported a bill for non-intercourse. This bill in fact, however, comprised but one-half of the whole subject embraced by the words "non-intercourse." The bill as reported to this House provided for the non-importation of the goods, wares, and merchandise, the growth and manufacture of these particular countries. That (said he) may be readily accounted for, from the circumstance that the House was then actually engaged in passing a law for the enforcement of the embargo, the committee therefore having only in view the other part of the question, so as to complete a non-intercourse. After that bill was reported, a gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. RHEA,) in order that the whole might be incorporated into one, offered a resolution for that purpose. I did think it unnecessary at that time; but as the course of business seems to look towards a repeal of the embargo, in order that the whole subject of non-intercourse may be incorporated in the bill before the House, I move that the Committee of the Whole be discharged from the consideration of the bill, and that it may be referred to a committee, in order that it may be made in fact what the title imports it to be, completely, a bill for non-intercourse between this country and those nations having in force decrees affecting our neutral rights.

The Committee of the Whole was discharged from the further consideration of the bill, ayes 72.

The effect of the votes of this day, is to refer to the Committee on Foreign Relations, composed of Messrs. G. W. CAMPBELL, NICHOLAS, BACON, TAYLOR, FISK, J. MONTGOMERY, MUMFORD, CHAMPION, and PORTER, the several propositions for the repeal of the embargo, for arming the merchant vessels, for non-intercourse, for excluding armed vessels from our waters, and for declaring the first capture made in violation of the neutral rights of the United States to be a declaration of war, &c., with leave to report by bill.

The chief argument in favor of this general reference was, that these propositions might be merged in one bill which should present a general system, and thus render less complicated the proceedings of the House on these resolutions. The main arguments against it were, that it would destroy all that had already been done in Committee of the Whole, and probably present a system at length to the House which would not be approved, and thus produce no other effect at this late period of the session than to protract discussion; and also that it would encourage that speculation now going on in the mercantile towns, and be ruinous to many men of moderate capitals who had embarked their all in the purchase of produce, in the certainty that the embargo would be raised on the 4th of March.

TUESDAY, February 14.

Additional Duties.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for imposing additional duties on all goods, wares, and merchandise imported into the United States.

[This bill provides "that an additional duty of ---- per centum on the permanent duties now imposed by law upon goods, wares, and merchandise, imported into the United States from foreign ports or places, shall be laid, levied and collected upon all goods, wares, and merchandise, which shall, after the thirty-first day of January, 1809, be imported into the United States from any foreign port or place; and a farther addition of ten per centum shall be made to the said additional duty in respect to all goods, wares, and merchandise, imported in ships or vessels not of the United States; and the duties imposed by this act shall be levied and collected in the same manner, and under the same regulations, mode of security, and time of payment, respectively, as are already prescribed by law, in relation to the duties now in force on the importation of articles imported from any foreign port or place. That this act shall continue in force until the first day of April, 1810, and no longer: Provided that the additional duties laid by this act, shall be collected on such goods, wares and merchandise, as shall have been imported previous to the said day."]

WEDNESDAY, February, 15.

Non-Intercourse.

On motion of Mr. NICHOLAS, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for interdicting commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and for other purposes.

Mr. MILNOR moved to strike out the first section of the bill, with a view to try the principle of the non-intercourse system. In support of this motion, he alleged the impossibility of carrying the system into effect; for he conceived that the embargo had been ineffectual from the impossibility of carrying it into complete effect, and the proposed system would be as difficult to enforce. He thought that it would be impossible to carry a non-intercourse system into effect, as long as vessels were permitted to go to sea. He had many other objections to this bill, among which were these: that, although it raised the embargo only in part, the permission to vessels to go out, would render the provision for a partial embargo nugatory; that, if the bill were to pass in its present shape, it was to be doubted whether any revenue officer of the United States would understand the duty enjoined on him by it; that a time only two days previous to the meeting of the next Congress was fixed upon as the day upon which the non-importation should go into operation, and thus the bill appeared to manifest a distrust of that Congress, who certainly would be more competent than the present Congress to decide on its propriety at that time; that a non-intercourse between these countries, would but compel our citizens to pay a double freight to and from the entrepôt, without producing any other effect than injuring our own citizens; that goods from these countries, although their importation were interdicted by law, would be introduced nevertheless; that the extent of the territory and seacoast of the United States was so great that all efforts to interdict the importation of goods must be ineffectual, for they would be introduced contrary to law; thus depriving the United States of the revenue which would be derived from them, if their importation were permitted by law. Rather than accept this system, Mr. M. thought it would be better that this country should remain yet longer under the pressure of the embargo, which he had no doubt must be repealed early in the next session.

Mr. QUINCY entered at considerable length into an examination of the system of coercion on foreign nations, by means of commercial restrictions. The idea of the efficacy of this system, he traced to a deeper root than any Administration under this Government. It was an error of the American people, originating in a period antecedent to the Revolution; it grew out of our colonial regulations. It began to be a favorite belief with the people, antecedent to the year 1760, and was then fostered by the patriots of that day, the idea being also encouraged by the patriots of England. Mr. Q. entered into a comparative statement of the exports from and imports to Great Britain from America at two different periods, viz: the nine years preceding the year 1775, and the nine years succeeding it, with a view to show that the average imports into Great Britain from all the world, during the nine years' peace with this country, amounted to about one-thirteenth more than the average imports during the same period of war; and the exports diminished, nearly in the same proportion. From his statements on this head and a comparison of the present relative situation of the two countries, Mr. Q. drew the inference that this supposed means of coercing the European powers, did not exist. He deemed it peculiarly unfortunate that a confidence in this power of coercion had so long existed, as it had prevented the United States from making preparations which they otherwise might have made. He hoped the idea would now cease. In relation to our present situation, he recommended a plain remedy, comprised in two words: "Follow nature." What did she first dictate for remedying any complaint? The removal of all obstructions on her operations. Mr. Q. therefore recommended the removal of the embargo, the repeal of the non-importation act, and the abandonment of the non-intercourse system. He wished "peace if possible; if war, union in that war;" for this reason, he wished a negotiation to be opened unshackled with those impediments to it which now existed. As long as they remained, the people in the portion of country whence he came, would not deem an unsuccessful attempt at negotiation to be cause for war; if they were moved, and an earnest attempt at negotiation was made, unimpeded with these restrictions, and should not meet with success, they would join heartily in a war. They would not, however, go to war to contest the rights of Great Britain to search American vessels for British seamen; for it was a general opinion with them that if American seamen were encouraged, there would be no occasion for the employment of foreign seamen. A removal of the embargo, without adopting any other measure, until the event of negotiation had been tried, Mr. Q. said, would first prevent any collision with the belligerents which might tend to embarrass negotiation; and, secondly, would give an opportunity to the country to ascertain what would be the practical operation of these orders and decrees, on our commerce; and give an opportunity to the next Congress to shape its measures according to their actual effect. If commerce did not suffer, the knowledge of this fact would supersede the necessity of any other measure, and peace would follow of course; if, on the contrary, a general sweep was made of all the property afloat, it would unite all parties in a war. Mr. Q. concluded a speech of two hours in length, by lamenting the state of the country, and invoking the spirit which "rides the whirlwind and directs the storm," to guide the nation to a happy result.

Mr. NICHOLAS replied to the observations of Mr. QUINCY on the subject of the legal opposition to the embargo laws in Massachusetts. He said if the laws of the nation were to be resisted in the manner in which he lamented to say that he saw it contemplated in one part of the community, it became the duty of this Legislature to meet it; it was not compatible with their duty to shrink from it. He could not consent that thirteen or fourteen States should submit to one. As men vested with certain powers by the constitution, Congress could not transfer the powers to any State Legislature or to any town. In relation to negotiating with measures of coercion in existence, Mr. N. asked, when did the violations of our rights commence? So long ago that the precise time could not be fixed. When did our coercive measures commence? In 1806. Mr. N. noticed the negotiators during whose Ministry abroad these injuries had commenced, and continued. Mr. King, Mr. Monroe, and Mr. Pinkney, all honorable men, had successively represented the United States in Great Britain. And could any thing be gathered from any thing they had ever written or said, to induce a belief that this Government had not acted with sincerity? There was the most conclusive evidence to the contrary. Mr. N. said, he would ask nothing of Great Britain or France that would tend to sacrifice their honor; and he wished, when gentlemen dwelt so much on the regard of foreign nations for their national character, that they would respect a little the character of our own country.

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS said he had been decidedly in favor of issuing letters of marque and reprisal at once; he believed it would have cut off all that fungus matter now deteriorating the body politic--for the people of New England were as patriotic as any, and when the choice was between their own and a foreign country, they would cling to their own. It was the hot-bed politicians who stirred them up; and it was necessary to do something promptly to put an end to their intrigues. Mr. W. disliked the non-intercourse system throughout. If he could not get war, or a continuance of the embargo, he wished, inasmuch as Great Britain and France had each interdicted us from going to the other, to declare that neither their armed nor unarmed ships should contaminate our waters. This was a system which required no exertion of patriotism to carry into effect, which could excite no animosities between the North and South. In relation to the non-intercourse, he believed that it could not be enforced, and used a variety of arguments to show that it could not. If it could be enforced, he believed it would be prodigiously partial. If the embargo was to be taken off, and war not to be substituted; if the nation was to submit, he wished to do it profitably. If the embargo were raised as to a single spot, it was raised entirely to all effectual purposes. Then let your vessels go, said he, without let or hindrance; let them go and be burnt; your merchants will then feel that the embargo was a shield spread over them, and will come back to your protection, like the prodigal son, and unite like brethren in the common cause. Mr. W. said, his plan was to interdict the entrance of our ports to belligerent vessels, armed or unarmed, and lay a tax of fifty per centum on their manufactures. Great Britain must, then, either go to war or treat with us. If she was inclined to go to war in preference to revoking her Orders in Council, let her do so. But he was inclined to believe that she would treat. If she seized our vessels, however, the effect would be inevitable. Division amongst us would be done away, all would unite heart and hand in war. Mr. W. replied to a number of the observations of Mr. QUINCY, particularly in relation to his position that all obstructions ought to be removed with a view to negotiation. He asked, what security had the United States, if they did all this, if they submitted to such abject humiliation, that Great Britain would treat? Was it to be expected that she would treat more liberally with us, when we solicited as slaves, than she would while we magnanimously contended for our rights? The gentleman from Massachusetts, when repeating his creed, had forgotten a part, viz: "Unfurl the banners of the Republic against the imperial standard!" This would complete a project he had lately seen proposed from the East; and, as to its application, coinciding with the wishes over the water, would be just such a project as Mr. Canning might dictate. "Revoke your proclamation, remove the embargo," and "unfurl the republican banners against the imperial standard." Mr. W. concluded a speech of an hour and a half in length, with giving notice that he should move to amend the bill, when the present motion was decided, by striking out all that part of it relating to non-intercourse, and inserting a provision interdicting the entrance of our harbors to any vessels of Great Britain and France, and imposing an additional duty on all goods imported from those countries.

When Mr. W. concluded, the committee rose, and obtained leave to sit again.

THURSDAY, February 16.

Additional Duties.

The House resolved itself into a committee of the Whole, on the bill for imposing additional duties on all the goods, wares, and merchandise, imported into the United States.

The bill was amended so as to take effect "from and after the passage thereof."

The proposition offered by Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS, when the bill was before under consideration, was withdrawn.

Mr. COOK renewed the proposition, viz: to confine the duties to be increased, to goods imported from Great Britain and France, and the colonies of either; and spoke an hour and a half in support of his motion, and in opposition to the non-intercourse system. He was in favor of discriminating duties, because he was opposed to the non-intercourse, which he considered the best means of depressing our navigating interest and advancing that of Britain; because the produce of the United States would be carried to some place of depot in the vicinity, and thence be carried to Europe in British bottoms, while a large proportion of American shipping would be inactive. He thought that, under the arming system, we could trade with at least as much honor and with much more profit than under the non-intercourse system. He contended that the non-intercourse system was precisely calculated to destroy that moral principle which had heretofore so strictly enforced our revenue laws; that the system of restriction was partial, operating so equally on the people of the South, that no individuals particularly suffered from it, while in the North and East individuals were ruined by it, and thus a general distress produced; that it would be the most discouraging act to the mercantile interest, ever passed by the Government, for it would throw the trade in all the produce kept in the country by the embargo into foreign hands at the expense of the American merchant; that the system could not be enforced with so extensive a frontier and seacoast as we possess; that it was a measure calculated to produce irritation on foreign nations, without having the least coercive effect; that it was a political suicide, without the consolation of company in it. Mr. C. was, with his constituents, in favor of further negotiation, and a firm assertion of our rights, which, if refused to be acknowledged, he would maintain. It was high time to abandon visionary schemes and impracticable projects, and to pass good, plain, common sense laws. He believed that this discrimination of duties and arming our merchant vessels would be such a law. He spoke more than an hour and a half.

Mr. C.'s motion was negatived by a very large majority. The committee then rose, and reported the bill.

The amendments made in Committee of the Whole were severally agreed to by the House; and, on the question that the bill be engrossed for a third reading, Mr. LIVERMORE called for the yeas and nays. There were for it 85, against it 27.

Non-Intercourse.

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill for interdicting commercial intercourse.

Mr. MILNOR'S motion for striking out the first section being under consideration--

Mr. NICHOLAS rose and addressed the Chair as follows:

Mr. Chairman: I shall not conceal or disguise my opinion; it has been and continues to be, that when the embargo shall cease, war will be the only proper and honorable course for this country to pursue, if reparation shall not have been made for the injuries we have received. Under this conviction, I proposed a resolution limiting the duration of the embargo, and authorizing, at the same time, the issuing of letters of marque and reprisal. I trust, sir, I shall be pardoned for expressing the deep regret and affliction I feel for the failure of a measure so important in my judgment, to the best interests of my country. I voted for the embargo as a precautionary and as a coercive measure. In its first character, its wisdom must be admitted by all. Its effects as a coercive measure would, I believe, have been equally certain, if the misconduct of some of our own people, and the revolution in Spain, had not impeded its action. Unless we were determined to persevere in our claims for redress, and to assert our rights, the embargo, even as a measure of precaution, was unnecessary. It gave no protection to our property abroad, it gave it no security on its way home, it only preserved it after its return. When the injuries of which we complain were inflicted, our choice was between submission and resistance. We determined to resist, and commenced our resistance by laying an embargo, with the hope that it might of itself induce the belligerents to do us justice; and if this expectation were disappointed, that we might prepare for war, by preserving in our own possession our essential resources--men and money. If resistance was not our determination, I do not hesitate to say, that the embargo was unwise and unnecessary. If we intended ultimately to abandon our rights without another effort, we should have suffered less both in reputation and in property, by immediate submission, than by now receding from the ground we have taken. I do not believe that a single supporter of the embargo looked to it as the last resort of this country. For myself, I disclaim the impression, and declare that I was ready to abandon it for war, when its primary objects should be attained, and its coercive power fairly tested. I have stated that I considered the return of our citizens, the security of our property, and the employment of time in preparation for war, as the great and more certain effects of the embargo. All these advantages we have derived from it. I believe it is time to change our measures, and to place our future reliance upon Providence, and upon the energies and valor of our citizens. Upon this point, however, I think with a minority. There has been a vote of this House against immediate war. Under these circumstances what ought I to do? I must either vote against every expedient which falls short of what I deem the most proper course, or assent to that which accords most with what I think right. If it were my individual concern, I should certainly rely upon my own judgment: but when every thing dear to my country is at stake, I cannot justify to myself a pertinacious adherence to a proposition already rejected by a great majority, which would hazard the loss of a measure, the best, in my opinion, that can be obtained. After having offered what I thought the best, and seen it rejected, I think with the gentleman from South Carolina, that I am at liberty, and that it is my duty, to unite with others in support of attainable measures which appear to me to be conducive to the interest of the country. The bill upon your table appears to me to be such a measure. It maintains our attitude towards the belligerents better than any measure which I have heard proposed, and if it be not the most effectual resistance, at least, it is not submission. It continues our solemn protest against their violations of our rights; it takes new, and in some respects, stronger grounds against them. It excludes from our waters, ports, and harbors, all their vessels, public and private; it excludes from our country all their products and manufactures; and forbids our citizens to debase and degrade their country by a commercial intercourse which would stain and pollute them with the payment of an ignominious tribute to a foreign nation. It reserves the great question to be decided by the next Congress, which will be informed of the wishes of the American people; who can best determine how far they will submit to have their rights trampled on, at the will and pleasure of foreign nations. By keeping the question open for their discussion, I have the utmost confidence that our rights, honor, and independence, will be maintained. The gentleman from Pennsylvania asked yesterday, why not repeal the embargo laws, and provide for the enforcement of this system by a new law? In addition to the reasons I have stated, I will mention another, which has great weight. We are told that one of the States of this Union is about to pass a law, imposing penalties on persons employed in the execution of those laws within that State. I will never consent, under these circumstances, to adopt any measure which might wear the aspect of yielding to a threat like this. No man laments more sincerely than I do, that the Legislature of any State should take such a step, but I think it of the utmost importance that the Government of the United States should maintain its authority, and that it should be ascertained whether its measures may at any time be embarrassed by the Legislatures of one or more States, or its laws annulled by their authority. Such could not, I believe, have been the impression either of the people or of the States when the General Government was formed; and if this conduct be persevered in or submitted to, it will, in effect, supersede the Government, and must speedily terminate in its dissolution. I hope and trust that the wisdom and patriotism of the Legislature of Massachusetts will not permit such a law to be enacted. Otherwise, I do not doubt that the people at the Spring elections, will choose men solicitous to heal, by every means within their power, the wounds inflicted on the constitution. It is a painful duty to notice this subject. I have ever been devoted to the Union of the States. I would cherish and support it at every hazard, and would sacrifice to its preservation every thing but the rights and liberties of one section, in compliance to the wishes of another. On such conditions it would be vassalage, not union. To yield in the present instance, would be yielding the Government to a minority. It is not practicable, however, to act upon the subject during the present session, nor do I wish it. I have the utmost confidence in the people of Massachusetts, and have no doubt but that their good sense will apply the proper corrective. If they do not, it will then remain for the other States, after giving to the subject the solemn and deliberate consideration which it merits, to decide whether they have a Government or not, whether it is compatible with their happiness and interests to preserve a Government whose acts are binding on them only who are willing to obey them; whether they will submit that the public officers of the United States shall be punished for the faithful performances of their duty.

I have confined my observations within as narrow limits as possible. It is not now necessary to speak of our injuries, of the necessity of resistance, nor even of the superior advantages of any particular mode of resistance; for it is, I believe, a very prevalent opinion in this House, as well as with the nation, that we have already deliberated enough, and that it is incumbent on us to act. I will, therefore, very briefly notice some objections I have heard to the bill. It is urged that our products will find their way to Great Britain and France, but certainly to Great Britain, by circuitous routes, and that we shall derive less profit from them on that account, than if a direct intercourse were permitted. This cannot be denied, nor is there a man who would not prefer a free trade with the whole world, if it could be enjoyed upon equal and honorable terms, to a commerce so limited and shackled as ours is at this time by the belligerent edicts. The question is not now how we can most advantageously avail ourselves of a momentary commerce, but how we can assert the national sovereignty, and best secure the permanent interests of the United States. No gentleman, I presume, will contend that it is better for us to permit a disgraceful intercourse with any nation, than to endure a temporary privation, until we can trade on fair and honorable terms. Gentlemen cannot delude themselves with any expectation of advantage from the commerce now allowed to us. The two most valuable products of this country must ruin and beggar those interested in their culture--I mean cotton and tobacco. It is well known that the quantity of tobacco annually produced, is fully equal to the annual consumption, and that we have now two crops on hand; while the edicts of Great Britain and France are continued, it would be folly to cultivate this plant, and it is more or less true of every other product of our soil. If we were at war with these nations, our products would reach them through the same circuitous channels into which they will be forced by this law, but certainly that consideration would not be deemed a good argument for permitting direct intercourse with our enemies. As to the difficulty of excluding their products and manufactures, it is very possible that we may not be able to do it entirely, but I am satisfied that we shall do it essentially. The great avenue through which British goods can be most easily smuggled into this country is Canada, and that, I doubt not, will soon be closed if the edicts be not rescinded. The present state of things cannot long continue; I have no hesitation in saying that it ought not, and that the next Congress must either abandon the contest, or resort to more effectual means for the maintenance of our rights than commercial restrictions and prohibitions. The gentleman from South Carolina, whose eloquence I admire, and whose patriotism I honor, speaks of this measure as submission, and considers that which he proposed as resistance--not indeed as the measure of his choice, but as the one which is next to it in his estimation. It must be obvious to the House, and I am sure it will be equally so to the gentleman himself, that if his system would be resistance, the course indicated by the bill has in that view superior merit. The gentleman acknowledges the principal advantage of his plan to consist in this, that it would deprive British vessels of the transport of our produce; if it can be shown that this object will be accomplished more effectually by the bill in its present form than by the proposed alteration, it is fair to expect for it his support. If this plan were adopted, Great Britain would regain her full share of the transport of our produce by augmenting the duties in favor of her own bottoms to an amount that would be an indemnity for a short voyage, by opening the port of Halifax, and another port at St. Mary's, to our vessels, and all that would then remain to our own vessels would be the profits of the coasting trade from our harbors to those ports of deposit. If I believed this course the most honorable and effectual mode of resisting, I would willingly embrace it; but, sir, I can never consent to any plan by which a direct commercial intercourse is to be produced between this country and Great Britain and France, while their edicts continue in force. Nor will I ever abandon the hope and belief that my countrymen possess the manly spirit of independence, the honorable pride and character which will disdain to barter for gold, or for a miserable fragment of commerce, those rights which were purchased by the valor and the blood of their fathers.

The question was taken on striking out the first section of the bill and negatived--yeas 24.

SATURDAY, February 18.

Another member, to wit, MARMADUKE WILLIAMS, from North Carolina, appeared and took his seat in the House.

Clarkson's History of Slavery.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from Thomas P. Cope, offering to the acceptance of Congress, in behalf of the American Convention for promoting the abolition of slavery and improving the condition of the Africans, lately assembled in the city of Philadelphia, a book, entitled "Clarkson's History of Slavery," which is requested to be deposited in the Library of Congress. The said letter was read; whereupon a motion was made by Mr. MILNOR, that the House do come to the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Speaker be requested to acknowledge the receipt and acceptance of "Clarkson's History of Slavery," presented by the American Convention for promoting the abolition of slavery, and improving the condition of the Africans; and that the said work be deposited in the Library.

And the question being put thereupon, it was resolved in the affirmative--64 to 16.

Non-Intercourse.

Mr. CLOPTON said: Mr. Chairman, being one of those who are not willing to exchange the embargo for the system of non-intercourse now proposed, I move you to strike out this section of the bill. In making this motion, sir, I cannot say that I entertain much hope of success, although indeed I do sincerely wish that the motion may prevail. It has been uniformly my opinion, sir, and still is, that the embargo ought to be adhered to until a majority of the great body of the people of the United States should prefer war itself to a longer continuance of it. I cannot perceive any middle course between those two alternatives, which can truly maintain the honor of the nation; and shall this nation descend from that ground to any degree of submission, either openly or covertly, to any nation on earth? God forbid, sir. Forbid it every thing that is dear and valuable to us as members of a free and independent nation!

Long indeed has our country sought the establishment of neutrality, but sought it honorably. The great and prominent object with the United States, as to their exterior relations, always has been to maintain peace--but to maintain it honorably and consistently with the rights of the nation. In pursuit of this object Great Britain will receive the principal benefit of the trade, notwithstanding the prohibitions of this bill. If American vessels are permitted to go out at all, most of them will go, if not to British ports, to some particular ports, as has been observed, from whence Great Britain will finally receive their cargoes; and in a short time, perhaps, upon cheaper terms than they could be obtained for in our own ports; and I do not know what is to secure them from capture when bound to other ports, if they fall in with British cruisers, unless indeed they should go into British ports, pay the detestable tribute and accept licenses; and the law will be abundantly evaded by smuggling into the country articles of British manufacture--and no doubt, many of French manufacture too. Besides, sir, the consequence of this measure very probably will be war at last, and at no distant period; a war, too, which will commence under great disadvantages to our own country.

In this situation of things, Mr. Chairman, under this accumulation of injuries, the measure of embargo was resorted to--a measure having in view a counteraction to the whole system of aggression carried on against the United States--a measure which has been pursued as a means of bringing about a relinquishment of that atrocious system on the part of the belligerents, and a redress of injuries inflicted on us, together with the preservation of peace. This measure has been thus far pursued for these great purposes; and it has been patiently borne with to this day, by the nation at large, the partial discontents which have appeared in some particular parts of the country only excepted. The nation at large has cheerfully acquiesced in the privations, the inconveniences, and the difficulties incident to such a state of things. It has exhibited a memorable example of self-denial in sustaining this situation, with a view to obtain redress of wrongs and recognition of its maritime rights, without a sacrifice of peace. With this object, fair and honorable negotiation has been resorted to from time to time for a series of years. By this means redress of wrongs has been repeatedly sought, and sought in vain. By this means the Government of the United States has exercised itself to procure relinquishment of outrages and violation of our neutral rights; but as often have all its efforts proved unavailing. No wrong redressed--no cessation of outrage yet appeared: on the contrary more numerous and more aggravated ones followed in quick succession. A long series of injurious acts, the offspring of new and (if possible) more atrocious principles than what constituted the pretended ground of former outrages, were pressed with accumulating weight into the train of former outrages, insomuch that those which followed after, taken along with those which had preceded, made up a combined system which threatened to sweep from the ocean almost every particle of canvas, and all the floating property of this great Republic.

These, sir, are the objects for which this measure has been thus far and so patiently pursued. Great and momentous objects, and worthy of a great and magnanimous nation! Why, then, should it be now determined at all events to abandon this measure? Why should it be so determined, at a period of all others most propitious to the embargo, if continued and executed--a period, of all others, I think, best calculated to give it effect by this House manifesting a firm disposition to adhere to it? For, sir, I consider this as the most critical period, which could possibly arrive, as to the real effect of the embargo. I consider it as the most important period, at which the conduct of this House might render that measure effectually coercive, if it ever can be made so at all--and why, sir, do I think so? Because, in the first place, I conceive it cannot even be a question whether the British Government has not calculated on the discontents, which appeared in some particular parts of the Union, so as to derive at least some expectation therefrom that those discontents might make such impression on Congress as to induce them to raise the embargo in the course of this session. Those discontents, no doubt, excited grateful expectations of its removal. It is perfectly natural to suppose that such events taking place in any part of this country must have produced calculations of that sort. I cannot but believe, sir, that they have looked forward to the period of this session, with anxious solicitude, to mark the temper of Congress in relation to this very interesting subject; and, as they must have presumed that Congress could not view such serious events with indifference, some expectation that the effect might be so strong as to induce a repeal of the system could scarcely fail to be the conclusion. Such conclusion was to be expected, even if the extent of dissatisfaction had been fairly reported to them--even had it been in no degree misrepresented. But, sir, there are a thousand chances to one that the reports, which conveyed the information to that country, greatly exaggerated the facts--that the picture was drawn in much stronger colors than were consistent with the real truth--that the instances of discontent were stated not only to have been deeper in their nature than they really were, but that a much larger number of persons had partaken of it than really did--that a spirit of disaffection had spread itself far and wide. Not a shadow of doubt rests on my mind, sir, that, in all respects whatever, the unpleasant occurrences to which I have alluded, were greatly magnified. With these circumstances others have combined to render the embargo inefficacious as yet, or at least to prevent it from having its full effect. It is to be recollected, sir, that very soon after the law laying an embargo was passed efforts were made to render it unpopular and to excite dissatisfaction. Dissatisfactions were not only excited; but many unprincipled persons found means to evade the law and make exportations contrary to its provisions. Under a combination of circumstances, then, so encouraging to the hopes of the British Government as those must have appeared to them, the continuance of their Orders in Council until the temper of Congress, during this session, could be known to them, is not much to be wondered at. The hope of ultimate success in rendering our commerce tributary to them, which those circumstances, no doubt, contributed not a little to inspire, with such a government, was of itself sufficient ground to induce a continuance of those orders. Long experience of British policy, which the United States have had, justifies this opinion. Long experience of a systematic design in that government to shackle our commerce and subject it to their arbitrary restrictions, leaves no room to doubt of their disposition to pursue that design until the conduct of this Government should convince them of its total inefficacy to produce the object sought for. The slightest prospect of succeeding in their design, however delusive that prospect might be, keeps up their hopes until the delusion vanishes. It remains, then, for the Congress of the United States, at this very interesting crisis, to dispel that delusion by a firm adherence to this measure, and thus to disperse every gleam of hope which may have resulted from the circumstances of discontent which had appeared, and the evasions of the law which took place in the country. At this truly critical period, to which their anxious attention has been directed, let this body manifest an inflexible perseverance, and demonstrate to them that all their hopes, founded on those or any other circumstances, are vain indeed. Let it be demonstrated to them that this Government cannot only resolve upon, and carry into effect, measures of energy, though attended with inconveniences and difficulties, but that it can pursue such measures so long as they shall be deemed expedient for the object in view. Let every declaration and every conception concerning the American character, as a nation, in respect to its cherishing an overweening attachment to gain, so as to be willing to submit to indignities for the sake of it, be completely falsified. Let it be demonstrated, beyond a possibility of doubt, that there exists not in the great body of the people of this country any love of gain comparable to the love of real national independence and freedom; that this love of national independence and freedom animates the true American soul far beyond any other sentiment, and that, in support of it, the greatest sacrifices of interest are cheerfully acquiesced in. But, sir, what will be the inference drawn from this measure proposing a repeal of the embargo, as it does, after it shall have been adopted. Will it not justify assertions, that this Government has not stability or firmness enough to carry into effect energetic measures, or such as check the current of wealth for any considerable time from flowing into the country? Such assertions, or assertions to that effect, have, I believe, been frequently made; and they have been often repelled by words as slanderous reproaches on the Government. Sir, let us not take from them the demerit of being slanderous, by affording any ground for the justification. But I fear, sir, I greatly fear, that a repeal of the embargo laws, as now proposed, will go far towards justifying such assertions.

This is a period of our political existence, Mr. Chairman, which renders firmness in the councils of the nation peculiarly requisite. The crisis is vastly momentous and trying, and attended with circumstances, both from within and from without, which strongly call for decision in the Legislature. The existence of the Government seems almost to depend upon their firmness and decision. Whilst the members of this body respect the rights of individuals, let them consider the consequence of being driven from a measure of great importance by the conduct of a small part of the community. It is the duty of each part equally to respect and obey the laws; and if apprehension of the consequence of a faction, clamoring against the acts of the Government, should deter it from pursuing its course, such would be an alarming manifestation of its weakness. Sir, I fear for the Government, almost to trembling. I feel emotions which I cannot express. It is at a point of awful trial and responsibility. The system which, it appears, is about to be abandoned, will be exchanged for a miserable one, which, on our return to our homes, will not draw on us many smiles.

The motion of Mr. CLOPTON was negatived, 59 to 35.

Mr. MILNOR moved to amend the same section so as to strike out the exception, and making the repeal of the embargo total.

Mr. VARNUM supported this motion. If the non-intercourse system was to prevail, he thought it made much more intelligible to the revenue officers by repealing the embargo laws, and enacting the non-intercourse as a new system throughout. He spoke in favor of the repeal of the embargo laws, stating the evasions which had taken place, and that these evasions had not been confined to any particular section of the Union. He observed that a partial repeal of the embargo would destroy all the coercive effects of the measure, inasmuch as produce would be let out, and would find its way to every quarter of the world. Mr. V. observed that were the amendments agreed to, he should be ready to go with gentlemen in any other practicable measure which they would select for maintaining our rights.

The motion of Mr. Milnor was negatived, 57 to 53.

The committee then rose and reported the bill; and the House adjourned without considering the report.

FRIDAY, March 3.

Adjournment.

A message was received from the Senate, stating that they had appointed a committee in conjunction with such committee as should be appointed by the House, to wait on the President of the United States, and inform him that they had concluded the business pending before them, and were ready to adjourn. A committee was appointed on the part of this House to join the committee of the Senate.

Mr. SMILIE offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the thanks of this House be presented to JOSEPH B. VARNUM, in testimony of their approbation of his conduct in the discharge of the arduous and important duties assigned to him whilst in the Chair.

Mr. ROWAN moved that it be postponed indefinitely. Messrs. ROWAN and LYON supported the motion; and Messrs. EPPES and JACKSON opposed it.

The resolution passed, 68 to 9.

The SPEAKER returned his acknowledgments to the House for this tribute of their approbation, as follows:

Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:

The kind expression of your approbation of my conduct, in the discharge of the duties which you have been pleased to assign me as Speaker of the House, affords me that consolation which an approving conscience alone can surpass. You will please, gentlemen, to accept my thanks for the liberality and candor which you have uniformly manifested towards me: and be assured, that the friendly aid which I have experienced from you in the discharge of my official duty, has made a deep impression on the affections of my heart, which length of time cannot eradicate.

Mr. CUTTS, from the committee appointed to wait on the President, reported that they had performed that duty, and that the President had informed them that he had no further communication to make.

And the House adjourned sine die.[4]

FOOTNOTES:

[2] This ordinance of the Congress of the confederation, which became the basis of all the Territorial governments, was sanctioned by the Congress of the Union at its first session, with certain provisions added to it in order to give it full effect under the constitution. The following are the terms of this enactment:--

"WHEREAS that the ordinance of the United States in Congress assembled, for the government of the Territory northwest of the river Ohio may continue to have full effect, it is requisite that certain provisions should be made, so as to adapt the same to the present Constitution of the United States. THEREFORE, Be it enacted, &c., That in all cases in which, by the said ordinance, any information is to be given, or communication made by the Governor of the said territory to the United States in Congress assembled, or to any of their officers, it shall be the duty of the said Governor to give such information, and to make such communication to the President of the United States; and the President shall nominate, and by and with the consent of the Senate, shall appoint all officers which by the said ordinance were to have been appointed by the United States in Congress assembled, and all officers so appointed shall be commissioned by him; and in all cases where the United States in Congress assembled, might, by the said ordinance, revoke any commission or remove from any office, the President is hereby declared to have the same power of revocation and removal. SEC. 2.--And be it further enacted, That in case of the death, removal, resignation, or necessary absence of the Governor of the said Territory, the secretary thereof shall be, and he is hereby, authorized and required to execute all the powers, and perform all the duties of the Governor, during the vacancy occasioned by the removal, resignation, or necessary absence of said Governor."

This act of Congress, passed to give full effect to this ordinance by adapting its working to the new Federal Constitution, was among the earliest acts of the Federal Congress, being number eight in the list of acts passed at the first session of the first Congress; and classes with the acts necessary to the working of the new government. As such it was modified; and as such preserved and applied to successive Territories, as governments for them were given. That ordinance is, in fact, the basis of all the Territorial governments, and is extended to each of them by name, with such modifications as each one required; and its benefits secured in their deeds of territorial cession by Georgia and North Carolina. Thus, the fifth clause in the first article of the Georgia deed of cession, dated April 24th, 1802, stipulates: "That the Territory thus ceded shall form a State, and be admitted as such into the Union, as soon as it shall contain 60,000 free inhabitants, or at an earlier period, if Congress shall think it expedient, on the same conditions and restrictions, with the same privileges, and in the same manner, as is provided in the ordinance of Congress of the 13th day of July, 1787, for the government of the Western Territory of the United States; which ordinance shall, in all its parts, extend to the Mississippi Territory contained in the present act of cession, that article only excepted which forbids slavery." The deed of cession from North Carolina, for the Territory since forming the State of Tennessee, and dated December ----, 1789, is equally express in claiming the benefits of this ordinance; so that, made before the constitution, it has been equally sanctioned by Congress and by States since. Virginia sanctioned it immediately after its enactment, and before the commencement of the present Federal Government, to wit, on the 30th day of December, 1788. The ordinance being thus anterior to the constitution, was not formed under it, but under the authority of owners--sovereign owners--exercising the right of taking care of their own property, subject only to the conditions and limitations which accompanied its acquisition. And thus the Territories have been constantly governed independently of the constitution, and incompatibly with it, and by a statute made before it, and merely extended as a pre-existing law to each Territory as it came into existence.

[3] The 6th, being the Anti-slavery article.

[4] This was the end of Mr. Jefferson's administration; and, notwithstanding the purchase of Louisiana, (the annual interest on the cost of which had to be paid,) and the greatly extended frontier which required to be guarded, the system of order and economy which he cherished enabled him to carry on the government (until the privations of the embargo and non-intercourse) without increase of duties, and with a moderation of cost which should form the study and the imitation of succeeding administrations. The duties remained at the same moderate rates as before--the ad valorems, 12-1/2, 15, and 20 per centum; the specifics (increased in number) were not increased in rate; the free list not only remained undiminished, but was happily augmented by the addition of salt. The average of the ad valorems was still about 13 per cent., and almost all fell upon the 12-1/2 per centum class--the importations under the other two classes being inconsiderable, to wit, only about half a million, ($520,000,) subject to the 20 per centum; and only a little over nine millions under the 15 per centum; while the imports under the 12-1/2 per centum class amounted to above thirty-six millions of dollars. The articles used by the body of the people fell into this class, (the other two classes embracing articles which might be called luxuries,) so that 12-1/2 per centum upon the value may be considered as the duty which fell upon the country. The expenses of collection still remained at about 4 per centum, and the revenue cutter service (there being but little temptation to smuggle under such low duties) cost but a trifle; and the specific list being considerable, the number of custom house officers and agents was inconsiderable. The revenue collected from the ad valorem duties was about seven millions of dollars; that from specifics about nine millions--leaving sixteen millions for the net revenue. Of that sum the one-half (just eight millions) went to meet the interest, and part of the principal, of the public debt. Of the remainder there went to the military and Indian departments about two and three-quarter millions; to the navy about one million; to tribute to Algiers, (masked under the name of foreign intercourse,) two hundred thousand dollars; and to the civil list, embracing the whole machinery of the civil government, with all its miscellaneous expenses, about nine hundred thousand dollars--leaving some two millions surplus after accomplishing all these objects. It was a model administration of the government. Mr. Jefferson's administration terminated the 3d of March, 1809, but its fair financial working ceased two years before--with the breaking up of our commerce under the British orders in council, and the decrees of the French emperor, and the measures of privation and of expense which the conduct of Great Britain and of France brought upon us. The two last years of his administration were a strong contrast to the six first, and a painful struggle against diminished revenue and increased expenses, injuries and insults from abroad, and preparation for war with one of the greatest powers in the world, while doing no wrong ourselves, and only asking for what the laws of nations and of nature allowed us--a friendly neutrality, and exemption from the evils of a war with which we had no concern. Preparation for war was then a tedious and expensive process; embargo, non-intercourse, fortifications, ships, militia, regular troops. All this is now superseded by railroads and volunteers, ready at any moment to annihilate any invading force; and by privateers, ready to drive the commerce of any nation from the ocean.

ELEVENTH CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION.

BEGUN AT THE CITY OF WASHINGTON, MAY 22, 1809.

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,--JAMES MADISON.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.[5]

MONDAY, May 22, 1809.

Conformably to the act passed at the last session, entitled "An act to alter the time for the next meeting of Congress," the first session of the eleventh Congress commenced this day, and the Senate assembled in their chamber, at the city of Washington.

PRESENT:

GEORGE CLINTON, Vice President of the United States, and President of the Senate.

NICHOLAS GILMAN and NAHUM PARKER, from New Hampshire.

TIMOTHY PICKERING, from Massachusetts.

JAMES HILLHOUSE and CHAUNCEY GOODRICH, from Connecticut.

ELISHA MATHEWSON and FRANCIS MALBONE, from Rhode Island.

JONATHAN ROBINSON, from Vermont.

JOHN LAMBERT, from New Jersey.

ANDREW GREGG and MICHAEL LEIB, from Pennsylvania.

SAMUEL WHITE, from Delaware.

SAMUEL SMITH, from Maryland.

WILLIAM B. GILES, from Virginia.

JESSE FRANKLIN and JAMES TURNER, from North Carolina.

JOHN GAILLARD, from South Carolina.

BUCKNER THRUSTON, from Kentucky.

RETURN JONATHAN MEIGS, jr., from Ohio.

JOSEPH ANDERSON, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Tennessee, for the term of six years, commencing on the fourth day of March last; and OBADIAH GERMAN, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of New York, for the term of six years, commencing on the fourth day of March last, severally produced their credentials, which were read; and the oath prescribed by law having been administered to them, they took their seats in the Senate.

Ordered, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is assembled and ready to proceed to business.

Resolved, That each Senator be supplied, during the present session, with three such newspapers, printed in any of the States, as he may choose, provided that the same be furnished at the usual rate for the annual charge of such papers: and, provided also, that if any Senator shall choose to take any newspapers other than daily papers, he shall be supplied with as many such papers as shall not exceed the price of three daily papers.

Resolved, That James Mathers, Sergeant-at-Arms and Doorkeeper to the Senate, be, and he is hereby, authorized to employ one assistant and two horses, for the purpose of performing such services as are usually required by the Doorkeeper to the Senate; and that the sum of twenty-eight dollars be allowed him weekly for that purpose, to commence with, and remain during the session, and for twenty days after.

Messrs. ANDERSON and GILMAN were appointed a committee on the part of the Senate, together with such committee as may be appointed by the House of Representatives on their part, to wait on the President of the United States and notify him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled and ready to receive any communications that he may be pleased to make to them.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that a quorum of the House is assembled, and that the House have elected JOSEPH B. VARNUM, Esq., one of the Representatives for the State of Massachusetts, their Speaker, and are ready to proceed to business. The House of Representatives have appointed a committee on their part, jointly with the committee on the part of the Senate, to wait on the President of the United States, and notify him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled and ready to receive any communications that he may be pleased to make to them.

TUESDAY, May 23.

Mr. ANDERSON reported, from the joint committee, that they had waited on the President of the United States, and that the President of the United States informed the committee that he would make a communication to the two Houses at 12 o'clock this day.

JAMES LLOYD, jr., appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Massachusetts, for six years, commencing on the fourth day of March last, attended and produced his credentials; which were read.

President's Message.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

_Fellow-citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives_:

On this first occasion of meeting you, it affords me much satisfaction to be able to communicate the commencement of a favorable change in our foreign relations, the critical state of which induced a session of Congress at this early period.

In consequence of the provisions of the act interdicting commercial intercourse with Great Britain and France, our Ministers at London and Paris were, without delay, instructed to let it be understood by the French and British Governments that the authority vested in the Executive to renew commercial intercourse with their respective nations would be exercised in the case specified by that act.

Soon after these instructions were dispatched, it was found that the British Government, anticipating from early proceedings of Congress, at their last session, the state of our laws, which has had the effect of placing the two belligerent powers on a footing of equal restrictions, and, relying on the conciliatory disposition of the United States, had transmitted to their legation here provisional instructions, not only to offer satisfaction for the attack on the frigate Chesapeake, and to make known the determination of His Britannic Majesty to send an Envoy Extraordinary, with powers to conclude a treaty on all the points between the two countries; but, moreover, to signify his willingness, in the mean time, to withdraw his Orders in Council, in the persuasion that the intercourse with Great Britain would be renewed on the part of the United States.

These steps of the British Government led to the correspondence and the proclamation now laid before you, by virtue of which the commerce between the two countries will be renewable after the 10th day of June next.

Whilst I take pleasure in doing justice to the councils of His Britannic Majesty, which, no longer adhering to the policy which made an abandonment by France of her decrees a prerequisite to a revocation of the British orders, have substituted the amicable course which has issued thus happily, I cannot do less than refer to the proposal heretofore made on the part of the United States, embracing a like restoration of the suspended commerce, as a proof of the spirit of accommodation which has at no time been intermitted, and to the result which now calls for our congratulations, as corroborating the principles by which the public councils have been guided during a period of the most trying embarrassments.

The discontinuance of the British orders, as they respect the United States, having been thus arranged, a communication of the event has been forwarded in one of our public vessels to our Minister Plenipotentiary at Paris, with instructions to avail himself of the important addition thereby made to the considerations which press on the justice of the French Government a revocation of its decrees, or such a modification of them as that they shall cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States.

The revision of our commercial laws, proper to adapt them to the arrangement which has taken place with Great Britain, will doubtless engage the early attention of Congress. It will be worthy, at the same time, of their just and provident care, to make such further alterations in the laws as will more especially protect and foster the several branches of manufacture, which have been recently instituted or extended by the laudable exertions of our citizens.

Under the existing aspect of our affairs, I have thought it not inconsistent with a just precaution, to have the gunboats, with the exception of those at New Orleans, placed in a situation incurring no expense beyond that requisite for their preservation and conveniency for future service, and to have the crews of those at New Orleans reduced to the number required for their navigation and safety.

I have thought, also, that our citizens, detached in quotas of militia, amounting to one hundred thousand, under the act of March, one thousand eight hundred and eight, might not improperly be relieved from the state in which they were held for immediate service. A discharge of them has been accordingly directed.

The progress made in raising and organizing the additional military force, for which provision was made by the act of April, one thousand eight hundred and eight, together with the disposition of the troops, will appear by a report which the Secretary of War is preparing, and which will be laid before you.

Of the additional frigates required by an act of the last session to be fitted for actual service, two are in readiness, one nearly so, and the fourth is expected to be ready in the month of July. A report which the Secretary of the Navy is preparing on the subject, to be laid before Congress, will show, at the same time, the progress made in officering and manning these ships. It will show, also, the degree in which the provisions of the act relating to the other public armed ships have been carried into execution.

It will rest with the judgment of Congress to decide how far the change in our external prospects may authorize any modifications of the laws relating to the Army and Navy Establishments.

The works of defence for our seaport towns and harbors have proceeded with as much activity as the season of the year and other circumstances would admit. It is necessary, however, to state that the appropriations hitherto made being found to be deficient, a further provision will claim the early consideration of Congress.

The whole of the eight per cent. stock remaining due by the United States, amounting to five millions three hundred thousand dollars, had been reimbursed on the last day of the year 1808. And, on the first day of April last, the sum in the Treasury exceeded nine and a half millions of dollars. This, together with the receipts of the current year on account of former revenue bonds, will probably be nearly, if not altogether, sufficient to defray the expenses of the year. But the suspension of exports, and the consequent decrease of importations, during the last twelve months, will necessarily cause a great diminution in the receipts of the year one thousand eight hundred and ten. After that year, should our foreign relations be undisturbed, the revenue will again be more than commensurate to all the expenditures.

Aware of the inconveniences of a protracted session, at the present season of the year, I forbear to call the attention of the Legislature to any matters not particularly urgent. It remains, therefore, only to assure you of the fidelity and alacrity with which I shall co-operate for the welfare and happiness of our country; and to pray that it may experience a continuance of the Divine blessings by which it has been so signally favored.

JAMES MADISON.

The Message and papers accompanying it were read and five hundred copies thereof ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate.

WEDNESDAY, May 24.

JOHN CONDIT, appointed a Senator by the Executive of the State of New Jersey, in the place of Aaron Kitchel, resigned, took his seat, and his credentials were read; and the President administered the oath to him as the law prescribes.

JOHN POPE, from the State of Kentucky, attended.

Mr. GILES submitted the following motion for consideration:

Resolved, That so much of the President's Message as relates to a revision of our commercial laws, for the purpose of adapting them to the arrangement which has taken place with Great Britain, be referred to a select committee, with instructions to examine the same and report thereon to the Senate; and that the committee have leave to report by bill or otherwise.

FRIDAY, May 26.

JENKIN WHITESIDE, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Tennessee, for two years, commencing on the fourth of March last, in place of Daniel Smith, resigned, took his seat, and his credentials were read; and the President administered the oath to him as the law prescribes.

RICHARD BRENT, from the State of Virginia, attended.

MONDAY, May 29.

Senator Samuel Smith, of Maryland.

DURATION OF A PRO TEM. APPOINTMENT.

The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a letter from Mr. Smith of Maryland, stating that being appointed by the Executive of that State a Senator in conformity with the constitution, until the next meeting of the Legislature, which will take place on the 5th day of June next, he submits to the determination of the Senate the question, whether an appointment under the Executive of Maryland, to represent that State in the Senate of the United States, will or will not cease on the first day of the meeting of the Legislature thereof? and the letter was read; and, after debate, it was agreed that the further consideration thereof be postponed until to-morrow.

WEDNESDAY, May 31.

STEPHEN R. BRADLEY, from the State of Vermont, attended.

Batture at New Orleans.

Mr. GILES presented the memorial of Edward Livingston, of New Orleans, stating that, for a long time prior to the 25th January, 1804, he was in peaceable possession of a parcel of land called the Batture, in front of the suburb of St. Mary's, in the city of New Orleans. That, on the 25th of January, he was forcibly removed by the Marshal of the district, under the orders of the President of the United States, notwithstanding an injunction had been granted by the superior court against the execution of the warrant; and praying that the possession may be restored to him, and that such measures may be pursued as the wisdom of Congress may devise, for providing a legal decision on the title of the United States, if it shall be supposed they have any, to the property in question; and the memorial was read, and referred to Messrs. GILES, ANDERSON, HILLHOUSE, WHITE, and WHITESIDE, to consider and report thereon.

THURSDAY, June 1.

_Non-Intercourse Act--Extended to all public armed Vessels._

Mr. GILES offered the following amendment to the first section, to be inserted after the word "assembled:"

"That the provisions of the two first sections of the act, entitled 'An act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes, shall extend to all public armed ships and vessels of all foreign nations, and the same shall be, and are hereby, continued and made permanent, subject, nevertheless, to any modifications and regulations which may hereafter be made by treaty."

Mr. G. said he felt himself constrained to move this amendment at this time, because he found it impossible to avoid a consideration of the subject involved in it, although he had heretofore hoped that it would not necessarily pass in review during the present session. He said this necessity arose from the limitation of these sections of the act at the last session. The connection of these sections with the commercial non-intercourse system, was contrary to his opinion at that time; he then wished the subject to be taken up and acted upon in a separate bill, and made the permanent law of the land. His opinion then gave way to the respect he felt for the opinion of others. This will appear from the resolution he then moved, "to extend the interdiction to the public armed ships and vessels of all foreign nations." In consequence of connecting that subject with the general commercial non-intercourse, and limiting its duration with that act, it was now rendered a very delicate question. His proposition, however, was, to do now, what it was right to have done at the last session. He said that the proposition was founded upon the principle, that the United States had as absolute and unqualified a right to exclusive jurisdiction over the marine leagues usually attached to independent nations, as to their territorial jurisdiction, and as a consequence from that principle, foreign nations had no more right to send armed ships within our acknowledged marine jurisdiction, than they had to send an army within our territorial jurisdiction. This proposition is, therefore, merely municipal, formed upon an unquestionable right, and it is dictated by the same spirit of impartiality as that which dictated the original non-intercourse law. Indeed, it appeared to him the only impartial course now left us, as it respects the belligerents. It ought to preserve the most perfect impartiality, which, Mr. Canning so justly tells us, "is the essence of neutrality."

Mr. G. said it could not escape observation, that, in the overtures made by the British Cabinet for the revocation of the Orders in Council of the 7th of January and the 11th of November, the obligation to protect our neutral rights against France, heretofore offered on the part of our Government, in case of her perseverance in her hostile edicts, had been entirely overlooked, or unconditionally dispensed with. He said he derived much satisfaction from this liberal conduct on the part of the British Government, because it manifested a confidence in the honor and firmness of our Government, which must be peculiarly gratifying to every American; but it rather increased than lessened the obligation to persevere in protecting our neutral rights against French aggressions, if they should be persevered in, contrary to his expectation.

The motive or ground of resisting the aggressions of France cannot, under this overture, be mistaken. In the former case, it might have seemed as if the resistance was dictated by a stipulated obligation to Great Britain to make it in this; it can only be dictated by a just sense of our own honor, character, and interests, which is left perfectly uncontrolled by the British overture. As this latter motive is the more honorable, it ought to be the more scrupulously adhered to and enforced. He had no hesitation in saying he had uniformly been influenced by this motive alone, entirely disconnected with any stipulated obligation to Great Britain; and under this influence, alone, he would be found at all times as ready to resist the aggressions of France, as he had at any time been those of Great Britain, if they should, unfortunately, be persevered in; but, at the same time, he wished to take away every pretext for such perseverance, by persevering in a conduct of the strictest and most scrupulous impartiality toward all the belligerents.

At the last session he had supposed, under the general interdiction of all foreign armed vessels, some regulations and modifications, as exceptions from the general rule, might be made by law, but further reflection had satisfied him that the preferable mode was by treaty.

He would state two or three reasons for this preference:

1. It will tend to avoid collisions with all foreign nations. Regulations made by law might not suit the views of foreign nations, whereas their consent would be necessary in treaties.

2. It will give us the aid of a stipulated obligation on the part of the foreign nation making the treaty, to enforce the arrangement. In the case of Great Britain this consideration is of great importance. Its importance results from the strength of her navy, compared with the weakness of ours.

3. By treaty we may obtain what the lawyers call a quid pro quo. We may want, at some future time, the use of some British ports, which she would readily give for the use of ours. He said he would act liberally with her in this respect; and, he believed, considering Great Britain now at war, and the United States at peace, it would rather accelerate than retard the expected negotiation. He said he was as much opposed to throwing any impediment in the way of the expected negotiation as any gentleman in the United States.

Great Britain cannot, and will not complain. The municipal right now proposed to be carried into effect, is admitted by Great Britain in its broadest extent, and will not be disputed by Mr. Canning at the present moment. This will appear from Mr. Canning's declarations in the debates of the last session of Parliament. He said he did not know whether it was correct to read newspapers in evidence, to ascertain the opinions and expressions of the speaker, but if the Senate would be content with this species of evidence, contained in a Ministerial paper, he would read it for their information. Mr. G. then read the following extract of Mr. Canning's speech, taken from a British Ministerial paper:

Extract from Mr. Canning's speech in Parliament.

"At the time the application for a compromise had been made by the American Government, there was an order in force excluding British ships of war from the American ports, while French ships of war were admitted into them; and, consequently, if the terms offered by America had been accepted, our commerce would have been permitted to America without a ship of war to protect it, while the French commerce would be excluded, at the same time that French ships of war would be admitted if they could succeed in getting there. The ports of America would become nests for French privateers against British commerce. As to the tendency of the measures in agitation in America, he could afford the right honorable gentleman some consolation, by assuring him that they would not have all the ill consequences he seemed to apprehend. A circumstance appeared by the report of the committee of Congress, though clothed in hostile language, which, if made known to His Majesty's Government in amicable terms, might have led to the acceptance of the terms proposed. The circumstance he alluded to was the resolution for excluding from American ports the ships of war not of Great Britain, but of the belligerents. The Americans, in their character of neutrals, had unquestionably a right to exclude the ships of war of both belligerents from their ports, but could not confine them exclusively to those of one of the belligerents without a violation of that impartiality which is the essence of the neutral character. Yet, when that proposition should be disposed of, the whole of the difficulty would not be surmounted, as much would still remain to be accommodated. Another point, in which fault had been charged upon his conduct with respect to America, was his having stated that the system would not be given up while the smallest link of the confederation against Great Britain existed."

It will be observed that two important conclusions may be deduced from these observations: 1. That the exercise of this municipal right is unquestionable. 2. That Mr. Canning's objection to its former exercise by proclamation was to its limitation, not its extension.

His objection is to its exercise against Great Britain exclusively and not against her enemies. At the time of making his speech, Mr. Canning thought the interdiction was extended to all the belligerents; in which case, so far from complaining of its exercise, he says it would furnish an inducement to an accommodation, and his instructions to Mr. Erskine were, no doubt, given under this expectation. This was the ground taken by the report of the committee of the House of Representatives, in the last session, and the Senate went further, by extending the interdiction to the public armed ships of all foreign nations; those of peace as well as those of war. This gave the transaction more strongly the character of a mere municipal regulation. This principle was narrowed down, in this bill, to apply merely to Great Britain and France, and left out altogether the other belligerent powers. Mr. Canning will probably be much surprised at this limitation; and conceive hostility more pointed than he had anticipated; some of the points may, however, be a little blunted by including France, the most operating and unmanageable of her enemies. He said he did not wish to go one atom beyond Mr. Canning's opinion upon this occasion. He took great pleasure in concurring with Mr. Canning upon this point. It was the first instance in which he had concurred in opinion with the gentleman; but he hoped it would not be the last, especially when the opinion favored the rights and promoted the interest of the United States.

Mr. Canning must have acted under this impression when he agreed to make the honorable reparation he had done for the unauthorized attack upon the Chesapeake, without requiring a previous revocation of the interdiction of British ships. As this revocation was not demanded nor promised, the arrangement now ought to be made on general principles of justice. He said, without feeling or expressing any regret at any thing he had said or proposed at the last session, he was now as willing as any gentleman to reciprocate the temper lately manifested by the British Government, so opposite in its character and tendency from that manifested by the Cabinet for several years preceding. He said that no gentleman had yet manifested an intention of removing the interdiction upon British armed ships, until she had actually executed her promise of reparation; and, if the execution of the promise were to precede the revocation of the interdiction, the mode of revocation by treaty, as pointed out by his proposition, would be nearly contemporaneous with that proposed by gentlemen, if now enacted into a law, and it would have an evident advantage, as it respected the feelings of Great Britain. The mode recommended by gentlemen is founded upon a want of confidence in the promise of Great Britain, and an ungracious demand for its execution, as preliminary to the revocation, while the mode pointed out by treaty, is founded upon a confidence in the promise; and, without requiring its execution, will insure our own safety by the mere exercise of municipal right; a right which is unquestionable; vouched to be so by Mr. Canning, and the exercise of which is impartial toward all nations, by extending its provisions equally to all. He said that almost all the injuries and insults sustained by the United States from public armed ships of the belligerents within our waters, were attributable to an inattention to the exercise of this right, and, relax the interdiction when you may, without a stipulated obligation on the part of the belligerents, to respect your neutrality, and your marine jurisdiction, they will be renewed and continued.

The principle contended for is not new. It has been before the Senate several times, and was adopted at the last session in its broadest extent, as will appear from the following resolution, which he then had the honor of moving. It does not appear from the Journals of the Senate, that there was any opposition to the following resolution, which was adopted on the 15th of February last:

"The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made on the 8th instant, that provision ought to be made by law for interdicting all foreign armed ships from the waters of the United States; and having agreed thereto, ordered that it be referred to Mr. Giles, Mr. Smith of Maryland, Mr. Crawford," &c.

He said he was extremely happy to find the spirit of harmony and conciliation which had hitherto characterized the Senate, and he should endeavor to preserve and continue it; and, while he was strongly impressed with the propriety and policy of the amendment, yet he was willing to listen to any other which might be more agreeable to gentlemen, provided it was founded upon a principle of strict impartiality toward the belligerents, which he could not be induced to depart from under any circumstances.

When Mr. G. had concluded, the further consideration of the subject was postponed until to-morrow.

FRIDAY, June 2.

PHILIP REED, from the State of Maryland, attended.

STANLEY GRISWOLD, appointed a Senator by the Executive of the State of Ohio, to fill the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Edward Tiffin, was qualified, and took his seat.

JOHN SMITH, from the State of New York, attended.

MONDAY, June 5.

Death of Senator Malbone.

Mr. MATHEWSON announced the death of his colleague, FRANCIS MALBONE, who deceased yesterday morning.

On motion of Mr. LLOYD,

Resolved, That the Senate will attend the funeral of FRANCIS MALBONE, this afternoon, at five o'clock, from his late residence; that notice thereof be given to the House of Representatives, and that a committee be appointed for superintending the funeral.

Ordered, That Messrs. LLOYD, GILMAN, and WHITE, be the committee.

On motion, by Mr. LLOYD,

Resolved, unanimously, That the members of the Senate, from a sincere desire of showing their respect to the memory of FRANCIS MALBONE, deceased, late a member thereof, will go into mourning for him one month, by the usual mode of wearing a crape round the left arm; and that a sum not exceeding one hundred and fifty dollars be applied out of the contingent fund for placing a neat slab or monument, with a suitable inscription, over his tomb.

On motion of Mr. LLOYD,

Resolved, That, as an additional mark of respect to the memory of FRANCIS MALBONE, the Senate now adjourn.

And the Senate adjourned.

TUESDAY, June 6.

Senator Smith's pro tem. Appointment.

Mr. GILES submitted a resolution, which was amended, and is as follows:

Resolved, That the Honorable SAMUEL SMITH, a Senator appointed by the Executive of the State of Maryland to fill the vacancy which happened in the office of Senator for that State, is entitled to hold his seat in the Senate of the United States during the session of the Legislature of Maryland, which, by the proclamation of the Governor of said State, was to commence on the 5th day of the present month of June; unless said Legislature shall fill such vacancy by the appointment of a Senator, and this Senate be officially informed thereof.

On motion, by Mr. ANDERSON, to amend the motion, by striking out all after the word "Resolved," and inserting:

"That any Senator of this body, who holds a seat under an Executive appointment, cannot, according to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, be entitled to continue to hold his seat as a member of this body, after the meeting of the Legislature of the State from which such Senator may be a member."

And a division of the motion for amendment was called for, and the question having been taken, on striking out, it passed in the negative; and the motion for amendment having been lost, the original motion was agreed to--yeas 19, nays 6, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Brent, Franklin, Gaillard, German, Giles, Gilman, Goodrich, Griswold, Hillhouse, Lambert, Mathewson, Meigs, Pope, Robinson, Smith of New York, Thruston, White, and Whiteside.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bradley, Leib, Lloyd, Parker, Pickering, and Turner.

WEDNESDAY, June 7.

JAMES A. BAYARD, from the State of Delaware, attended.

THURSDAY, June 8.

WILLIAM H. CRAWFORD, from the State of Georgia, attended.

MONDAY, June 12.

Exiled Cubans, with their Slaves.

On motion, by Mr. GILES,

Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire whether it be expedient and proper, at this time, to make any provision by law for remitting the penalties and forfeitures incurred by the violations of some of the provisions of the act, entitled "An act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, from and after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eight," so far only as relates to the introduction of slaves into certain ports of the United States, who were lately forcibly expelled from the island of Cuba with the French inhabitants thereof; and that the committee have leave to report by bill or otherwise.

Ordered, That Messrs. GILES, BRADLEY, ANDERSON, CRAWFORD, and FRANKLIN, be the committee.

MONDAY, June 19.

Exiled Cubans.

On motion, by Mr. GILES,

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be laid before the Senate such information as he may deem proper to communicate respecting the unfortunate exiles lately expelled from the Island of Cuba, and who may have arrived, or are expected to arrive within the jurisdiction of the United States; and, also, respecting any propositions which may have been made to him by the Minister Plenipotentiary of France, for the purpose of facilitating the removal of any of the said exiles, with their slaves, and other effects, from the United States, to any place within the dominions of France.

FRIDAY, June 23.

Foreign Armed Vessels.

Mr. LEIB, from the committee, appointed on the 20th instant, to inquire into the expediency of providing by law for the exclusion of foreign armed vessels from the ports and harbors of the United States, made report; which was read, as follows:

"That, in the opinion of this committee, such an interdiction is within the just and neutral rights of the United States, and, under other circumstances, would be highly expedient and proper. So long as a neutral nation shall confine itself to strict measures of impartiality, allowing no benefit to one belligerent, not stipulated by treaty, which it shall refuse to another, no cause whatever is afforded for exception or complaint. The right to admit an armed force into a neutral territory belongs exclusively to the neutral; and when not guarantied by treaty, as is oftentimes the case, such admission compromises the neutrality of the nation, which permits to one belligerent alone such an indulgence.

"As a measure of safety as well as peace, it is incumbent upon the United States to carry into effect such a provision. So long as we are without a competent force to protect our jurisdiction from violation, and our citizens from outrage, and our flag from insult, so long ought no asylum to be given, but in distress, to the armed vessels of any nation. The committee will not bring into view the many injuries and insults which the United States have sustained from the hospitable grant of their ports and harbors to belligerents; nor the facility which has thereby been afforded to them to lay our commerce under contribution. It is sufficient to remark, that great injuries have been sustained, and that imperious duty requires arrangements at our hands to guard our country in future from similar aggressions.

"The United States are, at this moment, under no obligation to withhold restraints, within their power, upon the admission of foreign armed vessels into their ports; but the committee are too strongly impressed with the propriety of avoiding any legislative interference at this time, which, by any possibility, might be construed into a desire to throw difficulties in the way of promised and pending negotiations. They are desirous that a fair experiment may be made to adjust our differences with the two belligerent nations, and that no provisions be interwoven in our laws which shall furnish a pretext for delay, or a refusal to yield to our just and honorable demands.

"Calculating that the overtures which have been made by Great Britain will be executed in good faith, the committee are willing to believe that the stipulated arrangements will be of such a character as to guard our flag from insult, our jurisdiction from aggression, our citizens from violation, and our mercantile property from spoliation. Under these impressions, which the committee have stated as briefly as possible, they beg leave to submit to the consideration of the Senate the following resolution, viz:

"Resolved, That the further consideration of the subject be postponed until the next session of Congress."

SATURDAY, June 24.

The bill freeing from postage all letters and packets from Thomas Jefferson, was read the second time, and considered as in Committee of the Whole; and no amendment having been proposed, on the question, Shall this bill be engrossed and read a third time? it was determined in the affirmative.

MONDAY, June 26.

The VICE PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceeded to the election of a President pro tempore, as the constitution provides; and the honorable ANDREW GREGG was elected.

Ordered, That the Secretary wait on the President of the United States, and acquaint him that the Senate have, in the absence of the Vice President, elected the honorable ANDREW GREGG President of the Senate pro tempore.

TUESDAY, June 27.

Public Credit.

The bill, entitled "An act supplementary to the act, entitled 'An act making further provision for the support of public credit, and for the redemption of the public debt,'" was read the third time as amended.

On motion, by Mr. HILLHOUSE, to postpone the further consideration thereof until the first Monday in November next, it was determined in the negative--yeas 9, nays 15.

WEDNESDAY, June 28.

On the question, Shall this bill pass as amended? it was determined in the affirmative--yeas 17, nays 9, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Brent, Condit, Franklin, Gaillard, Giles, Gregg, Lambert, Leib, Mathewson, Meigs, Parker, Pope, Robinson, Smith of New York, Turner, and Whiteside.

NAYS.--Messrs Bayard, Crawford, German, Gilman, Hillhouse, Lloyd, Pickering, Reed, and White.

Six o'clock in the Evening.

Adjournment.

Resolved, That Messrs. POPE and BRENT be a committee on the part of the Senate, with such as the House of Representatives may join, to wait on the President of the United States, and notify him that, unless he may have any further communications to make to the two Houses of Congress, they are ready to adjourn.

Ordered, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives therewith, and request the appointment of a committee on their part.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the House have appointed a committee on their part, to wait on the President of the United States, and notify him of the intended recess of Congress.

Mr. POPE, from the committee, reported that they had waited on the President of the United States, who informed them that he had no further communications to make to the two Houses of Congress.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the House, having finished the business before them, are about to adjourn.

Ordered, That the Secretary inform the House of Representatives that the Senate, having finished the business before them, are about to adjourn.

The Secretary having performed that duty, the PRESIDENT adjourned the Senate, to meet on the fourth Monday of November.

FOOTNOTES:

[5] LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

New Hampshire.--Nicholas Gilman, Nahum Parker. Massachusetts.--Timothy Pickering. Connecticut.--James Hillhouse, Chauncey Goodrich. Rhode Island.--Elisha Mathewson, Francis Malbone. Vermont.--Jonathan Robinson, Stephen R. Bradley. New York.--John Smith. New Jersey.--John Lambert, John Condit. Pennsylvania.--Andrew Gregg, Michael Leib. Delaware.--Samuel White, James A. Bayard. Maryland.--Samuel Smith, Philip Reed. Virginia.--William B. Giles, Richard Brent. North Carolina.--Jesse Franklin, James Turner. South Carolina.--John Gaillard. Georgia.--William H. Crawford. Kentucky.--Buckner Thruston, John Pope. Tennessee.--Joseph Anderson, Jenkin Whiteside. Ohio.--Return Jonathan Meigs, jr., Stanley Griswold.

ELEVENTH CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION.

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES

IN

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.[6]

MONDAY, May 22, 1809.

This being the day appointed by law for the meeting of the present session, the following members of the House of Representatives appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats, to wit:

From New Hampshire--Daniel Blaisdell, John C. Chamberlain, William Hale, Nathaniel A. Haven, and James Wilson.

From Massachusetts--Ezekiel Bacon, William Baylies, Richard Cutts, William Ely, Gideon Gardner, Barzillai Gannett, Edward St. Loe Livermore, Benjamin Pickman, junior, Josiah Quincy, Ebenezer Seaver, William Stedman, Jabez Upham, Joseph B. Varnum, and Laban Wheaton.

From Rhode Island--Richard Jackson, junior, and Elisha R. Potter.

From Connecticut--Epaphroditus Champion, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Jonathan O. Mosely, Timothy Pitkin, junior, Lewis B. Sturges and Benjamin Tallmadge.

From Vermont--William Chamberlin, Martin Chittenden, Jonathan H. Hubbard, and Samuel Shaw.

From New York--James Emott, Jonathan Fisk, Barent Gardenier, Thomas R. Gold, Herman Knickerbacker, Robert Le Roy Livingston, John Nicholson, Peter B. Porter, Ebenezer Sage, Thomas Sammons, John Thompson, Uri Tracy, and Killian K. Van Rensselaer.

From New Jersey--Adam Boyd, James Cox, William Helms, Jacob Hufty, Thomas Newbold, and Henry Southard.

From Pennsylvania--William Anderson, David Bard, Robert Brown, William Crawford, William Findlay, Robert Jenkins, Aaron Lyle, William Milnor, John Porter, John Rea, Matthias Richards, John Ross, George Smith, Samuel Smith, and Robert Whitehill.

From Maryland--John Brown, John Campbell, Charles Goldsborough, Philip B. Key, Alexander McKim, John Montgomery, Nicholas R. Moore, Roger Nelson, and Archibald Van Horne.

From Virginia--Burwell Bassett, William A. Burwell, Matthew Clay, John Dawson, John W. Eppes, James Breckenridge, Thomas Gholson, junior, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, Joseph Lewis, junior, John Love, Thomas Newton, John Randolph, John Roane, Daniel Sheffey, John Smith, James Stephenson, and Jacob Swoope.

From North Carolina--Willis Alston, junior, James Cochran, Meshack Franklin, James Holland, Thomas Kenan, William Kennedy, Nathaniel Macon, Archibald McBride, Lemuel Sawyer, Richard Stanford, and John Stanley.

From South Carolina--Lemuel J. Alston, William Butler, Joseph Calhoun, Robert Marion, Thomas Moore, John Taylor, and Robert Witherspoon.

From Georgia--William W. Bibb, Howell Cobb, Dennis Smelt, and George M. Troup.

From Kentucky--Henry Crist, Joseph Desha, Benjamin Howard, Richard M. Johnson, Matthew Lyon, and Samuel McKee.

From Tennessee--Pleasant M. Miller, and John Rhea.

From Ohio--Jeremiah Morrow.

Election of Speaker, &c.

A quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole number, being present, the House proceeded, by ballot, to the choice of a Speaker.

Messrs. N. R. MOORE, CUTTS, and PORTER, were appointed tellers of the votes.

Mr. N. R. MOORE reported that the result of the ballot was, that there were--

For Joseph B. Varnum, 60; Nathaniel Macon, 36; Timothy Pitkin, junior, 20; Roger Nelson, 1; C. W. Goldsborough, 1; blank ballots, 2.

Mr. VARNUM having 60 votes, it was submitted to the decision of the House by the tellers whether the blank ballots could be considered as votes; if not, there being but 118 votes, Mr. VARNUM having 60, had a majority.

Mr. W. ALSTON conceived that there could be no doubt on the subject; that blank pieces of paper could not be considered as votes. He instanced the case which occurred in the famous balloting for President in the year 1801; at which time, after a number of ballotings, the State of Maryland, which was divided, gave in four blank votes, and thus decided the election.

Mr. MACON thought there could be no question on the subject; he also recollected the case of the Presidential election instanced by his colleague, and was of opinion that blank ballots could not be counted. He hoped that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. VARNUM) would be conducted to the Chair.

Mr. RANDOLPH said this was no ordinary question which the House were about to determine, at the instance of his friend, (Mr. MACON,) in his opinion, in a very irregular manner; and Mr. R. said that he was certain, if his friend were not himself implicated in the question, he would have been one of the last men in the House to give such a decision against himself; but perhaps this was a peculiarity in his friend's character. Are we, gentlemen, (said Mr. R.,) to have a Speaker of the House of Representatives without any election? The committee have not reported that one of the persons voted for had a majority of the whole number of votes even; on the contrary, they have expressly reported that no one had a majority. And will the House consent in this manner to choose a Speaker to preside over this body, and perhaps eventually over the destinies of this nation?--for perchance the Speaker might become President of the United States. With respect to the precedent in the case of the election of the President of the United States, there was not, he said, the smallest analogy between the two cases. What was that case? It was on a question whether or not there should exist in this country a Government, that this device had been used, after some forty or fifty ballotings. In order to give a President to the United States, certain gentlemen had thought proper not to vote at all. But, said Mr. R., is time now so precious? Is the Secretary of the President of the United States knocking at the door for admittance? Is the enemy at the gate? Is there not time, I beseech you, gentlemen, to proceed in the regular mode to the election of our officers? Or, shall we, to avoid the trouble of writing a name twice, establish a precedent, which, if established, may put an end to this Government, which is founded on the principle that the majority shall govern? Mr. R. said he was more free in expressing his ideas, because he believed that a second ballot would not affect the result; and he put it to his friend (Mr. MACON) to say whether he himself would consent to take the Chair on the vote of a minority. He said he knew him too well; he would not consent to it. He conceived that there was no question before the House, that they had not elected their Speaker; and that it was their business to proceed to an election. They were certainly competent, he said, to elect the officers of their own body; and he hoped they would do it more majorum--after the fashion of their ancestors.

Mr. STANFORD denied that the case which had been cited from the Presidential election in 1801 had any bearing on the present question. That was a case in which, a State being divided, one-half the representation voted blank, and left to the other half of the representation the right of voting for the State. As, at the same time, a gentleman now from Kentucky, (Mr. LYON,) then the only representative present from Vermont, had, by his single vote, his colleague being absent, decided the vote of that State, he thought there was no analogy.

Mr. RANDOLPH moved that the House proceed to ballot a second time for Speaker.

The Clerk having put the question, it was carried--67 to 43.

Mr. MACON said he certainly felt a sense of gratitude towards those who had voted for him; but he should be obliged to them to vote for some other person. He had rather remain on the floor of the House than be placed in the Chair. He had experienced the difficulties of the situation; besides, by an illness during last winter, his lungs had been so affected that he did not feel himself adequate to the task. As his declining the situation might be unexpected to some gentlemen, to accommodate them he would ask a postponement of the ballot for a time. He considered the office of Speaker of the House as one of the most honorable in the nation. Perhaps none was more so, after that of President and Vice President. Notwithstanding this, were there a probability of his being chosen, he must decline being placed in the Chair.

The House then proceeded to a further ballot; and Mr. N. R. MOORE reported the result to be:

For Mr. Varnum, 65; Mr. Macon, 45; Mr. Pitkin, 6; Mr. Howard, 1; Mr. Nelson, 1, and Mr. Goldsborough, 1.

Mr. VARNUM having a majority of votes was declared elected, and conducted to the Chair; whence he addressed the House as follows:

"Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:

"The continued manifestation of the national confidence in me, expressed by the Representatives of the people on this occasion, fills my heart with grateful sensibility. In obedience to the call of my country, I accept the office assigned me, and will endeavor to discharge the duties of it according to the best of my abilities, and agreeably to the wishes of the House."

The SPEAKER having been sworn, the oath to support the Constitution of the United States was by him administered to the members, by States.

The House then proceeded to the choice of a Clerk, by ballot. The votes having been counted, there were--

For Patrick Magruder, 63; Daniel Brent, 38; Nicholas B. Van Zandt, 14; William Lambert, 7, and Mr. Scott, 1.

Mr. Magruder having a majority of votes, was declared to be re-elected.

Mr. GEORGE POINDEXTER having appeared and produced his credentials, as the Delegate from the Mississippi Territory of the United States, the oath was administered to him by the Speaker.

Mr. MACON, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the President of the United States, reported that the committee had performed the service assigned to them, and that the President signified that he would make a communication to Congress, to-morrow at twelve o'clock.

A message was received from the Senate, informing the House that that body was formed, and ready to proceed to business; and that they had appointed a committee to wait on the President of the United States, in conjunction with such committee as the House should appoint, to inform him that they were ready to receive any communication he might have to make.

On motion of Mr. J. G. JACKSON, a committee was appointed to act with the committee of the Senate. Messrs. MACON and JACKSON were named as the committee.

The House, after hearing a memorial from Joseph Wheaton, stating his services, and praying a reinstatement in the office of Sergeant-at-Arms, from which he had been ejected, proceeded to the choice of a Sergeant-at-Arms. The whole number was 122, of which Thomas Dunn had 80. He was therefore declared to be re-elected.

On balloting for a Doorkeeper, the whole number of votes was 116, of which Thomas Claxton had 115. He was therefore declared re-elected.

On balloting for an Assistant Doorkeeper, there were--

For Benjamin Burch, 68; Jesse Edwards, 50.

Mr. Burch was therefore elected.

Mr. DAWSON.--Before we adjourn, it will be necessary to fix on some hour at which we shall meet; that hour heretofore has been eleven; but, as the mornings are now long, as some of the reasons which caused the present sessions have probably ceased, as the select committees will have but little to do, and every gentleman must be anxious to end the session and return home, I would prefer an earlier hour, and therefore offer the following resolution:

Resolved, That unless otherwise directed, the hour of meeting during the present session shall be at ten o'clock in the forenoon.

Agreed to, 52 to 39; and the House adjourned.

TUESDAY, May 23.

Several other members, to wit: From Massachusetts, SAMUEL TAGGART; from New York, VINCENT MATTHEWS; from Pennsylvania, DANIEL HEISTER; and from North Carolina, JOSEPH PEARSON, appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats.

The Journal of yesterday's proceedings having been read--

Mr. RANDOLPH moved to amend it, so as to record the precise state of the two ballots for a Speaker, with a view to a correct understanding of the case, if it should ever be drawn into precedent hereafter.

After a discussion of nearly two hours on the subject of the decision of yesterday, and the analogy betwixt it and the case of the Presidential election of 1801, Mr. RANDOLPH'S motion was agreed to--ayes 70.

President's Message.

The Message of the President of the United States was received, agreeably to the intimation given by the President yesterday to the committee appointed to wait on him. The Message having been read, was referred to a Committee of the whole House on the State of the Union, and 5,000 copies ordered to be printed of the Message, with the documents accompanying it. [See Senate proceedings of this date, ante page 117, for this Message.]

THURSDAY, May 25.

Swedish and Portuguese Vessels.

Mr. NEWTON offered a resolution to instruct the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures to inquire into and report on the expediency of permitting vessels of those nations with whom intercourse was permitted, to take cargoes, &c. He stated to the House that at present vessels of Sweden and Portugal, with whom intercourse is permitted, could not load and depart; and on this subject a letter was read from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures.

Mr. BURWELL said there was another subject connected with the resolution, which ought to be taken into consideration. The proclamation of the President declares that on the 10th of June next, the operation of the non-intercourse law, as relates to Great Britain, shall cease. It went into operation on the 20th of this month. Of course there were many vessels on the coast which could not get in before the 20th of May. He submitted it to the Chairman of the Committee, whether it would not be proper at once to do away all restriction, because the policy of its existence had ceased in relation to Great Britain from the restoration of harmony with her; and if the goods on our coast were not permitted to be regularly landed, they might be smuggled in, and injure the revenue. He thought it would be proper to inquire into the expediency of doing away at once, by law, all interdiction of commerce.

Mr. NEWTON said he had no objection to act on the subject mentioned by his colleague, but he did not conceive it to be connected with the present motion.

Mr. NEWTON'S motion having been agreed to, he immediately reported "a bill respecting the ships or vessels owned by citizens of foreign nations with whom commercial intercourse is permitted."--Twice read, and referred to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

Non-Intercourse Act.

Mr. LIVERMORE said that he did not distinctly hear all that fell from the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. BURWELL,) but, from what he had heard, he apprehended that it was on a subject of great importance. There were many vessels on the coast, which, were they to enter our harbors, would fall within the description of the 4th, 5th, and 6th sections of the non-intercourse act. From the happy commencement of the settlement of our differences with Great Britain, he did not believe it was the design of any gentleman that the non-intercourse should be enforced in this particular. He therefore offered a resolution for suspending the act, as follows:

Resolved, That it is expedient that the operation of so much of the act, entitled "An act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies," as inhibits the importation of goods from Great Britain and its dependencies, be suspended until the tenth day of June next.

FRIDAY, May 26.

Another member, to wit, ROBERT WEAKLEY, from Tennessee, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

Vote of Approbation.

Mr. RANDOLPH said that for the last eight years or thereabouts an alteration had taken place in the manner of doing business at the commencement of each session of Congress. He said he recollected when the first Congress under the administration of Mr. Jefferson had met at this place, instead of Congress being opened as heretofore by the President in person and by a speech, a note in these words had been received by the Speaker, enclosing a Message from the President:

"DECEMBER 8, 1801.

"SIR: The circumstances under which we find ourselves at this place rendering inconvenient the mode heretofore practised, of making by personal address the first communications between the Legislative and Executive branches, I have adopted that by Message, as used on all subsequent occasions through the session. In doing this I have had a principal regard to the convenience of the Legislature, to the economy of their time, to their relief from the embarrassment of immediate answers on subjects not yet fully before them, and to the benefits thence resulting to the public affairs. Trusting that a procedure founded in these motives will meet their approbation, I beg leave through you, sir, to communicate the enclosed Message." &c.

It is unnecessary, I believe, (said Mr. R.,) to state that the hint contained in the Message that no answer was to be expected, was taken by the House; and from that day no answers have been given to the Message of the President at the opening of Congress. It would ill become me, sir, who so highly approved then, and who so highly approve now the change introduced by communicating to the two Houses by message instead of by speech, to say any thing that might imply a disapprobation of it. I like it, sir. To tell the truth, the style of communicating by speech was more in the style of the opening of the British Parliament by the king. I therefore like the mode of communication by message. But I am not so clear, though we were then half-right, that we were wholly right; though on this subject I do not mean to give a definite opinion. No man can turn over the journals of the first six Congresses of the United States without being sickened, fairly sickened, with the adulation often replied by the Houses of Congress to the President's communication. But nevertheless the answer to an address, although that answer might finally contain the most exceptionable passages, was in fact the greatest opportunity which the opposition to the measures of the administration had of canvassing and sifting its measures; and, in my mind, whatever goes to take away this opportunity, goes so far to narrow down the rights of the minority or opposition, commonly so called, and in fact to enlarge the rights of the majority and the administration party so called; and I beg leave not to be understood as speaking of the state of parties at this time, but of that which has always existed. This opportunity of discussion of the answer to an address, however exceptionable the address might be when it had received the last seasoning for the Presidential palate, did afford the best opportunity to take a review of the measures of the administration, to canvass them fully and fairly, without there being any question raised whether the gentlemen were in order or not; and I believe the time spent in canvassing the answer to a speech was at least as well spent as a great deal that we have expended since we discontinued the practice. I do not say that any answer is proper or ought to be given; but I do believe that when this House goes into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, it is for purposes a little more elevated than to dissect the Message of the President of the United States, or to strip it up and transfer it to select and standing committees. If that be the whole object of going into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, I can see no reason for having any such committee, nor why the Message should not be taken in the first instance, dissected by the knife of the operator most in the fashion of the day, and referred to different committees. And it has a tendency to cast a sort of ridicule on our proceedings, when this august assembly resolves itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and resolves that the Message shall be referred to such and such committees; and would induce shallow observers to believe that in fact there is little or no use for such a committee. But whatever may be my opinion on the subject of opening the two Houses by message, I do think that there are occasions, and that this is one, on which it behooves this assembly to express its opinion on the state of public affairs. I will not recall to your recollection, sir, because perhaps, and most probably it passed over your mind without making any impression, that some time during the last session of Congress, I stated that if the gentleman in whose hand the reins of Government were about to be placed did not even tolerably perform the task assigned to him, some allowance ought to be made for the state in which he found the nation. And, sir, when I see the situation of the country so materially changed for the better, am I and is this House to sit still and regard it but as newspaper talk of the day, and express no opinion on it? And what is our opinion? It is either in approbation or disapprobation of the conduct of the Executive. In my opinion it is due to the Executive that he have an expression of sentiment on this subject. In the part of the country in which I live, dinners have been given, feasts have been held, and the song and toast have passed round in commemoration of the event: and is this House to be insensible, and to leave the President of the United States in ignorance or doubt whether his conduct has or has not received the sanction of their approbation? Or is he to get that information from inofficial sources? I hope not. I hope he will get it from ourselves. I therefore move you--

"That the promptitude and frankness with which the President of the United States has met the overtures of the Government of Great Britain, towards the restoration of harmony and free commercial intercourse between the two nations, meets the approbation of this House."

Mr. FINDLAY said that this proposition contemplated a novelty in the legislative proceeding of this country. Where would it end if the House were now to make a solemn resolution approving of the conduct of the President? The answer returned to the speech of the King in monarchical Governments committed the House making it to all that was contained in it. The practice in this country had been long considered an evil; indeed, he thought he could show by the journals one instance in which the discussion of a single section in an answer occupied the House fourteen or fifteen days. It was a practice, too, which introduced at the very opening of the session all that irritation that commonly arose in the course of a session. Mr. F. said he supposed there was not a member in the House but did approve of the President's exercise of the authority vested in him. He presumed that they approved equally also of the same offer heretofore made to the Court of London. If the House were to approbate the conduct of one President, they must approbate that of others; and the conduct of the different administrations under the constitution might be brought into view. Mr. F. was totally against this motion, or any other of the kind.

Mr. DANA said that at the present time he should certainly not be for adopting the resolution. The adopting it at this time would certainly not comport with the object professed by the mover, which he had understood to be, to present a question on which there might be a general view of the conduct of the Executive in relation to the object in question. If the object was to bring up the question in a regular form, that gentlemen might express themselves fully in relation to our affairs, it was very proper that this subject should be discussed in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. For himself, Mr. D. said that he thought the mode of answering speeches might do very well in such a Government as this, and whatever might be said of economy of time, by an attention to the actual expense, it would be found that in fact very little time was lost by it. At the last session of Congress a committee had reported a resolution to which there was but two dissentients; the discussion occupied nearly three weeks. All agreed as to the result, but gentlemen combated each other's arguments. And undoubtedly, Mr. D. said, the rapidity with which the Message was shot through a Committee of the Whole, was rather a farcical piece of business--and, indeed, it was not without some little surprise that, when he had come to the House this morning, he found the whole subject disposed of.

Mr. W. ALSTON said, that when a resolution like the one proposed was presented to him, the substance of which met his approbation, if he was compelled to vote directly upon it, he would rather vote for it than against it. But if it were the object to bring before the House a discussion upon the Message of the President, and to return an answer to his Excellency's most gracious Message, he should certainly be opposed to it. If ever there had been one particular part of the conduct of the former administration which had met the approbation of the Republicans of this country generally, it was the discontinuance of this practice. The result of the alteration was, that although more was done during the sessions of the Republican Congresses, they terminated them three or four weeks sooner than ever had been done before. As to the opportunity which the answers afforded for debate, could any one say that sufficient latitude had not been taken in debate? Had not gentlemen even called others by name, and introduced every subject on any question? Mr. A. said he was pleased with what had been done, and he could not vote that he was not pleased; but he was certainly opposed to entering into a full discussion, at the opening of each session, of every thing which was to come under the consideration of the House. If they were to take up this resolution, they might as well take some abstract act of Mr. Adams's, he being still living, and discuss his political life. WASHINGTON, at least he hoped, having departed from us, would be permitted to rest in peace.

Mr. BACON said that with other gentlemen, he could not but regret that this proposition had been brought forward. If he were brought to vote upon it, he need not tell the House that he should cordially vote for it; but it was really one of the last observations which he had expected to have heard from any gentleman that we wanted field for debate. He had thought that the grievance was the other way; that the cause of complaint was, that they consumed too much time in debate. He said he should certainly vote for the resolution, were it brought to a direct vote; but, for the purpose of placing before the House the view of the subject which he entertained, he should take the liberty to move an amendment to it, and then move to refer it to a Committee of the Whole. The amendment was in these words, proposed to be added to the motion:--"And furnishes an additional proof of the spirit of accommodation on the part of the Government of the United States, which has at no time been intermitted."

Mr. J. G. JACKSON moved that the whole subject be postponed indefinitely.

Mr. RANDOLPH said that as an indefinite postponement was considered as tantamount to a rejection--for it prevents a renewal of the subject during the session, and a rejection does nothing more, as the House had heretofore had a woful experience in the case of certain very pertinacious petitioners; and, as he was afraid, they would again have from a certain body of petitioners, who, he presumed, had not entirely given up their hopes of quartering themselves on the public property--an indefinite postponement, then, being equivalent to a rejection, he certainly was opposed to the rejection of his own motion. He could not have believed that this motion would have been rejected by the House, though he said he had certainly calculated on its being opposed by those who condemned the promptitude and frankness with which the President had proceeded to restore, as far as depended on him, the intercourse between the two nations. It is this part of the conduct of the President of the United States, said Mr. R., on which I mean to give an opinion--"By the President of the United States, a proclamation"--and in that proclamation, in my opinion, he has deserved well of his country. I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. FINDLAY,) if he is near enough to hear me in this vast room, when have I proposed bringing in review the whole measures of former administration; when have I proposed an answer to an address to the two Houses? I have proposed no such thing, sir, although my motion is nearly tantamount to it; because it so happens that the only act of which we have any knowledge, except the laying up the gunboats in dry dock, which I also most cordially approbate, is this very thing. Now, I have not the slightest objection, if the gentleman chooses, that the honorable and worthy gentleman from Massachusetts should insist on a venire on the conduct of any former President of the United States, but I beg myself to be excused from serving on it. As an unqualified juror, I choose to except myself; for, really, as to one of those Presidents, his career does not yet seem to be finished. It would seem as if he meditated another batch of midnight judges, and another midnight retreat from the Capital. I do, therefore, except to myself as a juror as to him or any other President. De mortuis nil nisi bonum. Agreed, sir. Let the good that men do live after them, and the evil be interred in their graves. But, I would ask the gentleman from Connecticut, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, also, if this be one of their abstract propositions? How abstract, I pray you? Or, if it be one of those unmeaning propositions, the discussion of which could answer no good to this House? It would be idle in us now to be trying Mr. Adams on the merits of the sedition law, the eight per cent. loans, or any other such act. It would answer no purpose; and it would be equally idle and futile to pass any opinion on the merits or demerits of the first four or last four years of the late administration, for this plain reason, the question bolts upon you, cui bono? What earthly good can result from it? But is that the case in relation to the Executive, on whose future dispositions rest the best interests of this nation? Is that a mere idle discussion? And is it come to this? Is this House so sunk in the Executive opinion, (I trust not, sir; I abhor the idea,) that its approbation of a great course of national policy is to pass for nothing; is it to have no influence on the conduct of the Executive of the United States? This, sir, is taking higher doctrine than was ever advanced by those who wished to see the President open Parliament by a speech from the throne. It is taking higher ground than the Minister of that country from which the precedent was derived. The weight of the House of Commons is felt too sensibly there for their inclinations not to be sounded by motions from their Chancellor of the Exchequer, and their members of opposition, in relation to the great course of foreign affairs. And, sir, shall we now be told that it is a mere matter of moonshine, a thing of no moment, whether this House really does approve the conduct of the Administration of the Government of the United States, or disapproves it? Praise, in my opinion, properly and not prodigally bestowed, is one of the best resources of a nation. Why is this House called upon, and I am sorry to say it is, too often, and too lightly, to give its sanction to the conduct of individuals in the public service, if its approbation is estimated so trivially? No, sir; this is a great question which I have presented to you, and gentlemen may hamper it with as many amendments as they please; they cannot keep the question out of sight. Some may be against it because they are for it; some because it does harm, and some because it does no good. The question cannot be kept out of sight; it has been presented to the American people and they have decided it, decide you how you may.

With respect to the gentleman's amendment, I need not tell him, I presume, that I shall vote most pointedly against it, because, in my opinion, it does not contain the truth. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. BACON) will be among the last of the members of this House to attribute to me an improper sentiment in regard to him, when I say that it does not contain the truth. If the gentleman from Massachusetts chooses, in imitation of another Eastern nation--not those who tried their Kings after they were entombed, but those who consigned to one common grave the living and the dead; if he be willing to attach the sound, healthy body of the present Administration--healthy so far, and, I trust, fortifying itself against contagions--to the dead corpse of the last, let him. He shall not have my assistance in doing it; nor have I the least desire to draw a marked distinction between the two Administrations. The gentleman will hardly suspect that I am seeking favor at court. My object is plain. It is to say to the President that, in issuing that proclamation, he has acted wisely, and we approve of it. I know, sir, that there are men who condemn the conduct of the President in issuing the proclamation; and why? They say he was precipitate. Where was the necessity, they will tell you, of declaring that the Orders in Council will have been withdrawn? This is the language of objection. There is a difference of opinion subsisting in this country on these two points. There are men who condemn this proclamation, and men who condemn the construction given by the Executive to the non-intercourse law. I approve both. I wish the President of the United States to have the approving sentiment of this House, and to have that approbation as a guide to his future conduct; and I put it to the gentleman from Massachusetts whether it be fair to mingle it with the old, stale, refuse stuff of the embargo? No, sir; let him not put his new wine into old bottles. There is a difference of opinion in this country. The President of the United States stands condemned by men in this nation, and, as I believe, in this House, for having issued that proclamation, and put that construction on the non-intercourse law. I wish to see by how many he is thus condemned. I do not wish to see the question shirked--to see it blinked. If there be a majority of the House, as I believe there is, in favor of the conduct of the President, I wish him to have that approbation expressed as a guide to his future, and a support to his present conduct. It is due to him. Sir, have I moved you a nauseous, sickening resolution, stuffed with adulation? Nothing like it; but, a resolution that the promptitude and frankness with which the President of the United States has met the overtures of the British Government towards a restoration of the ancient state of things between the two countries--the state prior to the memorable non-importation act of 1806--meets the approbation of this House. Either it does, or it does not. If it does, let us say so. If it does not, let us say so. If gentlemen think this House never ought to express an opinion, but leave the President to grope in the dark as to our views, or get them through inofficial channels, I presume the previous question will be taken, or motion made that the resolution lie upon the table. The gentleman from Pennsylvania says, shall we go back, and approve of what he conceives to be similar conduct of the late President of the United States in relation to the embargo? I hope not, sir. But if a majority of this House choose to do so, let them. I shall say no. But, why mingle two subjects together, on which there does exist--and I am afraid it will leak out on this very vote of indefinite postponement--so very material a difference of opinion in different parts of the House? For example: I do not think of the offer about the embargo as the gentlemen from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania think; and I think it probable that those two gentlemen do not think of this proclamation and the construction given to the non-intercourse law, as I think. And why should we make a sort of hotch-potch of two subjects, on which we do not think alike, for the purpose of getting us all united against both? It is an old adage, and a very homely one, perhaps too much so for the delicate ears of this assembly, that if you put one addled egg into a pudding, you may add fresh ones, ad infinitum, but you can never sweeten it. And, sir, I defy the gentleman from Massachusetts, with all his political cookery, by pouring out of the jar of our present situation into the old mess, to sweeten it.

In the year 1806, we passed that miserable old non-importation act, which last session we repealed; and really, sir, we got rid of it with an adroitness which pleased me exceedingly. Never was an obnoxious measure more handsomely smothered by its avowed friends. Gentlemen said it was merged in the non-intercourse act, and therefore, as a matter of indifference, they would repeal it; and when the non-intercourse act shall expire by its own limitation, at the end of this session, or be suspended by the President's proclamation, as it is in relation to Great Britain, there is an end of both; and thus, the old measure, the old, original sin to which we owe our first difficulties, was as much gotten rid of as if a majority of this House had declared it an unwise measure, and therefore repealed it. I do recollect to have heard one gentleman (Mr. EPPES) say, that unless the section repealing this law were stricken out, he should be compelled to vote against the bill. He conjured the House to cling to the old non-importation act as the last vestige and symbol of resistance to British oppression; but the House was deaf to his call, and the non-importation act was plunged beneath the wave, never, I trust, to rise again. When, therefore, the late President of the United States made an offer to Great Britain to suspend the embargo as to her, provided she would withdraw her Orders in Council, I will suppose that she had accepted that offer. In what situation would she have stood in relation to the United States? Her fine cloths, her leather, her watches, her this and her that, would have been prohibited admittance into this country under the old non-importation act of 1806, which would have been in force. That act, in point of fact, had no operation on her adversary. Her ships would have been prohibited the use of our waters, while the ships of war of her enemy were admitted. Did that make no difference? That, sir, would have been the situation of the two countries, provided she had accepted the offer to suspend the embargo as to herself--the old non-importation act in operation, her ships of war excluded, and her rival's admitted. I pray you, was not that the condition of the country when Mr. Rose arrived? Was there not some difficulty, under the proclamation, in the admission of the Statira frigate, bearing that Minister into our waters? And were not French ships of war then, and have they not since been riding quietly at Annapolis, Norfolk, and elsewhere? Has not, in fact, the gallant Captain Decatur taken our own seamen out of one of them? And yet, sir, the offer at that time made by us has been identified with the negotiation between Mr. Secretary Smith and Mr. Erskine. What then was her situation? The non-importation act in force, her ships excluded and those of France admitted, and nothing in force in relation to France except the embargo. What is now the situation of affairs? Trade with her is restored to the same situation, in point of fact, in which it stood when Congress met here in 1805 and 1806--at the memorable first session of the ninth Congress, which generated the old non-importation act of 1806. Her ships of war are admitted into our waters, her trade is freed from embarrassment, while the ships of her adversary are excluded and the trade between us and her adversary forbidden by law. While, therefore, I am ready and willing to approve the conduct of the present Administration, it is not because I conceive that they have effected any thing so very difficult--that they have obtained any such mighty concession--but, because they have done their duty. Yes, sir; we all recollect that the objections made to the treaty negotiated by Mr. Monroe, and Mr. Pinkney, on two great leading accounts: 1st. That it contained no express provision against the impressment of seamen. Is there any provision now made? No, sir. The next objection to the treaty was the note attached to it by Lords Holland and Auckland. What, sir, did gentlemen on this floor say was the purport of this note? That its object was to put us in a state of amity in respect to Great Britain, at the expense of the risk of collision with France. On account of this note, the treaty and the treaty-makers have been politically damned. And yet, we are now, in point of fact, in that very situation, in relation to the two nations, in which it was said that the British Commissioners, by the note, aimed to place us, and which was a sufficient reason, according to the arguments of gentlemen, for rejecting the treaty. The note was a sort of lien, gentlemen said, that would put us in a state of hostility with regard to France, and amity with regard to England. We refused to give our bond, for such it was represented (however unjustly) to be, to be sure, sir; but we have paid the money. We have done the very thing which gentlemen say the note aimed to induce us to do. We have put ourselves in a situation endangering collision with France, and almost insuring amity with England. We have destroyed the old non-importation act. The non-intercourse act is suspended as to her. Trade is again free. There is nothing now to prohibit her ships, whether for commerce or war, from coming into our waters, whilst our trade with France is completely cut off, and her ships excluded from our waters. I cannot too often call the attention of the House to this fact, on which I am compelled to dwell and dilate to get rid of this merciless motion, which kills while it professes to cure. When Mr. Rose came into this country, French ships of war were freely admitted; English ships were excluded.

As "the physician, in spite of himself," says in one of Moliere's best comedies, on a changé tout cela--the thing is wholly reversed. We are likely to be on good terms with England, maugre the best exertions of some of our politicians. Trade with Great Britain is unshackled, her ships are admitted, trade with France is forbidden; and French ships excluded, as far as it can be done by paper. Now, in the name of common sense, what more could Mr. Canning himself want, than to produce this very striking and sudden change in the relations between the two countries? For a long time previous, it was the ships of England that were excluded, while those of her adversaries were admitted. And we know that we could not have touched her in a more jealous point than in her navy. Things are now reversed--we have dexterously shuffled the non-importation act out of the pack, renewed trade with her, admitted her ships, and excluded those of France. And what, I ask this House, has the British Minister given us in requital for this change of our position in relation to him and his rival belligerent? The revocation of the Orders in Council--this is the mighty boon. For, with respect to his offer in relation to satisfaction for the attack on the Chesapeake, he made that offer to Mr. Monroe spontaneously, on the spur of the occasion, and there is not a doubt in my mind but that we had nothing to do but to receive it at that time, provided the instructions of our Minister had permitted him to receive it; but, perchance, sir, if he had received it, we might have been at this day discussing his message, and not the message of another President. All that Mr. Canning has given this country is a reiteration of his offer to make reparation for the affair of the Chesapeake, and his withdrawal of the Orders in Council; and to what did they amount? So soon as you, by your own law, cut off your trade with France, he agrees to revoke the orders interfering with it. Mr. Canning might as well have withdrawn blank paper. They had nothing left to operate upon. The body upon which they were to operate was destroyed by our own act, to wit, the trade of France. And, sir, while I compliment the present state of things, and the conduct on the part of our Government which has led to it, I cannot say that we have greatly overreached Mr. Canning in this bargain, in making an exchange of the old non-importation act with the admission of English, and exclusion of French ships and trade, for the Orders in Council. Mr. Canning obtained as good a bargain out of us as he could have expected to obtain; and those gentlemen who speak of his having heretofore had it in his power to have done the same, did not take into calculation the material difference between the situation in which we now stand, and the situation in which we before stood--to say nothing at all of Great Britain's having taken a stand against the embargo, having declared that she had nothing to offer in exchange for it; that we might keep it as long as we pleased. If she had accepted our offer, as I before stated, the old non-importation law would have been in operation, her ships of war would have been excluded, whilst those of France were admitted. Now, the non-importation act is not in force, her ships are permitted to enter our waters, and those of France excluded. And what has this sarcastic Minister of Great Britain given us in exchange? The Orders in Council, which had completely ceased to operate by the cutting off of the trade between us and France. Let me state this argument in a shape most favorable to ourselves, and least so to the British Government. I speak as to argument; for, as to friendship between nations, there is no friendship in trade. We ought to get the best bargain out of them that we could, and it was the duty of their Minister to get the best out of us. Let us throw out of view the exclusion of French ships and French commerce. Is the removal of the non-importation act, and the admission of British vessels, nothing? What has Mr. Canning given you in return? The Orders in Council--and what were they worth to him? Not a straw.

Mr. HOLLAND said he had no doubt that the President had done his duty in the case referred to in the proposition under consideration; and as he had entertained no doubt but the President would, on this and every other occasion, do his duty, he said he felt no excessive joy on the occasion. It was only an ordinary act of duty well performed, and therefore he was not willing to distinguish it from those numerous acts which he trusted would be, as they had heretofore been performed, by the Executive. Were he the author of the proposition, he should have many scruples as to the propriety of offering such a one. Were the precedent to be set by the passage of this resolution, the House might hereafter witness a struggle on the floor to determine who should be first to come forward with a proposition expressive of approbation. The human mind might be so operated upon that the Executive might feel himself under an obligation to promote the person bringing forward such a motion. I, said Mr. H., would be one of the last to introduce such a motion were I a friend to the President; and if I were not a friend to the President, I would not bring it forward, lest it should be thought that I was courting favor in his eyes. But why, sir, should this House give an expression of approbation of the President? Because, we are told, it may be a guide to him hereafter. Let this House be careful how it acts, and attend to its own duties. The President does not stand in need of this kind of support. I never will step forward as a member of this House, to excite him to his duty by a vote of this kind. I believe he possesses an attachment to his duty sufficient to induce him to perform it. I believe that the voice of the people of the United States is such, in relation to the present and late President, that they believe they were well disposed to do their duty, and that they have done their duty; but it does not follow that we ought to express our approbation as to any particular act. The gentleman himself says that the President has only done his duty. Is it not surprising, then, that we are called upon to give him the approbation of this House? What would be inferred from this procedure? Why, that it is so seldom our Presidents have done their duty, that, in the very first instance in which they have done it, the House of Representatives had discovered and applauded it. If the gentleman thinks so, I wholly disagree with him. If our officers do their duty properly, they will receive the thanks of the nation; and where is the propriety of singling out for approbation or disapprobation this particular act? I see none. It is asked, will you leave the President of the United States to grope in the dark, and not let him know whether he has received our approbation or not? And is the President to judge from the thanks of the House that he has done his duty? How is he to know that they have expressed their sense of his conduct from proper motives? Would he not be right to suspect those who vote for, and more especially those who bring forward such a proposition, of improper motives? He would be left still worse to grope in the dark. It has been said that former Presidents have been deceived in consequence of votes of approbation; and the same would again occur. On every ground I am opposed to the passing such resolutions on principle, and shall therefore vote for indefinite postponement. It was indefinitely postponed.

SATURDAY, May 27.

Sedition Law.

Mr. STANFORD said he had risen to offer a resolution, which he wanted to have offered immediately after that which had been offered by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) and adopted by the House, on the subject of prosecutions for libel at common law; but not being able to get the floor, he would now beg leave to move his by way of instruction to the same committee. That committee, Mr. S. said, had been charged with an inquiry into what prosecutions for libel at common law had been instituted in the courts of the United States, which he hoped the committee would duly make, and lay before the House. Thus the House would see what system of persecution, if any, had been resorted to, and cherished by the late Administration or its friends, in any part of the United States; and he equally hoped some remedy might be devised at this time, the beginning of a new Administration, to obviate any like occurrence in future. But, said Mr. S., let it not be that any thing be done partially. While we are about to bring to our view all the cases of prosecution for libel under the common law, we are not likely to know any thing about prosecutions for libel which had occurred under the sedition law, and that too under a different Administration. We have not authorized any such inquiry. That abuses have occurred under both, is but too probable, and I think it will be liberal, as it is just and fair, to make the inquiry more general on the subject. If any citizen has been oppressed or injured by such prosecutions, let it be known, and let justice be done him; even now, if with propriety any way can be devised to do so. Inquiry, however, is all that is asked for the present.

It may be perceived, said Mr. S., and if not, I wish it should be understood when I speak of justice being done, that I speak with rather peculiar reference to a gentleman of this House, who has been a principal sufferer under the well-known sedition law. I think it never too late to do justice, under whatever circumstances or motives of policy it may have been withheld for a time. I trust no gentleman will, upon this occasion, suspect me of a design to excite any party feelings. It certainly is not my wish, whatever may be the effect. The resolution I am about to offer is not so framed, nor would it necessarily involve the question of the constitutionality of the law. I feel persuaded, therefore, that the different gentlemen of the House may, from a spirit of liberality and fair concession, indulge the inquiry asked for.

But, sir, said he, since the other inquiry has been gone into, it cannot be unfair to say that the majority of the House owe it to themselves to extend the inquiry, as well to cases of prosecution under the sedition law, as to those under the common law; and I shall be permitted to say also, they owe it as well to the feelings and sufferings of the gentleman to whom I have alluded. Whatever may be the aspect of political opinions and parties now, it is known to you, sir, and a few others on this floor, that to him much is due for the present ascendency of the majority; perhaps to no one more, to the extent of his sphere of action and influence. In the famous contested election for President in this House, eight or nine years ago, he gave the vote of a State, which sufficed to decide the contest; and more especially so, if the blank votes of the State of Maryland could have rendered that vote doubtful. But, however such considerations may or may not avail, nothing is more clear to me than that the inquiry should be indulged on the most liberal principles.

Resolved, That the committee, appointed to inquire into what prosecutions for libels at common law have been instituted before the courts of the United States, be instructed to inquire what prosecutions for libels have been instituted before the courts of the United States under the second section of the act entitled "An act in addition to an act, entitled 'An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,'" passed the 14th day of July, 1798, and the expediency of remunerating the sufferers under such prosecutions.

Mr. SAWYER moved to amend the resolution by adding, at the end of it, the words "and that the committee also inquire whether any and what private compensation has been made to such suffering persons."

Mr. MACON said he did not know how the committee could go about to make such an inquiry as that contemplated by the amendment. The gentleman must be well satisfied that the Government could not rightfully inquire into transactions between individuals.

Mr. DANA said that he had no particular objection to meet this inquiry. As to the disclosure of facts as to the reimbursement by individual contribution, it might be amusing, if this House had authority to make it. He said he should like to know who contributed to the relief of James Thompson Callender, when he was prosecuted; but he had some doubt whether it was proper to enter into any inquiry or whether it was proper to pass the resolution pointing to the remuneration of sufferers under the sedition law. He should have supposed that it might be proper to leave it at large for the committee to report. He said he had certainly no objection to inquire, though he conceived that prosecutions at common law and under the sedition law were essentially different; because, supposing the Congress of the United States to pass such a law, the courts of the United States might take cognizance of it; but, without such a law, it did not belong to the judiciary to extend its care to the protection of the Government from slander. Such was the decision of Judge Chase, (said Mr. D.,) who decided that the court had no jurisdiction at common law in suits for libel; and the Supreme Court of the United States never did decide the question. The strong contrast is this: that while there was a description of men who said that no prosecution could be had at common law for libel, nor under the statute which modified the common law so as to allow the truth to be given in evidence--who, while they excited indignation against this statute, should afterwards undertake to institute prosecutions at common law where there was no limitation in favor of the defendant. There is this difference in the cases: that we find practice precisely different from professions. I do not say that the heads of departments were instrumental in instituting these prosecutions; but it marks some of the subordinate men who were active in making professions. I am very willing that the proposed inquiry should be made; but I cannot see the propriety of our undertaking to give any opinion as to remunerating those who suffered.

Mr. STANFORD said:--Mr. Speaker, I would ask if my colleague's motion of amendment can be in order? It is no concern of this House, or of the Government, what private contributions may have been made to the gentleman from Kentucky; and, if it was, the inquiry is impossible. [The SPEAKER said, not being able to enter into the views of the mover of the amendment, he considered the motion in order.] Then, said Mr. S., if my colleague is anxious to know what he could not otherwise know, I will tell him I had contributed a small sum to the gentleman from Kentucky, as a sufferer in what was then considered a common cause; but, upon his return to his seat in the House, he could not brook the idea of such a contribution, and returned the amount to myself I know, and to others I believe. My colleague would do well to tell us how much he contributed. It was well known contributions were made in a quarter not far from him; and if he did not, I am well persuaded it was not for the want of sympathy on his part, or extreme zeal in the democratic cause; for I am confident I have seen as much or more seditious matter from under his pen, than I ever saw from under that of the gentleman from Kentucky. Be that, however, as it may, I am for one willing, if no constitutional difficulty can be shown, to remunerate the sufferers--at least to take such money out of the treasury, and restore it to its original, rightful owners; and if it cannot be consistently done, why the inquiry can do no harm. But, indeed, we have great examples in the case before us. Did not the late President, when he came into place, refuse to let such money come into the treasury in the case of the worthless Callender? As the proper authority, he thrust it from him as unworthy the coffers of his country; and did not his doing so meet general approbation? I confess it met mine most cordially, and I believe it did that of my colleague also. Have we not, moreover, the best recorded proof that the present President holds similar opinions on this subject? His splendid opposition to the sedition law is the proof to which I allude, and is, in my mind, conclusive on this subject. But if it were not, where is the impropriety of an inquiry? The House will be better able to decide when the whole matter shall come fairly before them.

Mr. QUINCY said this appeared to be a proposition to aid a single individual; and, by the amendment, gentlemen who had aided that individual were anxious to prevent him from gaining more than he had paid. It was a kind of application to the House to repay to those persons who relieved the sufferers under the sedition act, the sums which they had paid. If this were the object, Mr. Q. suggested whether it would not be proper for them to come forward and lay their claim in the ordinary form before the House.

Mr. SAWYER said he was, as he always had been, willing to contribute his mite to the relief of the sufferers; but he did not wish to see them remunerated from the public treasury.

Mr. LYON.--I have for some time been in suspense whether I ought, or ought not to make any observations on the subject before the House; delicacy on the one hand bids me be silent, while a duty I owe to myself, to my family, and to the nation, requires (that since my particular case has been alluded to) the members of this House and the public should be made acquainted with many of the circumstances of that case, which have either never come to their knowledge, or have long been buried up among the consumed heap of political occurrences, disputations and publications of these days. Besides, sir, I have it in my power to throw much light on the subject of the inquiry wished for, by the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. SAWYER,) who has proposed the amendment under consideration, and I will assure the gentleman that I shall not be backward in doing so. It is true, sir, that I was unjustly condemned to pay a fine of one thousand dollars and to suffer an ignominious imprisonment of four months in a loathsome dungeon--the common receptacle of felons, runaway negroes, or the vilest malefactors--and this when I was the Representative of the people of Vermont in this House of Congress. It cannot be said there was no other room in the prison, there were rooms enough; yes, sir, one of my judges during my imprisonment, found another room in the same jail to be imprisoned for debt in, until he gave bonds for the liberty of the yard. To heighten the picture exhibited by official tyranny, and to add to the cruel vexation of this transaction, I was carried out of the county in which I lived, fifty miles from my family, kept six weeks without fire in the months of October and November, nearly the whole of which time the northwest wind had free admittance into the dungeon, through the same aperture that admitted the light of heaven into that dreary cell. And let it be asked, in these days of the mild reign of republicanism, for what crime was all this extraordinary, this ignominious punishment inflicted?

I hold a copy of the indictment in my hand, which includes the charge against me. I will not trouble the House with a recital of the technical jargon and tedious repetition of words, of course, which constitute the bulk of such instruments. No, sir, but I will read the identical words of the charge, which says, that on the 20th of June, 1798, Matthew Lyon wrote a letter to Alden Spooner of Windsor, Vermont, in which he said, "as to the Executive, when I shall see the efforts of that power bent on the promotion of the comfort, the happiness, and accommodation of the people, that Executive shall have my zealous and uniform support. But whenever I shall, on the part of the Executive, see every consideration of the public welfare swallowed up in a continual grasp for power, in an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice--when I shall behold men of real merit daily turned out of office for no other cause but independence of sentiment--when I shall see men of firmness, merit, years, abilities, and experience, discarded in their application for offices for fear they possess that independence; and men of meanness preferred for the ease with which they take up and advocate opinions the consequence of which they know but little of--when I shall see the sacred name of religion employed as a state engine to make mankind hate and persecute one another, I shall not be their humble advocate."

This is the whole of my crime, and what do those words amount to. Who is here that hears these words, but what approves the sentiment they contain? What do I say in these words, other, or more, or less, than that when the Executive is doing right, I will support him--when doing wrong I will not be his humble advocate? This ought to be the creed of every member who enters these walls. Was there to be an oath or abjuration added to the constitutional oath to be taken by the members of this House, can any person who hears me, devise a better, or one more proper? Could any person who really thought Mr. Adams quite clear from all those improprieties, as merely possible from the nature of man, mentioned in my letter, have thought of my libelling the President by this declaration? I presume not, sir. Yet this, my crime, received one of the condemnations which you are called upon by this motion to constitute an inquiry into--an inquiry I cannot persuade myself will be refused. The letter, sir, was an answer to a violent invective against me, published in the same paper a short time before, in which besides a number of other charges against me, it was imputed to me as a crime that I acted in opposition to the Executive.

I did not begin the altercation. A person who was a friend to the Adams Administration, in the act of libelling me, (one of the constituted authorities,) ushered the Executive into his performance. My character, ever dearer to me than life, was concerned. I deigned to answer him, after expostulating with him on my right as one of the constituted authorities of the nation to exercise my own judgment in my official conduct, and showing that my merely differing with the Executive proved no more than that the Executive differed with me. I incidentally proceeded in the words for which I was indicted, the very words I just now read. I was charged with neither more nor less as coming from my pen. As if to outrage every principle of law and every sentiment of decency and propriety, this indictment, founded on the sedition law passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, charges me with having in Philadelphia on the 20th of June prior, written a letter to Alden Spooner of Vermont, which contained those words I have been reciting. My letter was produced in court and carried the Philadelphia post-mark of some day in the same June, I do not recollect which day; Judge Patterson himself admitted this fact, and that it was out of my power and control in the June before the sedition law was passed. Thus the indictment, which was the foundation of the barbarous treatment I received, carried on its front its own condemnation; but this defect was remedied by the ingenuity of the party judge, who dexterously mingled his assertions that the crime was cognizable under the common law, with his admonitions to a pliant jury not to be deterred from finding a verdict where the man who wrote was a member of Congress, and knew the sedition law was about to be passed, and probably hurried his letter to evade the law.

It may be said, sir, that I was charged in the indictment with publishing a copy of a letter, from an American diplomatic character in France, to a member of Congress, commonly called the Barlow letter. I was so, and there was a third count in the indictment for aiding and abetting in the publication of said letter. The words selected as seditious were as follow: "The misunderstanding between the two governments has become extremely alarming: confidence is completely destroyed; mistrust, jealousy, and a wrong attribution of motives, are so apparent as to require the utmost caution in every word and action that are to come from your Executive; I mean if your object is to avoid hostilities. Had this truth been understood with you before the recall of Monroe, before the coming and the second coming of Pinkney, had it guided the pens that wrote the bullying speech of your President, and the stupid answer of your Senate, in November last, I should probably have had no occasion to address you this letter; but when we found him borrowing the language of Edmund Burke, and telling the world that although he should succeed in treating with the French, there was no dependence to be placed on their engagements; that their religion or morality was at an end, and they had turned pirates and plunderers; and it would be necessary to be perpetually armed against them, though you were at peace, we wondered that the answer of both Houses had not been an order to send him to a madhouse! Instead of this, the Senate have echoed his speech with more servility than ever George the Third experienced from either house of Parliament." No proof appeared on the trial of my printing, or aiding or abetting in printing, or circulating a printed copy of this famous letter. I had read the copy of the letter in company, but the advocates of the sedition law would never admit that such reading was punishable by that law. The printer who printed the letter, swore that he had been anxious to get the letter from me, and that I had refused to suffer it to be printed, and repelled every attempt to persuade me to the printing; that he had obtained the copy of the letter in my absence. The fact was, that my wife was persuaded by a gentleman who is now a member of this House, that the Republican cause and my election (which was pending) would be injured if the letter was not published; and, as I understood, she gave it to him, the letter was printed, and that gentleman had some of the copies before I came home. I suppressed the remainder of the edition. The judge, finding no proof to support this part of the charge, directed the jury to find a verdict of guilty generally, as there could be no doubt of my being guilty on the first count. I had acknowledged my having written the letter to Alden Spooner. They did so. I will not detain the House by going into a detail of the manner in which that jury was packed. After all the care and management in the original selection, there was one man on it whose honesty my persecutors feared; and, to get him off, a wretch falsely swore that the summoned juryman had expressed to him something like an opinion that I could not be found guilty. I will not here dwell upon the judge's denial to me of a challenge upon the jury--as great a crime as any Judge Chase was charged with. I look for an investigation of this business when all the features of it shall come fairly to public view. Should that investigation be refused at this time, I shall not fail to look for it at some future time. I can never forgive the unjust stigma that has been placed on my character; and should justice be refused me during my whole life, I will leave it with my children and theirs to seek it. When my enemies wounded my feelings, robbed me of my property, and affected temporarily my reputation, I consoled myself that my friends would soon be in power, and they would make every thing right. My wounded honor would be consoled; the wound would be healed--a share at least of the property of which I had been deprived, would be reimbursed. How cruelly have I been thus far disappointed! Generous men, at the time I suffered, said it is enough for you to bear the mortification of the temporary insult--we will share with you the loss of property. Under this impression much money was collected, the greater part of which went to relieve oppressed Republican printers--it has all been charged to me. I never asked, nor would I have received a cent of this gratuity, could I have avoided it without insulting the benevolent views of the good man (Gen. Stevens Thompson Mason, deceased) who set the subscription on foot. That good man gave me a list of those to whom he considered me beholden, and the amount; while the thing was fresh in every one's mind I made a compliment, which he considered ample, and more than ample, to every one of those on that list that was within my reach; to those few that remain on that list uncompensated, I feel beholden and much indebted. As the thing has grown old, and as I have come in contact with those gentlemen, I have felt myself in an embarrassed, awkward situation, from which I wished to be relieved by being able to say to them, the public have restored your money--here it is--it is yours, not mine. Judging other men to have feelings like myself, I am at a loss how to get rid of the obligation I feel, in any other way than the restoration of their money when it comes in a way they cannot refuse it. From this source my anxiety for the restoration of the money unjustly taken from me, arises more than any other; and on every review of the subject, I am bound to say that I have been more cruelly treated by the neglect of a duty to which my friends had pledged themselves, when they declared me innocent and patriotic, than by enemies who thought me guilty, and found me goading them in their progress toward the destruction of the liberty and republicanism of this country. As if to make their cruelty more insupportable, insult is added to the injury, by daily insinuations that I am bound by gratitude to stand by those who call themselves Republicans, in all their projects, right or wrong. Before I was elected a member of Congress from the State of Kentucky, I sent to a member of this House, who had promised me to bring it forward, a petition to be laid before the House of Representatives for redress in this case. He returned the petition to my son in a letter, which I have in my hand--in which he says, "I am sorry and ashamed that I have not presented the petition. I have not wrote to your father, and confess I am ashamed; pray you, the first time you write to Colonel Lyon, do endeavor to make an excuse for me." Such I believe was the impression of most of those I had acted with in the reign of terror, as we called it; but that impression has been wearing off, it seems, while my feelings have been every day increasing in their poignancy at their neglect of a duty, to which they had solemnly pledged themselves, while they were struggling with their adversaries for pre-eminence and power. Happily the awful silence which surrounded this extraordinary business has been broken. I consider this a prelude to investigation and a correct issue; and, let the event of the vote now about to be taken be what it may, I shall not despair.

I shall at this time say no more on this subject than to declare I wish not to have my case singled out for reparation. I wish the investigation general; the provision for remuneration general, to all who suffered under the lash of that unconstitutional sedition law.

Mr. SAWYER'S amendment was negatived without a division.

Mr. ROSS rose to propose another amendment to the resolution. It was a fact, he said, well known in almost every part of the United States, that the people in the district from which he had just been returned, had suffered as much in the cause of democracy as that of any other; that they had presented as firm a barrier to Federal oppression, and perhaps had as just claims as any other people in the United States to remuneration for losses in the cause. It was well known that at the time that high-handed measures were taken in this country, an insurrection had taken place in Pennsylvania, commonly known by the name of the Hot-water Insurrection; that it occurred in consequence of the oppression of the law for the collection of a direct tax. Many persons who had opposed the law, under the idea of its being unconstitutional, were prosecuted, punished, and some of them, in consequence of those prosecutions and the sentence resulting from them, expired in prison. To some who remained after the aspect of the affairs of the country was changed, mercy was extended by the United States; but to those whose prosecutions and convictions were of an earlier date, lenity was not extended; they were compelled to pay their fines before they could be relieved from imprisonment. Mr. R. declared his object in rising to be, to move to amend the resolution in such a way as to instruct the committee to inquire whether any, and if any, what compensation and remuneration should be made to the persons who suffered and were punished in consequence of an act to lay and collect a direct tax in the United States.

Mr. DANA said the gentleman's amendment contemplated remunerating those who suffered by their opposition to a statute. He would propose an amendment to inquire into the propriety of remunerating those who had suffered by their submission (not by their opposition) to the several acts respecting the embargo, certainly so much more meritorious conduct than that of opposition. As respected the whole of this subject, he said he was very free to declare that as regarded those who had been prosecuted at common law in the State of Connecticut, who had certainly been at very considerable expense, their defence perhaps having cost them several thousand dollars, yet, on the principle of correct legislation, he had not the least idea of remunerating them. Where shall we stop, said Mr. D., if we tread back on the steps of each other? We shall have opportunity enough for censure in reviewing our conduct. Perhaps it might be as well to draw the veil of oblivion over past transactions, and learn from experience to err no more.

Mr. JOHNSON said, that however much the act laying a direct tax was disapproved, and arose from measures which were improper, yet he had never deemed it an unconstitutional law, as he had the sedition law. He should therefore vote against the amendment and for the resolution.

Mr. GARDENIER suggested to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, since he had brought the subject before the House, the propriety of going the whole length of his principle. To my mind it is very clear, said he, that if those who oppose the law are to be remunerated, for what it cost them in consequence of prosecution, you must go only on the principle that the direct tax never ought to have been laid at all. If the law was right, it was improper to oppose it. If it was improper, perhaps according to modern democracy, it might be proper to oppose it by force. That, to my mind, is a very dangerous doctrine for legislators to broach; it is a doctrine to which I myself can never agree, for it is making Government a nullity. The suggestion which I wish to make is this: that if those men who suffered in the Hot-water Insurrection are to be remunerated, it is no more than fair that those should be remunerated who have quietly paid this tax. They were at least respectful to the laws. The committee therefore ought to be instructed to inquire into the propriety of repaying to the several contributors in the various States the direct tax, collected from them, unless there be something so admirable, so lovely, so worthy of encouragement in insurrection, that those concerned in it have peculiar claims to encouragement by Government. If that be the case, the gentleman stopped at the proper point. If there was nothing in insurrection, however, which the Legislature would feel it proper to cherish, the gentleman should either go the whole length of his principle or not touch it at all.

Mr. ROSS said he had not undertaken to state any principle at all. His object was to refer the subject to a committee to decide upon. He had not said that he considered the original resolution to contain a correct principle; it was a point left for the committee to consider and for the House to determine on. But if it was a correct principle that those who suffered under the sedition law should be remunerated, he said he had no hesitation in saying that his constituents, who had suffered as materially and as much as any for the democratic interest in this country, should be placed on the same ground as those who were asking for the favor of the House for no better reason; and when the gentleman calls upon me, said Mr. R., to go the whole length of a principle which he states, it is calling upon me to do that which is consequent on a principle which I have not assumed. The gentleman from Kentucky conceives that there is a difference between the cases alluded to in my amendment and the cases arising under the sedition law. Where is the difference, sir? In both cases they were laws of the United States: in both cases the judges of the courts of the United States were authorized to proceed. In neither of the cases did they decide the law unconstitutional. If, then, persons were punished by the sedition law in its full operation, carried into effect by the constituted authorities, where, I ask, is the distinction between that and any other law? To all the purposes of legality, that law is as much legal as that under which the direct tax was instituted. Whether the law under which a direct tax was collected, was constitutional or not, has it not as equally received the disapprobation of the Republicans of the United States as the sedition law? If then it was the object of the democratic party to rid the country of such a law as much as of the sedition law, I ask whether those who suffered under each law have not equal claims? There can be no legal claim upon the House under either law; but we know that it was the hardy yeomanry who presented a firm phalanx to the irresistible torrent of injurious laws of the Federal Administration, and who gave the present party the ascendency, and many of them have not, as the gentleman from Kentucky has been, compensated for their suffering by a long continuance in an honorable and lucrative office which he enjoys by the confidence of his constituents.

Mr. POTTER declared himself at a loss to know whether the House was sitting here as a branch of the Legislature to pass laws, or as a body to remunerate those concerned in the violation of them. The House sit here to make laws and not to encourage those who resisted them; but if they determined to give premiums for the violations of laws, they had better depart home at once.

Mr. RHEA wished the House to get rid of this motion and the amendment as speedily as possible. If the House were to go on as it had commenced the session, the whole time of the House would be spent about nothing, discussing propositions which could not possibly produce good to the nation. He therefore moved to postpone the whole subject indefinitely.

Mr. MACON said he had been in hopes when this motion had been made, that it would be one of the happy days of the House; that the question proposed would occupy the whole day in debate, and that all would agree in it at last. As to comparing this case with that of the direct tax, it was notorious that the discussion on the sedition law and the public opinion also took a very different turn from that which it took on any other law. The whole discussion (said Mr. M.) as well as I recollect, turned upon the constitutionality of the law. Then, if it is still believed that the law was unconstitutional, I leave it to gentlemen to say whether it can be viewed in the same light as a law, the constitutionality of which is not disputed. In the one case, trials took place for speaking and writing; in the other case for opposing the execution of a law. I wish this question to be settled for this reason: In all governments where liberty and freedom have existed, parties also have had existence. Thinking honestly produces parties. That those gentlemen who were in power when the sedition law was passed, should step a little too far, was not so much to be wondered at as that those who came after them should do so; because they were making the first experiment of the instrument. I then believed, and do still believe, that the law was unconstitutional. Taking up this question, the original resolution of my colleague is that remuneration should be made to those people who suffered under it; but seeing that the question with respect to the constitutionality of the law had always been matter of dispute, it proposes that a committee shall inquire into the subject. The House is no farther committed by passing this resolution, than to consent to the inquiry being made. I submit it to the candor and reflection of gentlemen of all parties, whether this thing, in a national point of view, can produce any evil--on the contrary, may it not produce good? All that has been said about the direct tax laws can have no other effect than to draw off the attention of the House from the true question before them. The question on this law, in my mind, is a different one from any other law which has been passed. I feel no hesitation in acknowledging that it is my opinion that all the sufferers ought to be remunerated, both those who suffered under the sedition law, and those who suffered under the common law. It is the business of all parties to settle amicably as they can any subject of contention between persons of different political persuasions. If this first resolution should be referred to a committee, and they report that the law was unconstitutional, I will venture to pronounce that no majority will ever again make a law of that kind. If, sir, the sufferers under the sedition law did suffer contrary to the constitution, ought not their expenses to be reimbursed? On the subject of contribution, I know that that party to which I was attached, did contribute, and did consider it an honorable cause. I was willing (and there are gentlemen in this House who know it) to open my purse when a man of a very different political creed from myself, Peter Porcupine, was oppressed. I care not of what party a man be, that is oppressed. I can prove that the party opposed to me in politics have also subscribed. It is all no more than the subscriptions for printing speeches which are occasionally made in the House, in which gentlemen of all parties unite. Suppose that the whole fine in any particular case had been paid by individual subscription, what has the Government to do with that? Will it be contended, because an old soldier who received a pension also received individual contributions, that the pension should be taken from him, or that the Government is thereby acquitted of what it owed him? Surely not; the Government has nothing to do with transactions between individuals. As to the particular gentleman brought into this discussion, I believe that every man that contributed any thing towards paying the fine levied on him, was remunerated to his satisfaction. I have thought proper to state these opinions of mine, and to avow myself in favor of reimbursing the sufferers. But before I sit down, I must say that my opinion of modern democracy is very different from that of the gentleman from New York. I consider it as neither leading to insurrection, rebellion, nor any such thing. I believe that the true principle of every modern democrat, is, that the law constitutionally made is supreme, and is to be obeyed; that it has nothing to do with riots, rebellion, and insurrection. I know very well, and shall not deny it, that there are times when insurrection is a holy thing, but it is not peculiarly attributable to democracy. With us, election puts every thing to rights; and on them every man of pure democratic principles depends. It is doubtful whether the question of the constitutionality of the sedition law can be settled in a more easy way, and in a mode less liable to irritation, than that proposed by my colleague. If the committee report as I wish, it is well; if not, it settles the question forever; and it is surely desirable that the question should be settled. However gentlemen may differ, as to the principle proposed to be investigated, they might with propriety vote for the inquiry, as it is the ordinary course of every day. I do not consider this as proposing to give a premium to violators of the laws. I know that much depends in this world on names; and that if you give any man or thing a bad name, whether merited or not, it is difficult to get rid of it. I hope the House will not be deterred from this inquiry by any name attempted to be given to it. It is proper that this question should be settled; and if considered now, it will be settled by a body which did not partake of the heats of those times, and when, to say the least of it, there is a little division in the great parties of the nation; and it seems to me that the gentleman who moved it has been fortunate in the selection of his time. Eight years have elapsed, a new President is just inducted, and the question is now brought up for our decision. I am sorry that any member of this House should make a motion with no other view but for procrastination. I do not believe that my colleague who made this motion is more in the habit of procrastinating the public business than other members of the House; and I was in hopes that there would have been no dissentient voice to his motion. He only asks of you to let the inquiry be made. He does not ask a single member of the House to commit himself upon the question, but merely asks that a committee may be permitted to inquire into it; and this, it seems to me, is no extraordinary request. I hope that the resolution, without being trammelled with any extraneous matter, will be passed.

Mr. KEY said he should vote for indefinite postponement of the resolution. What good purpose could its adoption answer, unless the House had the power to take money from the Treasury of the United States for the purpose of remunerating any person who had suffered? Had Congress that power? He apprehended not. He could see no such power amongst those delegated to Congress. The gentleman from North Carolina admitted the House were under no obligation to remunerate the sufferers; and if the gentleman would turn to the rules laid down for the definition of the powers of Congress, he would see that there was no authority to draw money from the Treasury for this purpose. Under that view of the constitution, Mr. K. said he must vote for indefinite postponement.

Mr. MACON asked under what clause of the constitution Captain Murray and others had been remunerated? Under what clause money paid into the Treasury had been returned in various instances? The right to take, gave the right to return that which was taken. In many instances this principle had been practised on. There was no law to authorize the punishment of a man for robbing the mail; but it was derived from the power of establishing post roads. The power of refunding money was one which had been often exercised.

Mr. GARDENIER was in favor of an inquiry. It was not only proper that an inquiry should be made, but it was the bounden duty of the House to make it. A member of the House in his place had stated facts which if true undoubtedly entitled him to their interference. Our duty (said Mr. G.) is imperative. The case of the gentleman does not rest upon the question whether the sedition law was constitutional or unconstitutional, but upon the fact that he was not a proper object for the exercise of that law. For, if the statement made be correct, he was punished for uttering a creed which would not be improper for every member of the House; and I will say that subsequent events have shown the sincerity with which the gentleman did make it; that he had kept his promise most religiously; that it was not applicable to those men, or that time, any more than to the present, but was a creed on which he practised before and ever since, so far as his political course is known to me. It is a case in which the privileges of the members of this House are materially concerned. If under the sedition law for a letter written by a member of this House to his constituents, giving his view of public measures, he has been punished, it concerns the safety of this House that complete and perfect remuneration should be made. It is as important that every member should be permitted to speak freely to his constituents, as that he should without restraint address the Chair of the House. It was a case, therefore, which never ought to have been the subject of a judicial investigation, much less considered as a crime. The gentleman at the time followed the dictates of his conscience. To his conscience and his God alone should he be responsible. Sir, should we refuse an inquiry into this case, when we know that the fine of James Thompson Callender, for one of the most atrocious libels ever written in the United States, was remitted? When we know that it was remitted by the President of the United States, after the money had been received by the proper receiving officer of the United States, when it had passed out of the hands of James Thompson Callender into the hands of the officer of Government, and was, to all intents and purposes, in the Treasury of the United States, because there is no such thing as a treasury in which money is actually deposited--for a libel, too, in which the great Father of his Country was treated with a shameless indignity, which could not but have gone to the heart of every man? When the President of the United States was in that libel called a hoary-headed incendiary, should that fine be returned, and shall a gentleman in this House be fined and imprisoned for that which was not even improper? Shall we not restore to him that which others have been suffered to retain, and for which we have not brought to question him who restored it after it was in possession of the receiving officer of the United States--in fact, after it was in the Treasury? Let us not be guilty of this inconsistency. If the sedition law has gone to the tomb of the Capulets, and I believe it has, I am not one who wishes to bear up against the people's voice; the Government is theirs, and when they speak we obey. If under that law the Government has received money for an act which really, if the statement of the gentleman be true, could scarcely be considered an offence within the purview of that law, will you not give it back to him? Either give back the money in the case, or take measures to recover that money which was given back in the other. I am not for making fish of one and flesh of another. Whilst on this subject I will declare that I never did consider the sedition law as unconstitutional. Congress were competent to pass it. But, that parties will sometimes in the ardor of their course exceed the limits of discretion, and do violence to the milder feeling of the community in which they live, has been proved in the Adams Administration, and in that which has lately disappeared; and when they have cooled down, it is but rendering justice to the sense of the country to acknowledge their errors. No, sir, I am satisfied that all prosecutions for libels on the Government should be at least very hesitatingly sustained. You cannot draw a precise line by which you shall limit the right of investigation. The two things are so blended together that you cannot separate them. You must either make the Government supreme or the people supreme. I am for the latter. As Dr. Johnson makes Lord Chesterfield say, liberty and licentiousness are blended like the colors in the rainbow; it is impossible to tell where one ends and the other begins. Licentiousness is a speck on the eye of the political body, which you can never touch without injuring the eye itself. I hope and trust that with this investigation will be connected an inquiry into the prosecutions at common law in Connecticut. I have seen in the State of New York, but not under the present Administration, a defendant coming into court, begging only to be permitted to prove that what he had said was true; I have seen also an Attorney-General rise to prevent it: I have seen the truth smothered on the trial by men who were as clamorous against the sedition law as any loud-mouthed patriot in the country. I have seen them bringing almost to the block the victim who may only wish to prove the truth of what he said--which was denied him. I mention this to show that where parties are contending against each other, where there is a majority on one hand and a minority on the other, that which appears on paper proper for the protection of the Government, turns out to be for the oppression of the minority. In the nature of parties it cannot be otherwise. Therefore, in my opinion, the Government of the United States cannot render a greater service than by declaring it will not be accessary to any diminution of the rights of the citizen; that free investigation shall in all cases be permitted. Mr. G. made some further observations on the particular case of Mr. LYON, and concluded by expressing his hope that the resolution would pass.

The question that the resolution be postponed indefinitely, was decided by yeas and nays--yeas 69, nays 50.

MONDAY, May 29.

Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, ORCHARD COOK; and from Pennsylvania, BENJAMIN SAY and JOHN SMILIE, appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats.

WEDNESDAY, May 31.

JULIAN POYDRAS appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat, as the Delegate for the Territory of Orleans.

Mr. MCKIM presented a petition of thirty-five American citizens confined at Carthagena, in South America, under sentence of slavery, stating that, through means of falsehood and deception, they were induced to engage in the unlawful expedition of Miranda, fitted out from the city of New York, in the year one thousand eight hundred and six, and that they were captured by the Spaniards, and condemned to slavery, and praying that Congress will take their distressing case into consideration, and effect their release and return to their native country.--Referred to Mr. MCKIM, Mr. SAY, Mr. EMOTT, Mr. ROANE, and Mr. COCHRAN, to examine the matter thereof, and report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the House.

MONDAY, June 5.

Two other members, to wit: EZEKIEL WHITMAN, from Massachusetts, and RICHARD WYNN, from South Carolina, appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats in the House.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate, having been informed of the death of the Honorable FRANCIS MALBONE, one of the Senators from the State of Rhode Island, have directed the same to be communicated to this House.

On motion of Mr. POTTER,

Resolved, unanimously, That this House will attend the funeral of FRANCIS MALBONE, Esquire, late a member of the Senate of the United States.

Resolved, unanimously, That this House do wear mourning on the left arm for the space of one month, in testimony of their respect for the memory of the deceased.

TUESDAY, June 6.

Another member, to wit, WILSON C. NICHOLAS, from Virginia, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

WEDNESDAY, June 7.

Another member, to wit, ERASTUS ROOT, from New York, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

FRIDAY, June 9.

Another member, to wit, NICHOLAS VAN DYKE, from Delaware, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

MONDAY, June 12.

Mississippi Territory.

The SPEAKER presented a petition enclosed to him from a number of inhabitants of the district east of Pearl river, in the Mississippi Territory, praying for the division of the Territory.

Mr. POINDEXTER moved that the petition lie on the table. It would perhaps be disrespectful to the petitioners to reject it, although its contents would merit that course. There were three parties who must, by the ordinance for the government of the Territory, consent before the Territory of the Mississippi could be divided. One party was the Mississippi Territory, the other the State of Georgia, and the third the United States. Neither of these parties had consented. There was, therefore, an absolute interdiction to all legislation on the subject; and the House could, with as much propriety, refer a petition from a State to be exempt from general taxation, or to recede from the Union, as to refer this petition.

Mr. BURWELL said he felt himself bound to oppose the motion for its lying on the table. If the request was wholly improper, the report of a committee to that effect would settle the question at once.

Mr. BIBB was in favor of the motion; though, had a motion been made to reject it, he should have voted against it.

Mr. MACON was in favor of a reference of the petition. No harm could arise from an inquiry into it.

Mr. TROUP admitted the correctness of the remarks of the delegate from the Territory, but wished the petition to be referred to a committee for the purpose of an inquiry as well into the amount of population in that country as into its quality; whether it was lawful or unlawful. There were certain facts connected with this subject, perhaps not generally known to the House. In the course of last year, he had understood that a great many persons, amounting to perhaps three or four thousand, had crossed the Tennessee river, and fixed themselves on its banks, not only contrary to law, but the impression was that they had set out in defiance of the law, and had even gone so far as to organize themselves into military associations for the purpose.

Mr. POINDEXTER observed that there had been a settlement contrary to the existing law on Tennessee near about a year ago; but that they were ordered to be driven off by the military force, except they would take permission to reside as tenants at will. Some had done so, and some had been driven off.

Mr. TROUP said he knew that orders had been given to remove them, but of their removal and dispersion he had not heard. He said he had further understood that there were, in the county of Madison alone, two or three thousand intruders, and many of them settled on Indian lands, whose owners they excited to hostilities. There was another fact, of which the House might keep possession. Among these intruders was one of the name of Harrison, he believed, who claimed under what was called the Tennessee Yazoo claims, and who settled on the land with his retainers, and deliberately began to apportion it among them. Whether he had been dispossessed, Mr. T. said he did not know. It was absolutely necessary to ascertain the situation of that country, and therefore he should vote for the reference of the petition to a committee.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table--67 to 27.

TUESDAY, June 13.

Miranda's Exhibition.

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the following resolution, reported by the committee appointed to consider the petition of thirty-six citizens concerned in Miranda's expedition, and now confined in the vaults of Carthagena, South America:

"Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to adopt the most immediate and efficacious means in his power to obtain the liberation of the prisoners, if it shall appear to his satisfaction that they were involuntarily drawn into the unlawful enterprise in which they were engaged; and that ---- dollars be appropriated for that purpose."

Mr. MCKIM observed, that he believed nothing further would be necessary for the attainment of this object than an application by the Government of the United States; he then moved to fill the blank in the resolution with such a sum ($3,500) as would defray the expense of sending a vessel there and clothing the prisoners previous to their return.

Mr. RANDOLPH said he believed there would be no better time than on this motion to express the disapprobation which he felt of the report; for he was unwilling in his representative capacity, to give one cent of the public money for bringing back into the bosom of the body politic these unfortunate but guilty men. He knew how invidious a task it was to appear to lean to the side of inhumanity; he knew how very natural it was for the mind of man to relent after the commission of a crime, and to see nothing in a culprit but his misfortunes, forgetting his guilt; but there were occasions, and he took this to be one, where to lean apparently to the side of humanity is an act of as great injustice and cruelty to society as the Legislature can commit. What were the House about to do? To make an appropriation of money for an extraordinary purpose of foreign intercourse. Was not the President of the United States already invested with power to negotiate with the Spanish Government on this, as well as with any other Government on any subject? Was the President of the United States presumed to have turned a deaf ear to the cries of our suffering countrymen in captivity in a foreign nation? Mr. R. said this was not like a question of redeeming our countrymen from slavery in Barbary or Tripoli; but it was a question whether this Government would lend its countenance to that class of men who were concerned in the expeditions of Miranda and Aaron Burr. He for one said, that he would not consent to it; and that those persons who, above the dull pursuits of civil life, had enlisted under these leaders, might take for him, however he might feel for their situation as men, the lot which they themselves had selected. He said he considered them as voluntarily expatriated from this country, and among the articles of commerce and manufacture, which it might be contemplated to encourage by bounty and premiums, he confessed for one, that the importation of such citizens as these was not an article of traffic which would meet with any encouragement from him. So far from being afraid of any ill consequences resulting from the sparseness of our population, he was afraid that our population, (and experience has tested the fact,) sparse as it was in number, in quality was redundant. We have been told, said Mr. R., and I believe it, that but the other day the Foreign Office in Great Britain cast its eyes on Colonel Burr, and that they either did commit him--I understand that he was committed and stood so for some time, and was only released on condition of quitting the country--that they either did commit or threaten to imprison that unfortunate man. I want to know, sir, if he had stood so committed, in what respect his case, in a political point of view, would have stood contradistinguished from that of these petitioners? I can see no difference but such as, in my mind, would have operated to his advantage. There is an equality of guilt, but on his part a superiority of intellectual character which would have rendered him, if there is to be an accession to the State by bringing back to its bosom those who have voluntarily thrown themselves out of the protection of the country, a more valuable acquisition, or rather a less valuable loss, than these unfortunate men.

It appears to me, sir, that in passing this resolution we shall hold up a premium to vice; for, if this proposition be agreed to, when some new Miranda or Burr comes forward with his project, he will tell his conspirators that they will have nothing more to do, should the matter turn out adversely, than to put up a face and tell Congress that they were involuntarily drawn into it. An extraordinary mode, to be sure, of volunteering to go against their will. These involuntary volunteers will be told they will have nothing to do but throw the whole weight of the blame on the original mover of the expedition, and Congress will tax their fellow-creatures--who, poor souls, had not enlarged and liberal minds, and were content with the dull pursuits of civil life--for redeeming them, clothing them, and bringing them back again to society. I wish the committee to take the thing into consideration. As men and Christians our conduct is to be governed by one rule; as representatives of the people other considerations are proper. There is, in the proposed interference, no justice; there may be much mercy, but it is a mercy which carries cruelty, if not deliberate, the most pernicious of all possible species of cruelty, along with it. Suppose these men had been arrested and tried in this country, what would have been their lot? It is difficult for me to say. I am no lawyer; but I suppose, under the mild institutions in some of our States, they would have been condemned to hard labor for life. In what do they differ, to their advantage from other felons? In nothing. Who would step forward to rescue them from that punishment due to their crime if convicted by our own courts? Nobody. Everybody would have said that they deserved it. Now, on the contrary, having escaped the hand of justice in this country, and fallen into the grasp of the strong hand of power in another country, we are not contented to let them reap what they have sown; we are not contented to leave them in the hands of justice. I believe that there exists a proper disposition in the Executive to interfere, where American citizens are wrongfully treated abroad. And, shall we come forward and open the public purse, and assume on ourselves the responsibility of that act which the President refuses to do, and thus share among us the imputation, such as it may be, which society chooses to cast upon us in consequence of it, instead of letting it fall singly and individually upon him, in case he chooses to incur it? No, sir. I have no disposition to pass this resolution to take the responsibility upon myself. In short, I should have been glad, if instead of telling us that these men are unfortunate and miserable, (for who are so unfortunate and miserable as the truly guilty?) that the members of that committee, or the respectable chairman himself, had come forward and shown the claim of these petitioners to the peculiar patronage of the country. So far from any disposition to bring them back, I would allow a drawback or bounty on the exportation of every man of similar principles.

Mr. EMOTT said, that as he had been a member of the committee whose report was now under consideration, he felt the propriety of making a few observations to show the expediency of adopting the resolution. In order to obtain the release of these miserable and deluded men, it was necessary that the Government should interfere, because the Spanish Government never would release them till such application was made. The only money necessary to be paid was not to the Spanish Government, but to defray the expense of bringing back the prisoners. It was not to buy their liberty, but to employ a person to go there to request it.

It had been said that the President had power to attempt the release of these persons without any resolution of the House. Mr. E. said he would not enter into that consideration. He knew, if the President had the power, that he had not chosen to exercise it; and if the House could find from the statement of the situation of these men that they ought to be relieved, they should not refrain from expressing their opinion, merely because the President had the power and would not exercise it.

It might be necessary, Mr. E. said, to call to the minds of the committee the situation of these men. They were persons employed by Miranda, in his expedition, who, he undertook to say, did not know that they were going on any expedition contrary to the laws of the country. When taken, they had been tried by the Spaniards on a charge of piracy, and condemned to lie in a dungeon for a term of years. They prayed the Congress for its interposition in their behalf.

It had been said that these men knowingly engaged in this expedition. Mr. E. said he believed that they did not; but, admitting, for a moment, that this was the case; that they did know the pursuit on which they were entering, they should not, for that reason alone, be suffered to lie in prison. Let it be understood, said Mr. E., that this expedition, whatever it was, was carried on, in the face of day, in the city of New York, and that equipments of the vessels and enlistments were made without interruption in the face of day. And would these persons believe that they were going on an unlawful expedition? They might have enlisted from the best motives; and, supposing that they had enlisted under the knowledge that they were going on an expedition, yet seeing that it was carried on in open day without interruption from the Government, he much doubted whether these poor men ought to be suffered to lie in prison.

But, putting motives aside, these men declare that they did not understand the nature of the service for which they were engaged; and this statement the committee who made the report had brought themselves to believe. Let it be recollected that these unfortunate individuals were lying in prison; and, although they had, by some means, forwarded a petition here, they could not attend in person to urge their claim to relief by proofs presented to the House. The persons who procured these men to go on this expedition certainly would not be very willing to come forward and give testimony; because, by so doing, they might criminate themselves and render themselves liable to the operation of the laws of their country. Considering that these persons were removed thousands of miles from us, that they were unfriended, and that the persons who alone could prove that their intent was innocent, would not come forward for fear of criminating themselves, he thought these men were entitled to commiseration, and he believed that it was in his power to show two or three circumstances which would convince the House that they had no knowledge of the nature of this expedition. The first circumstance was the extreme improbability that these men would have engaged in this expedition, if the nature of it had been explained. Had Mr. Smith or General Miranda gone to these men and said, "we are going on an expedition against the laws of the country, and, if taken, you will be punished under the laws of one country or the other," it is extremely improbable that they would have engaged. It is not likely that Miranda or Mr. Smith avowed their purposes, and told them that they were going on an expedition hostile in its nature, and against the laws of the country, because its object was to revolutionize a nation in amity with the United States. It is impossible that these men should have known the nature of the expedition, when it was not known to the Government here, however public. This circumstance, to me, is conclusive, to show that these young men did not know it. There might have been persons who did; if you please, Mr. Ogden, who furnished the ship, or others, but it is impossible to believe, that these men, who were mere soldiers for carrying on the expedition, knew the nature of it. I am convinced that these persons, all privates--for the officers were executed--did not know why they did enlist, or that the corps was for the purpose to which it was actually designed.

I have said, and perhaps every person here knows, that the whole of the business was carried on in the face of day. Here were General Miranda and Mr. Smith coming to the seat of Government, and back to New York, procuring clothes, enlisting men. Can it be conceived that all this could have been carried on, if General Miranda had not meant to conceal it from the Government? But it is in my power to furnish something more than mere conjecture on this subject. The committee will recollect that a greater part of this transaction took place at New York. There the men were to rendezvous, there the vessel was furnished, and to that State most of the young men who are now in South America did belong. In that State this matter was the subject of judicial investigation. Mr. Smith and Mr. Ogden were indicted. I will read a part of the evidence given on the trial, which will satisfy any one, at least it has satisfied me, that these men had no hand in it. Mr. Fink, who was produced as evidence on the part of the Government to convict Mr. Smith, was the person who was intrusted with enlistments.

On the same trial there was one of the persons who has actually enlisted who deposed that the same information which Peter Rose received was given to others. This man also was a private in the expedition, and swears that the person who employed him told him that he was to be employed in the service of the Government; that he was to be carried to Washington by water and thence to New Orleans. The men who now petition Congress are persons who are placed precisely in the same situation. We find, in the course of the trial, that the person employed to enlist the men, declares that the person employing him refused to tell him for what purpose they were to be enlisted, and, of course, he could not inform those whom he enlisted.

Mr. E. said he had already remarked the extreme difficulty under which these persons labored, that they were at a distance of several thousand miles from this country, incarcerated, and friendless. He had satisfied his mind that they had engaged in this business unknowingly and unwillingly--and, what was now asked of the Government? That they should expend large sums of money for the purpose of buying them out? No. All that the Spanish Government wanted, he undertook to say, was, that a request should be made by the Government of this country for those men; and all the money required for this service, was money enough to send an agent there and facilitate his return.

Nothing had been said by him, Mr. E. remarked, of the peculiar sufferings of these men; but there were representations enough, to show that they were chained naked in a dungeon, without clothing, and without wood. Some had died and others must die. He hoped, therefore, for the reasons which he had given, that the committee would be satisfied that these men were not guilty of crime. If not guilty, he hoped there could be no doubt that they were a proper subject for the interference of the Government.

Mr. BACON observed that the conclusion which the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) had drawn, rested upon the idea that the men were guilty. If they were guilty, they certainly should not receive the benefit of the interposition of the Government of the United States. They had no claim on the United States when considered as criminals, or as men who had voluntarily engaged in this service. The report of the committee did not state this to be the case. I acknowledge, said Mr. B., that they are guilty in some respects, having innocently transgressed the laws. If they are guilty in the eye of justice, I contend they ought not to have relief. The report of the committee states, that, under a persuasion that the facts set forth by the petitioners were true, they were induced to submit this resolution. The committee had evidence, which they deemed competent, to prove that these men were not guilty men. In what respect, then, are they to be compared to Aaron Burr? No man will say that he did not proceed on his expedition with his eyes open, or that he could plead ignorance. The fact in relation to these men appears to be that they were inveigled; that their offence was involuntary, not as respected engaging in what they thought the service of the United States, but as to going abroad, for against their consent they were forced into the service. Therefore, with great truth, it might be said that they were scourged to the service. If this was the fact, as the committee appear to have believed, I ask, in what their case differs from that of men taken captives by the Algerines? Those men taken by the Algerines are engaged in lawful commerce; these poor men are engaged in an unlawful act, but not knowing it to be unlawful, and believing it to be correct, they are as innocent, in fact, as those who act innocently. The gentleman says, suppose they were to return to their country, would they not be punished? If the facts, as they state them, are correct, as I believe them to be, I do not believe that they would be punished. The law does not punish a man because he does not act, but for the quo animo with which he does it.

Mr. TAYLOR said if he could view this subject in the light in which it had been viewed by most of its advocates, and particularly by the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. PEARSON,) he should think it was the duty of this Government to make exertion for the release of these people; but even then he should inquire whether any exertion in their favor would not rather do them an injury than a service; for it would be recollected that every gentleman who had spoken seemed to consider the mercy which was asked to depend upon and to be bestowed by the United States. Were I a Spaniard, and attended the debate in this House, I should think that gentlemen in favor of the resolution contemplated an infraction of the rights of the nation before whose courts, and by whose laws, these men were condemned. These fine appeals to mercy and humanity would apply well before the power possessing the right to bestow mercy, but are not applicable to the feelings proper to be exercised on this occasion by this House. I say that it is one of the attributes of Government to punish those who have infringed or broken the laws of the country. These people have been condemned by a Spanish tribunal; it is by that Government alone that mercy is to be shown; and an exertion by this House in attempting to bestow mercy upon these people is an infringement of that right. I challenge gentlemen to show me an instance in the annals of diplomacy of a like nature with this proposition. I recollect one instance, but I have heard no gentleman propose to go so far. Oliver Cromwell, when a member of the British Commonwealth, was imprisoned by the inquisition, ordered his admirals to draw up before the harbor and demand his release. This is the only case I have met with in the course of my reading, of an attempt by one nation to relieve criminals condemned by another nation under its own laws. If this view be a just one, it certainly becomes a matter of great delicacy. If this Government had never been by the most secret whisper implicated (unjustly, as I firmly believe) in this transaction, still it would have been a subject of the greatest delicacy for the Government of the United States to interfere. What will the Government of Spain, Junta, King, or Governors of Spanish provinces to whom you apply, say to you on this subject? Why they will say--"We have long suspected, we have heard from your own quarter, that you were implicated in this expedition; you now give us proof; you have come forward in an unprecedented manner and interfered in a case with which you have no business, a case which is fully embraced by the sovereignty which we ourselves exercise over our own courts." Will it not at once be inferred that these assertions throughout the United States had been true, and that this Government was implicated or concerned, or, to use the words of yesterday, that this Government had connived at such an expedition? You will but render the sufferings of these people more rigorous. It is not to be conceived, although the gentleman from Massachusetts and others have acquitted the Government of participation, that the Spanish Government will do so also. Why, even in our cool and calm situation, you see that suspicion of the connivance of the Administration is not yet quite done away--and do you suppose, sir, that the Spaniards, against whom repeated expeditions have been made, at a distance from those sources whence conviction might flash upon their minds, will form the same opinion of the subject that we do? Fear forms a bias on their mind; and we form a conviction on the side on which we feel interested.

Gentlemen, in order to induce us to grant pardon to these men, which we have no power to do, have told us that they are innocent; because, forsooth, they themselves have said so. I recollect, sir, once in a conversation with a most eminent barrister in the State in which I live, who had often performed the duty of counsellor and advocate in our State, he informed me that in a practice of thirty years, in the course of which he had been concerned in the cases of many culprits, on many, nay, on all occasions, he put this plain question to his client: "I am your counsel; it is necessary for me, in order to make the best possible defence of your cause, to make the best statement in your favor, to know whether you are guilty or not." He declared that he had never yet met with a man who acknowledged that he was guilty. I believe that this disposition to appear innocent, is inherent in human nature. It is natural for these men to say that they are not guilty; they said so to the court before whom they were tried. Why were they not liberated? Why was not that mercy which is so pathetically called for bestowed on them by that tribunal before whom the case was examined? If they are the immaculate and almost sainted victims which they are described to be, why did not the court which heard the testimony on both sides of the question bestow that clemency asked of us? I should presume, that when all the circumstances came out before the court, they were not favorable to the petitioners; and it is a respect due from this Government to the acts of that Government that such a construction should be put upon this matter. If we are to distrust the acts of the Spaniard, because, as we are told, he is vindictive and cruel, he might justly say that we have not done to others as we would be done by.

We should place the President of the United States in a very unpleasant situation indeed by requiring him to demand these men, if we would not also be willing to go to war for them. As our navy is now afloat I would propose as an amendment to the project, if gentlemen are serious in their determination to rescue these men, that our fleet shall sail before Carthagena and compel the Spanish Governor or Junta to give them up. This is the only mode of interfering with a matter of this kind, which is sanctioned by precedent, as I have before stated.

It would seem, sir, as if the passing scenes of this world were entirely forgotten. The British Government has been suspected of having connived at this expedition as well as the Government of the United States. They have received Miranda into their bosom; and on the examination on the trial of Sir Home Popham, it did appear that he had received orders to sail for a particular port of that continent to create a diversion of an attack expected to be made in another part of it. But what have the British Government done on the subject? Have they not considered it a delicate one? Have they not in their conduct given us the most sound and wholesome advice on the subject? Although I believe these men were employed to answer a purpose all-important to her, yet she has not extended towards these sufferers in her own cause that clemency which is asked at our hands. These men who were suffering in her employ, demonstrably acting in furtherance of her interest, have not met with the clemency of the Government; and the case is more strong when it is recollected that since the capture of these men, although previously at war with Spain, Great Britain was not only at peace but in alliance with that nation. With all these favorable circumstances, when but a hint from the British Ministry in favor of these people might have released them, yet being so delicate a subject that it has not been touched by them, shall we, who have been crusading and exerting every nerve for the releasement of our seamen, and with all our efforts have been unsuccessful, shall we start on a fresh crusade for these men, when the efforts of the Government in the other cause, in so noble, so just, and so humane a cause, have as yet proved unavailing? Shall we engage in a contest for these people, who are acknowledged justly to be in the power and under the sentence of the courts of another nation, whilst the honest American tar, guiltless of harm, is writhing under the lash of every boatswain on board a man-of-war? If you will go on and reform the whole world, begin with one grievance first; to use a homely phrase, do not put too many irons in the fire.

Sir, if the Spanish nation has any feeling for its sovereignty, it would spurn your request. Only suppose that nation to possess the same feelings which actuate every breast in this House; which actuate the American people. Suppose the claim of Mr. Burr to citizenship in Britain, on the ground of once a subject always a subject, had been recognized by the British Government. Suppose that he was suffering in chains in some of your prisons, and because they had heard that Mr. Burr might have been innocent, the British Government had asked his release, would not the people of America have spurned the request as an indignity to the nation? And may we not suppose that these proud Spaniards, as they are called, may have feelings of a like nature? I believe, sir, that the course proposed would only add rigor to their sufferings, weight to their chains.

Mr. LIVERMORE asked if the committee which made this report had not before it evidence that certain British subjects concerned in Miranda's expedition had been liberated on the application of some officers of that nation? If they had it would be a fair answer to the eloquent speech of the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. RANDOLPH said he did not think that the information asked for by the gentleman was at all material to this case. It was a matter of no consequence at all, as respected the statement made by the gentleman from South Carolina on (he had no doubt) very good grounds. What, said Mr. R., has been the situation of Great Britain in relation to Spain? Great Britain, at the time the expedition was undertaken, was an enemy of Spain--was at actual war with Spain--and therefore in a subject of Great Britain it might have been highly meritorious to annoy Spain, either at home or in her colonies to the utmost extent in his power, without any direct authority from his Government. Subsequently to that time, however, Great Britain has become the ally of Spain in consequence of the revolution; and at that time Great Britain obtained from persons exercising the authority of government in Spain the release of these prisoners, which it is perfectly natural Spain should then have granted. But suppose, instead of that change having taken place in the relations between Great Britain and Spain, Bonaparte had quietly succeeded in putting King Joseph on the throne of Spain and the Indies, and applications had then been made; or suppose that the application had been deferred until now, and the power of the House of Bonaparte was as complete over the colonies in South America as we have every reason to believe it is over the European possessions of the mother country, would the British subjects in that case have been released? It is an unfortunate circumstance that no question can be agitated in this House and tried upon its own merits; that every thing which is, has been, or may be, is to be lugged in on the question before us, to the total exclusion of the merits of the case, and in this way, instead of a session of three and six months for doing the business of the nation, if every question is to be tried in the manner in which it appears to me this has been, we may sit to all eternity and never get through it.

I lay no claim to greater precision than other men; but really I cannot perceive what kind of relation, what kind of connection exists between most of what I have heard on this subject, and the true merits of the case. Gentlemen get up and abuse the Spanish Government and people, and what then? Why, it appears all this is preliminary to our making an humble request of this Government and people that they shall grant us a particular boon. To be sure, sir, all this time we do plaster ourselves unmercifully--we lay it on with a trowel--and gentlemen seem to think that if we sufficiently plaster ourselves, our President, and people, and be-devil every other Government and people, it is sufficient to illuminate every question. And this is the style in which we speak to Governments perfectly independent of us!--A very wise mean, to be sure, of inducing them to grant the pardon of these people as a favor to us. Sir, it would be a strange spectacle, to be sure, when this Minister that is to be, this sort of anomalous messenger whom you are going to send, I know not exactly to whom; whether to the Junta, or persons exercising the power of government in the provinces, or to the Government in Europe; when this Minister goes to Carthagena or elsewhere, if he should carry to the Viceroy along with his credentials a file of papers containing the debates on this question. Why, sir, like Sir Francis Wronghead, we appear all to have turned round. My honorable friend, the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. TAYLOR,) spoke of the crimes of these men. Gentlemen on the other side, who wish them to be pardoned, tell you of nothing but of their innocence, and the injustice of those who condemn them and now have them under punishment. Two more such advocates as have appeared in favor of this proposition would damn the best cause ever brought before any House or any court in Christendom. The gentleman from New York, (Mr. EMOTT,) who spoke yesterday, certainly very pertinently, and very handsomely, tells the House that in this case no other money than that of the United States, will be received; that with a sort of Castilian fastidiousness, those persons acting for the Government of Spain will not touch any money which shall not be offered in the quality of public money. I believe no such thing; and moreover, I wish it to be distinctly understood that the question of money is not the question with me; and that to suppose it necessary for the Government of the United States to interfere for the purpose of raising so pitiful a sum as $3,500 for the relief of these unfortunate men, whose situation I most seriously deplore, is a libel upon the charity of this country. I believe, notwithstanding the public impression on this subject against the petitioners, that the money could be raised in half an hour in any town in the United States. I believe it might be raised in that time in the city of Washington. It is not a question of the amount of money wanted; it is, whether the Government of the United States shall lend its countenance to persons situated as these unfortunate people are? Sir, had we at that time been at war with Spain, as Great Britain, something might be said in favor of these persons. But we were not at war with Spain, and these men knew it; and I believe they knew at least as well as I know, that when a man is recruited for public service, as they say they thought to be their case, he is immediately taken before a justice of the peace and sworn. This part of the ceremony, however, is not stated to have taken place. To be sure, sir, the gentleman from New York (Mr. EMOTT) said, I believe, every thing that could be said in favor of those unfortunate people, and really almost convinced me that we ought to make this interference; but unfortunately for him and for his cause, other advocates rose up in its favor and placed the subject in a situation not only as respects the majority of this House, but as respects that Government with whom intercession is to be made, which will completely foreclose any attempt at relieving the sufferers. It is not possible that the majority of this House, or that the Spanish Government, can be affected in any other manner than with disgust and indignation at such stuff. The gentleman from New York told us that these were ardent young men, who were anxious to go to Caraccas for the purpose, I think, of correcting the despotism which existed in that country; or otherwise, political Quixotes. This, I take it, will operate little in their favor with the Spanish Government, however it may in ours. I confess I feel very little sympathy for those who, overlooking their own country, and the abuses in their own Government, go in search of political adversaries abroad--go a tilting against political despotisms for the relief, I suppose, of distressed damsels compelled to live under them.

The question was now taken, and the votes being affirmative 62, negative 61, the SPEAKER voted in the negative--the votes then being equal, the question was lost.

MONDAY, June 19.

The Batture at New Orleans.

The House proceeded to consider the resolution submitted by Mr. MACON, on the sixteenth instant, in the words following, to wit:

"Resolved, That so much of the message of the President of the United States of the seventh of March, one thousand eight hundred and eight, as relates to the batture in the suburbs of St. Mary's, adjoining New Orleans, and the documents accompanying it, together with the petitions of Edward Livingston, and the petitions of the citizens of New Orleans on the same subject, and the documents which accompanied the same, be referred to the Attorney-General of the United States, and that he be instructed to receive and collect such other testimony as may be necessary to ascertain the title of the United States to the before-mentioned batture, and that he be directed to report to this House, at the next session of Congress, his opinion as to the validity of the claim of the United States to the said batture."

Mr. BURWELL thought that this was not the proper course to pursue; but that the course recommended at the last session was the one, viz: to give the petitioners the right of appeal from the decision of the Orleans court to the Supreme Court, or to give the United States the same right, should the decision be against them. He could see no advantage in the procrastination now proposed, nor any injury to the United States or the city of New Orleans, in the course which he advocated. He doubted, although the letter of the law of 1807 might cover this case, whether it was ever intended that that law should operate as this had done. My intention, said he, in voting for it, was that it should apply exclusively to the Western lands, commonly called the Yazoo lands, and such other lands as were occupied by hundreds who might be formidable from their numbers. To undertake jurisdiction on questions of property is taking upon ourselves the functions of another department of the Judiciary. The case involves important points of law--and let me ask, whether the gentlemen in this House are so well read in law as to be able to decide such an important point as this? It does appear to me that on all the questions of private property arising in the United States, where the question of right is not to be brought before this House, we ought to consult the convenience of the parties by promoting dispatch. On the question whether this property belong to the United States or to the petitioners I am completely ignorant. Nor would I have it inferred that I believe the petitioner to have a right to the property; I take it that the claim of the United States must be good, or the inhabitants of Orleans would not be so zealous in the support of it.

Mr. POYDRAS asked for the reading of a letter which he had received from the Governor of Orleans Territory, which was accordingly read. The letter states, that if it were possible that the committee to whom Mr. Livingston's claim was referred could now visit New Orleans, they would be convinced that the batture, now covered with water, was in fact the bed of the river, and, therefore, could not be private property. Mr. P. stated the history of this piece of alluvion at some length, and the circumstances under which it had always been deemed public property.

Mr. SHEFFEY said that before passing this resolution, gentlemen ought to ascertain what the Attorney-General could do in this case. He could not compel the attendance of witnesses, or collect testimony of circumstances which occurred a hundred years ago; and unless he could do this, it was impossible he could examine the title, for testimony as to facts was essential to enable him to form a correct opinion. What influence could the opinion of the Attorney-General have? Was the right of the citizen to fall prostrate before such an ex parte opinion or statement as that might be? If it was not to have influence, why thus evade a decision on the prayer of the petitioner? If it was to have any influence, it must be a pernicious one, because founded on ex parte testimony. Would the House go into the merits of the case on this opinion, when obtained without affording an opportunity to the party interested to prove that the law was not correctly expounded nor the facts correctly stated? Surely not. If they did not, if they heard opinions on both sides, they converted this House into a judiciary tribunal. Was this body calculated for that branch of Government? No; this, Mr. S. said, is a Government of departments, each of which ought to be kept separate. What, sir! is this a question of right between the United States and an individual, and we are about to take it into our own hands, to wrest it from the constitutional authority, and decide it ourselves? I hope we shall not; and, therefore, I am against this proposition. What does the Attorney-General state in his report? Aware of the impropriety of his deciding, he tells you--what? That the usual course, where the rights of the United States have been involved, has been to appoint commissioners to hear and decide. Here the Attorney-General tells you it is not proper for him to decide. And I should never wish to see the case in which the Attorney-General's opinion is to give authority for dispossessing an individual of his property; for if it can be done in one case it may be in every case. Any individual may be driven from his property by military force, and then his title be decided by an ill-shapen, one-sided statement and opinion of the Attorney-General. Against such a decision I do protest. Is it because you have power on your side, sir, that you will not submit to a judicial decision of this question? If there be a controversy about a right, there ought to be a judicial decision.

I, sir, have been unable to see how an individual having property, in which he was put in possession in 1804 or '5 by a judicial decision, could be disposed of it by the act of 1807, the operation of which was limited to acts done hereafter, that is, after the passing of that act in 1807. That law too speaks of "lands ceded to the United States." Was the batture ceded to the United States? I say not, because it was private property before the United States possessed the sovereignty of the country. By the treaty of 1803 with the Government of the United States, the rights and property of the inhabitants of Louisiana was secured to them. What then is the inference from this state of the case? That the United States got possession illegally, in defiance of judicial authority. I am sorry to see that the judicial authority has been set at defiance, and the Presidential mandate carried into effect at the point of the bayonet, right or wrong. This was the case. Those who were put in possession were ousted by military force. Let me not be understood as throwing odium on the Executive; far from it. I believe the Executive acted conscientiously, but upon an ex parte statement. The President was never told that the case had been judicially investigated. Those facts were taken for granted, on the other hand, which did not exist, and those which formed the foundation of the true merits of the case, were withheld.

Mr. POYDRAS spoke at some length in reply to Mr. SHEFFEY, and in defence of the title of the United States. The batture had many years ago been considered as public property, and no one who examined the circumstances of the case could for a moment doubt it. He said that it had never been claimed as private property until after it came into the possession of the United States. He hoped the rights of the public and of the people of New Orleans would not be trampled upon to grant the petitioner his prayer.

Mr. MACON said that he was himself in favor of giving the right of the United States to the property to the people or corporation of New Orleans, and letting them and the individual contest it. There was nothing new, however, in the reference of a subject to the Head of a Department, whose opinion would have no more weight than reason, and so far only ought it to have weight. Mr. M. said he had no more desire to interfere with the judiciary than either of the gentlemen who had spoken. If provision was made for trying this case, must it not be extended to all others? In order to do justice, it must be done to all. Had not a special court been refused in relation to a property of much greater value than this? Before Congress made a special court for a certain case, they ought to look at the consequences. It was departing from the general system of the nation to appoint a court for a special case. Perhaps there was something in this case which differed from other cases: but he doubted whether it would warrant the appointment of a special court. Mr. M. said he saw no other way of treating this subject but by letting it go before the courts already organized. If the right was in the petitioner, be the consequences what it might, the city of New Orleans had no right to take it away from him.

Mr. TROUP observed that this case was probably one which would fall under the old maxim, nullum tempus occurrit regi or reipublicæ. It appeared to him that there was a constitutional difficulty in this case, which did not appear to have suggested itself to the mind of any gentleman. First, has the United States a claim, either real or disputed, to this territory? Whether disputed or otherwise, provided the claim be asserted on its part, the question is, has the Congress of the United States a power to decide the validity of that claim? And if it has, is it proper so to decide it? What is the subject-matter in dispute? Public property; and what species? Landed. Then the question results, has Congress a right, in order to determine its title, to refer it to any tribunal whatever? I contend not; the right to public property was originally in the people of this country; they could never be divested of their great public right to the landed property of the nation, but by their express consent. They did give that right to the Congress of the United States, in declaring that it should have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations concerning public territory. Would it have had that power, if this right had not been expressly delegated? I know that, under the old Articles of Confederation, Congress did undertake to legislate as to property; but it was always questionable whether they had a right to do so--and this was not the only point on which Congress did exercise powers which were brought into question. The right to determine claims to public property is not only guarantied exclusively to Congress by the constitution, but the practice has been invariably pursuant to it; it was so in 1807. The Government not only asserted its right in the first instance, but asserted its power to enforce the right at the point of the bayonet. If the public have always been in possession of a certain property, the man who enters on it without their consent is a trespasser on that property. Upon this view of the subject, there is a constitutional difficulty on which the House should decide, before it entertains a motion for delegating a power to decide this question to any tribunal or commission whatever.

Mr. BOYD said, admitting all the gentleman had said to be true, his observations did not apply to this case. He had spoken of the right to public property. The question now was, whether this was public property or not; if it were certainly public property, on which ground the gentleman rested his argument, there could be no question on the subject. It was asked only before they decided between the individual and the United States on the right to land, not confessedly public property, but claimed as such, that fair investigation should be had. Mr. B. disclaimed the power of deciding judicially upon the subject; it was a right which he had never thought of this House claiming. A delay of justice was a denial of it. The individual petitioning had been in possession of the property; it had been taken from him by force, and he now asked a trial of his title before a competent court--and this opportunity, Mr. B. said, he ought to have as speedily as possible.

Mr. RANDOLPH said he should vote against that report. He said it was no part of his intention to deliver any opinion on the merits of the claim, although he had devoted not a little of his time to the study of that question, for two reasons: first, that it would be a prejudicated opinion, inasmuch as that was not the question which the House were called upon to decide, even if it were competent to decide it. I am extremely sorry, said he that the law of 1807 has been brought into view of this House by my friends from North Carolina and Georgia, and for this reason: that that law has no bearing at all on the present question. Its object was wholly different from that to which it has been misapplied. What, sir, was the object of that law? To defend against a conspiracy, I may properly term it--against the lawless violence of confederated associations, a vast property. How has it been applied? Not to a great public property, but to a speck of land, to which, as I understand it, a single individual, or at most three or four, put in a claim. Such an application as that of the law in question was never intended by the Legislature; and, if applied to such a property as the batture, and to the case of a single individual, may be applied to the property of every man in society. What is the doctrine of my friend from Georgia? That the public are always supposed to be in possession of the national domain. True, sir, and it is also true that those who enter upon it and endeavor to appropriate it to themselves, are trespassers, and as such, may be resisted by force. But that is not the case in the present question--very far from it--for the public never had been in possession of the property in question.

Without attempting to enter into the merits of the real title to the land in question, let us take it on the ground of the right of the citizen. A citizen comes before this House, and complains that he is dispossessed of his common right by arbitrary power. If, after a cause has been heard by a court, and a citizen put in possession of a property, by a decree of that court, he is dispossessed of it by military violence, where, if not before this House, is he to prefer his claim for redress? There is no court before which he can go, because the court which is the last resort in this case has already unavailingly given its decision. There is no court of appeal, no superior tribunal, and if there were, and a decree of the Supreme Court obtained in his favor on the appeal, what is any decree to avail against armed men--against muskets and bayonets? But this is not the only reason why I am sorry that the act of 1807 has been brought in to apply to this case. It is because, if this House can be once prevailed upon to consider this case as analogous to the Yazoo case, many most injurious consequences must follow therefrom. The first is, that that odious and supremely infamous claim will be put upon a ground which it is by no means entitled to occupy; and I entreat my friend from Georgia, and those whose minds are unalterably made up on the Yazoo question, not to give their enemies such a prize as they must have on us, if we agree to confound the Yazoo claim with that before the House. There is no sort of analogy between them. On the other hand, sir, supposing the right to be in the United States, I beg gentlemen not to create so forcible an interest against the rights of the United States as will infallibly be embodied against it if we confound the two. I have no idea of giving the Yazoo men such a handle. Again, let us suppose, if we can suppose it, that the right is in the petitioner; may it not, supposing a great majority of the House to be against the Yazoo claim--we do not know how they are disposed--may it not create an unjust bias against the petitioner? So that in whatever aspect we view it, it is not only impolitic, but, what is worse, extremely unjust to attempt to identify the two cases. And, sir, it is a matter of curious speculation, that while the act of 1807 has been brought into operation in the case of a solitary individual and a little speck of property to which it was not intended to apply, even supposing the case in question to to have arisen subsequently to the passage of that act; that, although it has been misapplied in this case, it has not been applied to the case to which it was intended to apply, and for which it was enacted; for, if I understood my friend from Georgia a few days ago, some hundreds or thousands of intruders have set themselves down on the public lands, and the public force has never been employed against them. On the contrary, the artillery of Government has been brought into play against a single individual. It was, indeed, said that these intruders had agreed to remain as tenants at will; but, let them remain till they are sufficiently strong, and they will give you another chapter in the history of Wyoming; for, after they are sufficiently strong to hold territory, although the arm of Government has been applied successfully to oust a single individual put in possession by a decree of a court, you will find it nerveless to expel these men.

With regard to the doctrine nullum tempus occurrit reipublicæ, it is a dangerous doctrine, if carried to the extent to which I apprehend my friend from Georgia would carry it. I venture to say that the abuse of that doctrine in the celebrated case of Sir John Lowther and the Duke of Portland, which created one general sentiment of indignation in the British nation--an attempt under that maxim to deprive a subject, hostile to the Court, of property of which he had been long in possession, for the purpose of transferring it to a minion of the Court--that case, with all its aggravated enormities, does not come up to the case before the House; and I speak without reference to the question whether the petitioner has a right or not to the property in this case. The question of right is not before the House, and that question, decide which way you will, can have no sort of weight in the vote which the House ought to give. The question is this: Having been long in possession of a piece of land, the title deeds destroyed, records burnt, and possession the only title you have to show, an attempt is made to dispossess you of the property; a decree of court confirms your right; if the individual, under these circumstances, can be turned out of possession by main force and strength, and that, too, military force, there is an end in the right to property of every man in the country. Sir, I have been astonished, and grieved and mortified, to see so little sensation created in this nation by the procedure in question. It strikes at the root of every thing dear to freemen. There is an end of their rights.

What, then, is this case? An individual comes before us, and says, that after having been put in possession of a piece of land, (I speak not of the validity of his title; it is not concerned in this question,) he was dispossessed by military force of this property. These two facts I do not understand any member of this House to deny. And what does he claim? He claims of you, as the guardians of the rights of every man in society, justice. And where do you send him? To the Attorney-General. I will suppose that in the Lowther and Portland case, the Duke of Portland had been referred to the Attorney-General. Would the English nation have endured it? No, sir. Much less would they have endured, military as the nation is becoming by the introduction of large standing armies, that he should have been dispossessed of his property by an armed military force, at the fiat of the Crown. The question is, what should be done? Sir, what should not be done is perfectly clear. It ought not to be done that the petitioner should be sent to the Attorney-General, who has already given an opinion on his claim, though that is very immaterial, which opinion it seems we cannot find. If I understand any thing of this Government, however, it ought to be on record, and this return of non est inventus ought not to have been received. All that we have to do, it appears to me, is to make a provision, in the nature of a declaratory law, not amending the act of 1807, but, declaring what the law is; and we ought to quiet the rights, and the mind too, of every man in society, by declaring that, by the act of 1807, it was not intended to authorize the President of the United States to interpose the bayonet between the courts of justice and the individual. This power never has been given, never was intended to be given.

Mr. GOLD said that this was one of the most important subjects that had ever been brought before the House. He did not mean to enter into the merits of the case. The gentleman from Virginia had very clearly expressed all those sentiments which every man must feel on hearing the history of this case; and as regarded the ground taken, of nullum tempus occurrit, the gentleman had repelled it very properly--and indeed in that country whence the maxim had been derived, whenever it was attempted to be put in force against ancient possessions, it had been executed with great difficulty. It is in the very teeth of Magna Charta, which says that a freeman shall not be dispossessed of his freehold without a better right is ascertained. There are a variety of forms by which the right is guarded. If I, said Mr. G., understood the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. TROUP,) he considers it a sacrifice of the rights of the United States to permit a decision on its property to pass into the hands of third persons. Even in England the prerogative is not carried so far. The Crown has frequently consented that the right of Government should pass into the hands of third persons, viz: of commissioners, for the purpose of investigation.

I will not trouble the House with lengthy remarks on this subject. I can hardly advert to it without feeling all that has been much more eloquently expressed by the gentleman from Virginia than it is in my power to express it. Let gentlemen look around and see if they can find a precedent for this transaction. And when we consider it, every man's feelings must be operated upon too strongly to permit him to argue. The course suggested by the gentleman from Virginia must prevail, or we no longer live under a Government of laws, and those principles on which it is founded are destroyed. The man ousted must be put in possession, must be restored to the possession of the property which the hand of violence has wrested from him; and I hope that a proposition to this effect in a proper shape will be presented.

Mr. GHOLSON said he thought it would better become the character of this assembly to discuss every subject with calmness and deliberation, and on its own merits, than to endeavor to influence the decision by an appeal to the passions. It was important that such a course should be pursued, whether with reference to a great political principle or to the interest of the individual whose rights were said to have been wantonly prostrated at the Executive will. I (said Mr. G.) have been early taught, and the doctrine has grown with my years, that the right of property is not one of the least consideration in a free constitution. It is of a nature so sacredly inviolable that, when clearly ascertained, I would never encroach upon it by any means but through the regular constituted authority. It would have been under this impression that, had I been a member of the Legislature when the law of 1807 was introduced into the statute book, I should have been opposed to it. But receiving all the sanctions of a law, and as such containing a rule of conduct in certain specified cases, what was the Executive to do? Was he to set at defiance the law of the land? A doctrine like this can never be contended for. It seems, however, that to satisfy gentlemen the President should have refused to carry this law into execution, which I acknowledge does usurp judicial authority.--[Mr. RANDOLPH said that his ground was that the President had not executed the law. If a law were ever so unconstitutional, the President having signed it, it would become his duty to carry it into effect. But he denied that he had carried it into effect.] Upon that point, continued Mr. G., my colleague and I are at issue. I rise not to discuss the merits of the claim, which I have no disposition to do. I rise to defend the late President of the United States, to endeavor, to the extent of my feeble powers, to place this question in a proper point of view. If the President of the United States has gone beyond the letter of the law, which itself tends to encroach on the rights of the citizen, I would be the last person to justify him in thus trespassing on the dearest rights of a freeman. But it is very easy to show that he has not exceeded the express provisions of the law in question.

The act of 1807 contains two clauses having a bearing on the subject; the first ascertaining the character of the persons to be ousted, and the second providing the means of ousting them. The President is authorized to exercise this power, either where property was previously in possession, in which case he is to give notice, or where it was subsequently entered on, in which case he is not required to give notice. It is easy to show that this is one of the cases contemplated by that act. It is well known that the feudal law did exist in Louisiana, previous to its acquisition by the United States, and that by that law alluvion does accrue to the Crown. Now, if the feudal law did exist, and by that law alluvion did accrue to the Crown of France, does it not follow that the same right did accrue to the United States by the deed of cession from France, who owned the territory? If the claimant was in possession when this act passed, it became the duty of the President of the United States to give him three months' notice previous to his removal; if not, no such notice was necessary. On this point I need only refer to the fact that it was not so early as the passage of the act, indeed not till the 23d of May, that the claimants came into possession. They were quieted in possession, so far as the rights of the United States were not concerned, on the 23d of May, 1807.

The decision of the corporation court of New Orleans is relied on as giving a title to the petitioner. That that decision did at all affect, in the remotest possible degree, the right of the United States, is a position which no man acquainted with the principles of law will contend for. The decision cannot affect the right of the United States, because it was not contested or defended before that court.

It is said that the feudal law does not exist in France. From time immemorial it has existed all over Europe. That it exists at this time in this country there can be no doubt. The right to lands is allodial, but is inherent in the Government. Is it denied that the Government can take property from an individual, making him compensation therefor? If the right to land be indefeasible, could the Government run a road through it? It certainly could not. I wish it to be distinctly understood that I do not attempt to say where the real right to the property in question does reside. But I do say, that, according to the treaty of cession, it did become the Government of the United States to exercise the power which the President under the law of 1807 did make use of.

If there has been any violation of right, it was in the passage of the law under which the President acted. It was such a one as, under present persuasion, I could not have voted for, even to remove a Yazoo purchaser. I would even give to such a one his right to a fair trial. I would not have agreed to pass it, for a reason given a day or two ago, that the right to trial by jury is inalienable; it is a right which descends to us with our other birth-rights; it is one without which liberty is but a name. It was an unfortunate circumstance that such a law did pass. But if the Legislature thought proper to enact such a law, let them not, in the name of the great God, throw the blame on their instrument, on the President, who was innocent of fault, and bound to carry the statute into effect. There is undoubted proof that the President only acted in pursuance of the statute. The retroactive part of the statute is the most horrible feature in it.

But it is said that this is an extreme case, that this small spot was selected as the object of Executive vengeance. I am informed that in almost every instance of intrusion on the public lands, settlement was made by individual claimants. I would rather give up fifty times the value of land of the United States than to encroach against law on that of any individual. It was not the execution of the law which encroached on the rights of the citizen, but the law itself. I would ask, how can it be contended to the contrary? Who was in possession of the land when the law passed? It had been used as public property, and had every requisite to that character; and as such, when any one took possession of it, the President would not have done his duty under the act of 1807, had he not caused them to be removed.

MONDAY, June 26.

Non-Intercourse.

On motion of Mr. SMILIE, the House resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of the Whole, on the bill from the Senate, to revive and amend certain parts of the act interdicting commercial intercourse.

Mr. DANA said the amendment moved to the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. SHEFFEY) went to give a construction to the bill which would operate as a complete exclusion of the vessels of both powers until a satisfactory adjustment of all existing differences shall have taken place. What, said Mr. D., is the situation in which we are now placed? On what principle is it that British ships were first excluded and on which their exclusion was confirmed by the non-intercourse law? They were originally excluded by the proclamation of the President of the United States in consequence of the attack on the Chesapeake. The President of the United States now in office has declared his acceptance of the proffered terms of satisfaction for that outrage. And, after that, is it proposed that we shall continue the measure of hostility when the cause alone which led to it is completely done away? I should suppose that in the very act of adjustment, which took place between the British Minister and the American Secretary, it is implied that we should do nothing further on this subject. The President of the United States has accepted the satisfaction offered; he has declared those terms, when performed, to be satisfactory. And are gentlemen considering the restoration of the seamen taken from the Chesapeake as a reason why we should continue the interdict? If we examine this subject fairly, the great principle of reparation was disavowed of the claim to search our armed vessels, and a homage to our rights. That matter must be deemed to be settled, if the President of the United States had authority to settle it. If the President had not power to settle it, this furnishes strong evidence that the vote of approbation of his conduct was a proper proposition.

As to the interdiction by the non-intercourse act, I apprehend that was founded on the violation of our neutral rights by the belligerent powers, the President of the United States being authorized to renew trade whenever the edicts violating our lawful commerce should be revoked. Whether or not the President has done right in accepting the assurance instead of the fact, gentlemen have considered it unnecessary for them to express any opinion upon it. If there be no edict affecting our lawful commerce in force by one belligerent, the interdict is at an end in point of fact in relation to that one. The question of the affair of the Chesapeake is settled, if the President had power to settle it; and as to the other cause of interdiction, the President has declared that the British orders will have been revoked on the 10th of June. Has the President acted correctly or not? If he has acted correctly in taking the assurance for the fact, the very principle of the non-intercourse is at an end as respects one of the belligerents, and there can be no ground for the exclusion of British armed vessels.

Mr. TAYLOR said he thought the gentleman from Connecticut used the word hostility in relation to this measure of including British armed vessels from the United States. Now, I believe, sir, said Mr. T., that if we go to the opinions entertained, not by the President of the United States, but entertained and expressed in the very foundation of the arrangement which was made, it will be found that the very hostility intended to be produced by the President's proclamation ceased at the moment when we passed the non-intercourse act in which we excluded the vessels of both the belligerents. The hostility was in the admission of the armed vessels of one, and excluding those of the other. It ceased by the non-intercourse law, and so satisfactory was this law of the last session, that it was the very foundation on which the overture was made which ended so much to the satisfaction of this nation. So that, in fact, when we perpetuate the order of things produced by that act, we do not perpetuate the state of things produced by the interdictory proclamation of the late President. It was matter of satisfaction to the British Government, as expressed by their Minister here, that the quality of hostility in the exclusion of her vessels was taken away by the non-intercourse law. Have we promised, in the negotiation which has taken place, that we will commit an act of hostility against France for the boon which we have received from the hand of Great Britain? No, sir; and yet, if we take the definition of Mr. Canning, as to excluding the vessels of one belligerent and receiving those of the other, according to the mode proposed by the amendment, without the sentence moved to be admitted to it, it will in fact be agreeing to go to war with France. According to the opinion of Britain, promulgated not only to this Government but to the world according to the demonstration made by the British Government, you will undertake a measure of active hostility against France; for what? For any great boon that this Government has received from the hands of Great Britain? No, sir. If all the promises were fulfilled to their full extent, we should then receive but justice at her hands. It was acknowledged, too, in the discussion which took place, that any nation, particularly a neutral nation, has a right to exclude the armed vessels of both belligerents; but that, on the contrary, the state now proposed to be produced, the exclusion of one and admission of the other, is an act of hostility of the party excluded. As I would not be compelled by the utmost ill usage by either belligerent to take part with the other against that one, neither will I take a consent or refusal from one or the other to do us justice as a motive for alliance, or a war which shall compromit our neutrality. I now speak of both, for both have used us as ill as was in their power. As kicks and cuffs have not compelled us to take part with them, neither shall caresses or fawning, for we will mete out an equal measure of justice to both. I consider the state of things produced by the non-intercourse as totally distinct from that produced by the proclamation of our late illustrious President.

Mr. FISK.--It was my intention not to have troubled the House with any remarks on the bill now under consideration. I could readily have reconciled it to my feelings to have given a silent vote in favor of the bill, had not so many and various objections been made against it. But as it seems to be objectionable, and susceptible of so many amendments, in the opinion of so many gentlemen, the House will indulge me, while I offer the reasons which will govern my vote.

This bill for which we were convened, has, during the time we have been here, received as yet but a small portion of our attention; and it is so important that upon its passage, and the principles it shall embrace, may depend the destinies of our country. It deserves our immediate and most serious attention. I hope it may be coolly and dispassionately examined, and treated according to its real importance. Its principles have been carefully and scrupulously investigated by the committee who reported it, or a bill similar in its provisions, of which committee I had the honor to be a member.

The language is plain; public ships are not interdicted. There is but one question to be decided in disposing of this bill, and that is respecting public ships; for I believe all will agree to renew the non-intercourse act as respects France. The question is, what regulation shall we make respecting public ships, and one of three courses is to be pursued? Shall we exclude both, admit both, or discriminate?

There are many who would be willing to exclude the armed ships of every foreign power from our harbors and waters. And considering what we have suffered by admitting them, it may be well questioned whether it would not be the best policy of this nation to interdict them by a permanent law. Yet many gentlemen object to this, as being inexpedient at this period. It is said, and it is the principal argument urged against it, that it might embarrass our impending negotiations with Great Britain to interdict her public ships by this act. As I feel as much disposed for an amicable adjustment of our differences with that nation as any member of this House, and would be as unwilling to embarrass the negotiation, I would not insist on this interdiction.

It is also said that England has made reparation, or agreed to make reparation, for the aggression which caused the interdiction of her public ships, and that as the cause no longer exists the interdiction should cease. Be it so; and may we never have fresh cause to renew it!

But, say gentlemen, we must not now recede from the ground we have taken with respect to France, we must discriminate. Let us for a moment view the ground we have taken--not only as relates to France, but England also.

We are not at war with either of the belligerents. Our Ministers at their respective Courts are endeavoring to negotiate, and by negotiation to obtain redress for the injuries of which we complain, and whatever precautionary measures we might adopt would not be deemed a violation of our neutral character, so long as those measures were equally applicable to both the belligerents. We could not be deemed to have taken part with either to the prejudice of the other, while no other was benefited by our measures. While British public ships were interdicted, and our embargo existed, an offer was made to both the belligerents to resume our trade--the same equal terms were tendered to both. The nation refusing is left without a cause of complaint against us, for resuming our trade with the nation accepting the offer.

Before either nation does accept, America changes her position. The embargo is abandoned, and a general interdiction of the public ships of England and France, and a non-intercourse with these nations and their dependencies, is substituted. By this non-intercourse act, the particular interdiction is merged in a general regulation. This was to exist until the end of the next session of Congress only. This was virtually saying, that the proclamation interdicting British public vessels from our waters for a particular aggression shall be revoked; and a general municipal regulation, over which the President shall have no control, shall be substituted in its stead. It was then, in order to preserve our neutral character, necessary that this rule should embrace both the belligerents. It may be said, and has indeed been frequently said, that the reason of extending this restriction to France, was her having burnt our vessels and imprisoned our seamen. But never, at least in the history of diplomacy, have cause and effect been more distant and unconnected. France, on the high seas, burns our vessels, and in her own territories imprisons our seamen. We, at the distance of three thousand miles, interdict our ports and waters to her public ships, which do not or dare not come within five hundred leagues of the line of our interdicted territory, and this is to retaliate for the aggression. Can this interdiction be defended on this ground? It cannot. There must have existed some other reason. It was to preserve our relations with the belligerents in that state that should be consistent with our professions of neutrality.

Had the interdiction been confined to British vessels by this law, what would Great Britain have said to this discrimination? In vain might we have told her that we meant to preserve our neutral character, and not to take a part with her enemies in the war against her. Our acts would have been directly opposed to our professions. With this discriminating, permanent, municipal law, could we expect Great Britain to treat with us as a neutral? If we did, we should be disappointed. If, then, it be inexpedient to make this discrimination against Great Britain, how is it less so, when directed against France? We are to admit British and exclude the French. And, are we to endeavor to negotiate, as neutrals, with France, upon this ground, with any reasonable prospect of success? It is desirable that the commercial intercourse between this country and France should be restored. Peace and free trade is the interest and the object of America. While we throw wide open the door of negotiation to England, why should we shut it against France? While we facilitate negotiations with the British, why should we embarrass and prevent the same with the French? I wish to leave the Executive and treaty-making powers of our Government free and unshackled, to enter on negotiation with both these Governments, under every advantage of success which we can give. On what ground can this discrimination be defended? You adopt this measure. Our Minister at Paris is requested to explain it. Is there any advocate for this discrimination in this House, who can conceive the grounds upon which our Minister or our Government are to justify this measure with our relations of neutrality? It cannot be defended. I am not for yielding to either nation, but, let our conduct be consistent, impartial, and defensible. If then, we are to be involved in a war with either, the resources of the country and the hearts of our citizens will support the Government, and we need not be afraid of the world. But those men, or that Administration that will, upon a mere useless, punctilious point of etiquette, commit the peace and happiness of this country to the ravages of war, will meet the indignation, and feel the vengeance of the intelligent citizens of the country. This temerity would meet its merited punishment. The people of America can see, and will judge for themselves; they can readily discern the difference between shadow and substance; they are neither to be deceived or trifled with, especially on subjects of such immense moment to their liberties and happiness.

Mr. BURWELL said he deemed it in some degree his duty to make some remarks on the bill before the House. He intended to vote against both the amendments proposed to the bill. I think (said Mr. B.) that if my colleague who moved the first amendment, (Mr. SHEFFEY,) had taken that view of this subject which might have been presented to his mind, he would not have found such error in the course proposed to be pursued. He seems to have taken another ground, when by the clearest demonstration it might have been shown that the system proposed is one of impartiality to the belligerent powers of Europe. It will be recollected by gentlemen of this House, that at the time the exclusion of French armed ships took place, it was upon the express ground that the British Government objected to come to an accommodation with us, because we excluded her vessels and nominally admitted those of her enemy. On that ground I venture to say that the exclusion took place; because, at the time that it took place, it was considered a measure absolutely favoring Great Britain, yet not injuring France by a nominal prohibition of the entrance of her vessels. It was stated that there was not perhaps in the course of a year a single French public armed vessel in the harbors of the United States. Have we any French frigates now in our seas? None. Is there any probability that there will be any? No, sir; for France having now lost her West India Islands, if her vessels are freely admitted, it is probable that there would not, in the course of five years, be a single French vessel within our waters. As the exclusion would be perfectly nominal, I would not adopt any thing to prevent a settlement of our differences with France. I am not now sanguine in my belief that we shall settle our differences with her; for every one acquainted with that Government knows, I fear, that it is not to be diverted from its object by any arrangement we may make. But I would do away every possible justification that could be urged by France for not meeting our overtures for peace. This conduct would produce at home more union among our citizens; and, when our rights are attacked without a pretence for their infraction, there can be but one sentiment in the nation. I have always determined to admit British vessels as far as my vote would go; and should the House determine to exclude French vessels I should still vote for the admission of English vessels, because their former exclusion has been so artfully managed by the British Government, and the doctrine has been so admitted by the presses in this country, as to give rise to the most unjustifiable conduct ever pursued by one nation towards another. As to the idea advanced by the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. TAYLOR,) that, if we do admit them to take possession of our waters, they will take advantage of the privilege to our injury in negotiation, it has no force with me, for this plain reason; that, although the exclusion of them from our waters was not carried into execution by physical force, yet they did not enter our waters, which they might have done, in defiance of the proclamation. And why did they not? Because, I presume, they had no desire to rouse the indignation of this nation by an open violation of the laws of the land.

If, sir, you wish to gain the advantage of union at home, take away every pretext for the violation of your rights. Let me ask if it be not better to admit them? By so doing you give up a principle which does not benefit you, and receive an accession of physical strength by union at home. I do not say that every one will be satisfied, because I have no doubt England has agents in the country, but so few in number as to be unworthy of notice. If Great Britain, on the other hand, attacks us when we have taken away every possible ground of collision and violates her promise, the people in every part of the country will be satisfied that her deliberate object is to destroy our commerce. We should have no more of those party divisions which have distracted us for some months past.

It cannot be said that we are bound by any part of the negotiation to admit English vessels. I have seen nothing of the kind, if it exist; and I call upon gentlemen to point it out. Why do it, then? It may be considered a concession; and certainly manifests that disposition which we feel to settle all the points of difference in agitation betwixt us. And here I beg leave to say that, according to the most explicit declarations of the British Minister, you would not give the smallest umbrage by pursuing that course. On this subject Mr. B. quoted a speech of Mr. Stevens in the British Parliament. If we were to be governed by reference to expressions which existed in that country of our partiality to France, it did appear to him that this speech was entitled to weight, because it justified the course proposed by the bill, and stated a position which the British Government admitted was all that could be required from a neutral State. From this speech it appeared that placing the two belligerents on an equal footing was all that was required. Did not this bill completely come up to their wishes? Did it not interdict all trade with France under the most severe and heavy penalties? Mr. B. said he did not wish it to be understood that he would shape his conduct by the wishes of the British Ministry; but, as it had been said that the bill was somewhat hostile to that country, he had quoted the speech of a ministerial member to show that no such inference could be drawn. The same person, in his speech, also states, said Mr. B., that the reason why our offer in August last was not accepted, was, that, if it had been accepted, such was the situation of the law, that a commerce might always be carried on with the enemy; that, through the ports in Europe, her enemy might be as efficiently supplied as if the embargo did not exist in relation to him. But, sir, what is now the state of things? If it is possible to operate on France by commercial restrictions, let me ask if this bill will not accomplish that object? Let me ask if an American vessel under it can go to any port of France? It not only cuts off direct intercourse, but prohibits the importation of the products of France; and any attempt to carry on a circuitous commerce must be ineffectual, inasmuch as the produce will be liable to seizure when it comes into the ports of the United States.

If, according to the ideas of the British Government itself, this state of things be a sufficient resistance to France, let me ask of gentlemen how they can infer a partiality to France? What more can you do? If you exclude the armed vessels of France, though it may display a disposition to injure her, I defy any gentleman to show that it can, in the smallest degree, coerce or affect her. Let me call the attention of gentlemen to the present situation of Europe. If accounts lately received are to be credited, we may calculate on the universal control of the French Emperor over the ports of Europe. Is it to our advantage to be excluded from the trade of the continent? Is it not known that all the surplus product of the agriculture of this country finds its vent on the Continent of Europe? Is it not known that, of the whole of our tobacco, seven out of eight parts are consumed on the continent? That of our cotton, at least one-half finds its market there? Does not flour find a great proportion of its consumption on the continent? This cannot be denied. Then, let me ask of gentlemen, whether it be so much to our advantage to exclude this trade; and, if not, why we should take a step which can do France no injury, but which may, and probably would, be made a pretext for cutting off so valuable a part of our trade? With respect to partiality to France, let me call upon the gentleman from Virginia, or any other, to show if, from the conduct of the United States, and such thing can be inferred. Look at our relative situation. Have we opened our ports to her traders? Have we renewed commercial intercourse with her? Let me ask, which have we placed in the best situation, France or England? Every gentleman must answer--England. Whilst she gets all our commerce, her enemy is wholly excluded from any participation in it.

Another argument has been used against discrimination, viz: that France has no public armed ships. If this is the case, gentlemen need not be alarmed; for, if they cannot come here, we need not be afraid of their resentment, because we will not admit them. But we know that her cruisers can steal out of their ports, go into foreign seas, and destroy our trade in spite of the ships of Great Britain. If an American vessel has British property on board, or has been spoken by a British cruiser, a French public armed vessel is bound to make prize of her. This being the case, let us for a moment consider the subject as respects ourselves. Our feelings ought to be for ourselves and our country. Here is a nation having public ships, having a right to come into your ports. Does it comport with our honor and dignity to admit into our ports and harbors the very vessels destroying our commerce? Not to go into an inquiry what has been the fact heretofore, but what may be now--if you pass a law that a French frigate may come into your waters and partake of your hospitalities, where is the obligation that it may not take advantage of the opportunity to make its prey more sure by watching it in port and then going out and entrapping it? If, from the intoxication of the man who rules the destinies of the nations of Europe, he does not feel disposed to treat with us on terms of reciprocity, that circumstance should have no effect on our measures. But the question on that point is no doubt already settled; time sufficient has been allowed for the vessel to go and receive an answer to the instruction sent to our Minister. I certainly would so far respect myself as to fulfil what I conceive to be good faith toward both, without respect to the wish or dictation of either.

As to the amount of produce sent to the continent, it cannot be great. Some few may have adventured there on desperate voyages; but that there is much property in jeopardy, I cannot believe, for France is known to be, in respect to mercantile property, the lion's den, easy of access, but impossible to return. Those, therefore, who have risked their property must have been extremely rash.

If the French Government would do us justice, I should be glad; if not, we must abide by the consequences. We must not do improper things because they will not do us justice. It is proper that we should assert what we conceive to be our rights. I believe, however, that the question of peace with France will not turn on this bill. I believe the point to be already settled. If it be not, and the exclusion of French armed vessels would be an impediment to it, the same objection would be valid against the whole bill.

Mr. HOLLAND asked the indulgence of the House whilst he stated a few reasons why he should vote for the amendment under consideration. It had been asked whether it was consistent with the honor of this nation to admit French ships within our waters. Mr. H. said he would answer, that, as things now stood, he did not consider it consistent with our honor and dignity so to do; and the reason why was, that that Government had done sundry injurious acts towards this nation for which it had not made reparation, nor even intimated an intention of doing so. He therefore answered that it was inconsistent to admit the vessels of France within our waters. It was in consequence of injuries which they had done, according to my conception, that I voted for their exclusion. I was not influenced to vote for the prohibition of the ships of France from coming into our waters by any desire to produce an equality in our relations with the belligerents. It was no impression of that kind that influenced my vote; and yet I voted that French ships of war should not come into our waters. It was not the opinions of editors of newspapers, or the clamors of individuals, that influenced my vote, and I hope they never will. I think that every gentleman, on taking his seat in this House, should consider himself beyond suspicion. The only question for consideration of the members of this House, when a measure is presented to them, is the expediency of it; and on that ground alone I voted for the exclusion of French ships or of British ships. I was chiefly influenced to vote for the exclusion of British armed ships by the variety of acts committed in our waters, and the great disposition which she had shown to commit the most wanton acts of treachery. I can say for myself that my conduct was only partially influenced by the acts of British officers within our waters; I had in view a variety of other acts committed against the rights of the people of this country. Supposing the affair of the Chesapeake to have been authorized, I never wish to see the British ships of war within our waters, till they recede from the right of impressment. I wish the British Government to know that it was the determination of the major part of the citizens of the United States to resist her till she surrendered that right. I think it was a sacrifice of the dignity of the United States to receive British vessels so long as they committed those acts. It was therefore that I voted to exclude them.

It is said, by the gentleman last up, that we are at peace with Great Britain. Does it follow, from that, that they are entitled to all the rights of hospitality that one nation could possibly show to another? Certainly not. We ought yet to hold up some indication that we are not perfectly reconciled to them. When they abandon the outrageous principles which govern that nation with respect to neutrals; when they abandon the practice of impressment; when they make restitution for spoliations of our trade; we will hold the hand of fellowship to them. It is not enough for me to hear the British Minister say that an Envoy Extraordinary is to come out and settle all differences. I have heard something like this long ago. I heard that a Minister was to be sent out to make reparation for the affair of the Chesapeake. We have experience on this subject. Have we forgot that every thing which accompanied that mission was evidence that the British Government was not sincere, and that it did not intend to accommodate? When I see an abandonment by Great Britain of the principles destructive to neutrality, I can consent to admit that nation to the rights of hospitality.

Mr. JOHNSON observed, that, to say any thing on this subject, after the time which had been already consumed, and the speeches which had been made, was contrary to a rule which he had laid down for his own conduct. But his excuse would be found in the introduction into the House of a proposition, which, it was said, proposed to place us on a neutral ground. Nothing, said Mr. J., is dearer to me than neutrality as to our foreign relations; but, the bill submitted to the House by the committee of which I had the honor to constitute one, and which is the same with that now before us, so far from being in hostility to Great Britain, and partiality to France, I contend, is a concession to Great Britain, at the same time that I admit that it is not hostility to France. The admission of the belligerent vessels into our waters, so far from being hostility to Great Britain, is concession. I bottom the remark upon the fact, that, at this moment, as many and as heavy causes of complaint exist unsettled between this Government and Great Britain, as between this Government and that of France. If then, the same causes exist to exclude from our waters the vessels of both, I ask whether the admission of both will not be an actual benefit and concession to Great Britain, and a nominal benefit to France? And, still, it is to go forth to the nation that we are about to commit an act which will sink the nation, from the elevated situation in which it is now placed by our former measures! I hope that we shall continue to convince the world that the United States of America are incapable of other than neutral conduct. Is it a fact, that greater injuries exist from France than from Great Britain? What injuries have been received from France? Have they been committed within our waters? Has our hospitality been violated and our officers insulted in our very ports by the vessels of France? or is her hostility merely commercial? It is of the latter description. Is it not admitted that we may lawfully exclude or admit the vessels of both belligerents? If you admit the vessels of one nation with whom you have cause of difference, and exclude those of another nation with whom you have only the same cause of difference, I ask whether you do not commit the dignity of the nation, and jeopardize its peace?

I will put this question to gentlemen: what has Britain done which would require a discrimination as to her public vessels? She has rescinded her Orders in Council. And what have we done in return? Have we done nothing? Has Great Britain held out the hand of friendship, and have we refused to meet her? Has she withdrawn her Orders in Council, and have we insisted on a continuance of our commercial restrictions? I have understood that she has done nothing but rescinded her Orders in Council, and we have renewed intercourse with her therefore. I am more astonished at the proposal to discriminate, when we see that, at this moment, orders are in existence blockading countries to which your merchants have, long ago, taken out clearances, in violation of stipulations which Britain had proposed to us. When she has violated our rights, I am more astonished that gentlemen should wish to go beyond this letter of the law. And, let the consequence be what it may, it would result to the benefit of this nation that we should not be influenced by idle fears of imaginary dangers. My better judgment tells me we should exclude the armed vessels of both nations; but the general sentiment appears to be against it. It is asked of us, why admit the vessels of France, whilst injuries which she has done us are unatoned for? And, I ask, sir, why, then, admit the vessels of England standing in the same relation to us? I only make these remarks as going to show that we ought to be strictly neutral. If, sir, you wish to take part in the broils of Europe, embody your men, and send them over to the disposal of England at once, and let her send them to Spain or Austria. But, if you would remain neutral, either admit or exclude the armed vessels, as you would armies, of both belligerents.

I had thought, sir, not only from the acts of our Government, but from conversing with gentlemen, that we hailed the present as an auspicious moment, as a political jubilee; I had thought that we had been on the verge of war with the two most powerful nations of the earth, but that our situation was changed, and that, at the same moment we now offer the only asylum to the victims of European wars. And are you now about again to jeopardize the peace of this nation, without any cause whatever?

The exclusion of French and British armed vessels at the last session, may be taken on this ground. It was a defensive war, not only for the injuries we had received, but in expectation of actual hostility. Has it occurred? No, sir. Would you have excluded British vessels since 1793, for taking the vessels engaged in your lawful trade, and for impressing your seamen? You did not do it; and it was not for that alone that you did it at the last session, but for other causes, which have nearly or quite disappeared.

I have done, sir. I shall not vote for any proposition which makes a difference between France and Great Britain; not that I am afraid of the conscripts of Napoleon, or the navy of George III. But I cannot consent to adopt a course which will again obscure with clouds our political horizon.

Mr. SMILIE said, that if he now took up five minutes of the time of the House, he could not excuse it to himself; and he should not have risen, but to explain the reasons for the course which he should take. As to the amendment, to that he could never agree. The question which the Legislature often had to decide, was not what was best, but what is practicable. Now, he thought it a happy circumstance that parties in the other House had united on this subject. However we may differ as to local affairs, said he, I think it good policy, if it can be done without a sacrifice of principle, to meet in concert on measures of external relations. What may be the effect, if you introduce either of these two principles into this bill? We know that, if this bill does not go to the Senate till to-morrow, if amended, a single member of the Senate can, according to their rules, prevent the bill from passing altogether. My opinion is, that it is our duty to pass the bill in its present form. If any material alteration be made in the bill, I believe it will not pass. If it does not, all that has taken place between this country and Great Britain is at an end. And I hope that this reason will induce gentlemen to permit the question to be taken.

Mr. J. G. JACKSON said he had intended, before the day had so far progressed, to have explained to the House the motives by which he was actuated in relation to the bill. He said he would still take the liberty of stating to the few members present, (the House being very thin,) why he offered the amendment to the amendment. It will be recollected, said Mr. J., that the other day I stated that a construction had been given to the law contemplated to be re-enacted by the bill on the table, which, notwithstanding the renewal of intercourse, excluded armed vessels from our waters; and, for the purpose of doing away completely that construction, I moved an amendment which, gentlemen conceiving it unnecessary, I withdrew. If gentlemen are correct in the opinion which they advanced, and which induced me to withdraw that motion, they cannot, consistently, vote for the amendment of my colleague providing an exception to a provision which the bill does not contain. Where is the necessity of a proviso if the law does not bear such a construction? Is the Executive to infer from the proviso that something exists in the law which the friends of the proviso declare does not exist? The amendment proposed by my colleague provides for the admission of the armed vessels of those nations with whom commercial intercourse shall have been (not has been) permitted. Are you, by this phraseology, about to devolve upon the President a discretionary power, holding the scale of national honor in one hand, and the injury and atonement in the other, to decide which nation shall be thus favored, when it is conceded on all hands that the admission of the armed vessels of one nation and the exclusion of those of the other, is an act ipso facto of hostility?

Gentlemen have observed that there ought to be an exclusion of French and admission of English armed ships, and that any other course would be an acquiescence in the views of "sister France," and hostility to England. This language, sir, does not help the cause which the gentleman advocates. What must be the effect of such insinuations? They must excite feelings which, I am happy to say, have not been displayed on this floor during the session. Might it not be retorted, as a natural consequence, that gentlemen who wish to admit British and exclude French ships, and thus serve the interest of England, are desirous of subserving the views of mother Britain? The attachment to sister France on the one hand, is about as great as the attachment to mother Britain on the other. I believe it has been emphatically declared to the nation that we would not go to war for existing differences. If, however, gentlemen, since the last session, have so materially altered their ideas of the policy proper in relation to one belligerent, let us go to war openly; I am not for using the stiletto, or for stabbing in the dark.

The interdict of British armed vessels from entering our ports was not on account of the affair of the Chesapeake only. It is unnecessary now to repeat the cause which led to it. If gentlemen will turn to the letter of Mr. Madison to Mr. Rose, they will find the causes detailed. Since that time other injuries have been committed; and it has been justly observed that the burning the Impetueux was an insult to the sovereignty of this nation scarcely less than the affair of the Chesapeake. If we permit hostility from one belligerent to another within our territory, we become party to the war, as we do, by admitting the enemy even to pass through our territory to attack another nation. It is in vain to say that a nation preserves a neutral attitude, when it permits one of the belligerents repeatedly to violate its sovereignty. If there be as much injury unatoned on the part of Britain as on the part of France, then a discrimination will be a departure from the ground which we took last session, that both should be excluded. And the President had no power over that part of the law. Inasmuch as we know that Great Britain has the command of the ocean, and that a French ship of war cannot, without a miracle, escape across the Atlantic, we, in fact, by the operation of the bill as it came from the Senate, admit English and exclude French ships.

We throw open our ports and admit the thousand ships of Britain, without opening our eyes to the consequences which have heretofore resulted from so doing. And shall we now refuse admission to the vessels of France? It is indeed difficult to say what led to their exclusion; for it has been with truth observed that the non-intercourse bill had not an advocate in the House. It was something like throwing all our discordant opinions into one crucible, and after fusion, extracting what was expected to be gold, but which all called dross. When gentlemen speak of their zeal to maintain the ground taken last winter, I beg of them to recollect their own speeches, from which it will be found that the bill was so obnoxious to them that they would not even extend its operation to the next winter, and that it was with difficulty that it was extended to the end of the present session.

Gentlemen ask, has there not been a satisfactory adjustment of our differences with Great Britain? I deny it. What is the expression of the British Envoy on which gentlemen rely, and on which they are about to sit down quietly under the vine and fig tree? "In the mean time, with a view to contribute to the attainment of so desirable an object, His Majesty would be willing to withdraw his orders," &c. In the mean time, still persisting in the principle of taxing our exports, a right denied even to us by the constitution. It is to be hung up in terrorem, to be let loose upon us hereafter, if we shall not do every thing which is required of us. There is a marked cautious style of language in this letter, which shows that Great Britain in fact has promised nothing. She does not say that she will repeal or revoke her orders, but that in the mean time she will withdraw them; and, sir, in the mean time she has withdrawn them, and substituted other orders or proclamations equally obnoxious. This is reason sufficient for not going beyond the letter of the agreement; which however I will consent to do, by admitting instead of excluding British armed vessels.

When Mr. J. G. JACKSON concluded, Mr. SHEFFEY, in order to obtain a direct question on his own amendment, adopted Mr. JACKSON'S rider to it, as a part of his own motion, and called for a division of the question, taking it first on his own amendment as first moved.

Some doubt arising whether it was correct thus to act, according to the rules of the House, Mr. MACON produced a precedent in which he had himself done the same in the case of a motion for the repeal of the second section of the sedition act, nine or ten years ago.

Mr. TAYLOR said that, as the House had decided that they would not discriminate between the admission of British and French public vessels, he wished to try the question on the exclusion of both. He made a motion having in view that object; which was decided without debate, fifteen for it, one hundred against it, being a majority of eighty-five against the exclusion, at this time, of the public vessels of both belligerents.

Mr. MONTGOMERY observed that the decision of the courts of the United States had been that, after a law had expired, they had dismissed all suits pending for the recovery of penalties incurred under the act. He conceived that this bill should have a saving clause, that penalties and forfeitures incurred under it, should be recoverable and distributable after the act itself had expired. He therefore moved an amendment to that effect.

TUESDAY, June 27.

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.

WEDNESDAY, June 28.

Emigrants from Cuba.

On motion of Mr. MARION, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for the remission of certain fines and penalties.

[This bill provides for the remission of penalties incurred by the captains and owners of vessels which have been compelled to take on board emigrants from Cuba, with their slaves, the landing of the latter in the United States having, under present laws, forfeited the vessels and cargoes and fined the persons concerned.]

Mr. MARION observed that he had, a day or two ago, presented petitions from persons bringing in slaves, amongst which were some documents, one of which was the opinion of the district court of South Carolina, by which it appeared that, if the bill passed in the present shape, no relief would be afforded by it; for, it had not appeared on the trial that the slaves were forcibly expelled from the island, though the owners were. He therefore moved an amendment to include slaves owned by persons who were expelled from the island.--Motion agreed to without opposition.

Mr. M. then moved to add a proviso: "And provided, also, that such slaves shall have been brought in at the same time as their owners, respectively."--Agreed to.

Mr. ROSS observed that a former act on the subject of the importation of slaves said, that it should not be lawful to bring into the United States any negro, mulatto, or person of color, with intention to sell the same or hold them as slaves. The present case appeared to him to be one in direct violation of that law. Under the act of 1807, it had become the duty of the court to examine whether it was the intention of the parties to infringe or violate the laws. After a fair examination by a court, under a desire to relieve those interested, and a failure of every attempt to show that they were compelled to take on board these slaves, was the House about to sit in judgment and reverse the decision? Mr. R. said that provision was also made in the bill as to slaves that may hereafter arrive in the United States, giving a power to the President of the United States, at his discretion, to set aside the law. What reason could there be for enacting this law, if the principles of the law of 1807 were correct? If it was intended, by a side blow, to repeal that law, he had rather see it done at once; and not, whilst in appearance we had such a law, to give the President a dispensing power over it. It was said that the persons concerned in bringing them in were distressed. How distressed? Only because they could not prove they were compelled to bring them into the country. Mr. R. said he did not wish to irritate the feelings of gentlemen from any portion of the Union, but he was sorry to see a bill introduced to unsettle what he conceived to be a valuable provision, enacted some sessions ago.

Mr. NEWTON said he felt as much repugnance as the gentleman from Pennsylvania to touch that law; but, if the gentleman would consider that this was a case of a peculiar nature, attended with singular circumstances, he would withdraw his objection. And he verily believed, that had the Legislature foreseen what had taken place, they would certainly have inserted a provision to meet the case which had occurred. Let it be recollected, said he, that the unfortunate Frenchmen driven on our coast, were some time ago driven from St. Domingo, and were obliged to take shelter at Cuba. Since the commencement of the war in Spain, Cuba has almost witnessed the same scenes as St. Domingo. These people were forced to leave the island in distress, and take what portion of property they could collect. They could not go to France, because no vessels of that country were permitted to touch at the island of Cuba, neither could they go to the French islands in the West Indies. There was no country open to them but America. The American captains, then, were forced to take the French on board, and with them, a few body servants; and, under the former law, these vessels are seized, and liable to forfeiture, our merchants to suffer the loss of vessel and cargo, and the poor emigrants to lose all their little property. Let it be recollected that the law of 1807 does not interfere with the State rights on the subject. This bill only goes so far as to remit all fines and penalties incurred by the captains of vessels, and release the property which would otherwise be condemned, and relieve the perfectly innocent merchants who would otherwise suffer. Let us say to these unfortunates, as Dido to Æneas, when he was exiled from Troy: "I have suffered misfortune myself, and therefore know how to extend the hand of relief to others."

Mr. MARION said that if the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. ROSS) thought that he had a wish or intention to increase the number of slaves, he was much mistaken. The laws of South Carolina prohibited the bringing these slaves, or any other, into the State; yet they had been brought there, and the persons bringing them there must give security that they would have them carried out of the State. Now, by the non-intercourse law, the State was prevented from sending them away; they would, of course, remain here till the law permitted them to be sent off, for they could go nowhere but to France and her dependencies, France being at war with all the rest of the world. Mr. M. said that there were several captains now in jail under sentence of court for having brought those people into the country; he submitted to the House whether, under the circumstances of the case, the captains had not good reason to suppose that they would not be subject to the penalty of the law. The law prohibiting the importation of slaves was of a highly penal nature, and different from all other laws of that nature, having no clause in it giving a power of remission of penalties; and this bill was guarded in such a manner that no evil could arise.

Mr. MACON said it was certainly true that the Southern country wanted no more slaves. The sole object of the bill was to get them away. However desirous the people might be to hold that property, there could be no fear of their wanting them from the West Indies.

Mr. MONTGOMERY said it was peculiarly necessary to pass this bill to get rid of the immense number of slaves brought into New Orleans; for every one must know that they were not wanted there. They were too numerous to continue there, and this bill was intended to make provision for their exportation.

Mr. NEWTON produced a letter from the collector of New Orleans on this subject.

Mr. TAYLOR said it never could have been the intention or spirit of the law of 1807 to increase our population in free blacks. It was not to set free the people of this description that the law had been passed, but to prevent them from being brought here at all. For even in Pennsylvania he had no doubt the gentleman would be content to have no further population of this sort. Mr. T. said that he knew that in the Southern States there was an extreme aversion to receiving an additional free black population. The intent of this bill, so far from being in hostility to the law quoted by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, was in furtherance of it. It was to remove them out of the country.

Mr. ROSS said that it was strange that the House should have a bill before it contemplating the removal of a certain description of persons out of the country, when nothing of the kind appeared on the face of it. If that was its intention, there should be a condition that the persons bringing in these slaves should carry them out again.

Mr. NEWTON observed that unless this law passed, the inevitable consequence must be that the negroes must remain here. He did not want them, they brought principles which it was known would not promote our interest or happiness.

The committee then rose and reported the bill.

Mr. NEWTON moved a new section for the relief of Foster and Girard, of New York, whose ship had been forfeited under the law prohibiting the importation of slaves.--Agreed to.

And the bill was ordered to a third reading, and subsequently passed without opposition.

Evening Session.

Mr. ROOT reported that the committee had waited on the President according to order, who was pleased to say that he had no further communications to make.

About nine o'clock, all the bills having been enrolled and signed, a motion was made to adjourn, and carried; and the SPEAKER, after wishing the members of the House a pleasant journey home, and a happy meeting with their friends, adjourned the House to the fourth Monday in November next.

FOOTNOTES:

[6] LIST OF REPRESENTATIVES.

New Hampshire.--Daniel Blaisdell, John C. Chamberlain, William Hale, Nathaniel A. Haven, James Wilson.

Massachusetts.--Ezekiel Bacon, William Baylies, Richard Cutts, Orchard Cook, William Ely, Gideon Gardner, Barzillai Gannett, Edward St. Loe Livermore, Benjamin Pickman, jr., Josiah Quincy, Ebenezer Seaver, Samuel Taggart, William Stedman, Jabez Upham, Joseph B. Varnum, Laban Wheaton, Ezekiel Whitman.

Rhode Island.--Richard Jackson, jr., Elisha E. Potter.

Connecticut.--Epaphroditus Champion, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Jonathan O. Mosely, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Lewis B. Sturges, Benjamin Tallmadge.

Vermont.--William Chamberlin, Martin Chittenden, Jonathan H. Hubbard, Samuel Shaw.

New York.--James Emott, Jonathan Fisk, Barent Gardenier, Thomas E. Gold, Herman Knickerbacker, Robert Le Roy Livingston, Vincent Matthews, John Nicholson, Gurdon S. Mumford, Peter B. Porter, Ebenezer Sage, Thomas Sammons, Erastus Root, John Thompson, Uri Tracy, Killian K. Van Rensselaer.

Pennsylvania.--William Anderson, David Bard, Robert Brown, William Crawford, William Findlay, Daniel Heister, Robert Jenkins, Aaron Lyle, William Milnor, John Porter, John Rea, Benjamin Say, Matthias Richards, John Ross, George Smith, Samuel Smith, John Smilie, Robert Whitehill.

New Jersey.--Adam Boyd, James Cox, William Helms, Jacob Hufty, Thomas Newbold, Henry Southard.

Delaware.--Nicholas Van Dyke.

Maryland.--John Brown, John Campbell, Charles Goldsborough, Philip Barton Key, Alexander McKim, John Montgomery, Nicholas R. Moore, Roger Nelson, Archibald Van Horne.

Virginia.--Burwell Bassett, James Breckenridge, William A. Burwell, Matthew Clay, John Dawson, John W. Eppes, Thomas Gholson, jr., Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, Joseph Lewis, jr., John Love, Thomas Newton, Wilson Carey Nicholas, John Randolph, John Roane, Daniel Sheffey, John Smith, James Stephenson, Jacob Swoope.

North Carolina.--Willis Alston, jr., James Cochran, Meshack Franklin, James Holland, Thomas Kenan, William Kennedy, Archibald McBride, Nathaniel Macon, Joseph Pearson, Lemuel Sawyer, Richard Stanford, John Stanley.

South Carolina.--Lemuel J. Alston, William Butler, Joseph Calhoun, Robert Marion, Thomas Moore, John Taylor, Robert Witherspoon, Richard Wynn.

Georgia.--William W. Bibb, Howell Cobb, Dennis Smelt, George W. Troup.

Kentucky.--Henry Crist, Joseph Desha, Benjamin Howard, Richard M. Johnson, Matthew Lyon, Samuel McKee.

Tennessee.--Pleasant M. Miller, John Rhea, Robert Weakley.

Ohio.--Jeremiah Morrow.

Mississippi Territory.--George Poindexter.

Orleans Territory.--Julian Poydras.

ELEVENTH CONGRESS--SECOND SESSION.

BEGUN AT THE CITY OF WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 27, 1809.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.

MONDAY, November 27, 1809.

Conformably to the act passed at the last session, entitled "An act to fix the time for the next meeting of Congress," the second session of the eleventh Congress commenced this day; and the Senate assembled, in their Chamber, at the city of Washington.

PRESENT:

NICHOLAS GILMAN, from New Hampshire.

TIMOTHY PICKERING, from Massachusetts.

CHAUNCEY GOODRICH, from Connecticut.

STEPHEN R. BRADLEY and JONATHAN ROBINSON, from Vermont.

JOHN LAMBERT, from New Jersey.

ANDREW GREGG and MICHAEL LEIB, from Pennsylvania.

WILLIAM B. GILES, from Virginia.

JAMES TURNER, from North Carolina.

THOMAS SUMTER and JOHN GAILLARD, from South Carolina.

BUCKNER THRUSTON and JOHN POPE, from Kentucky.

RETURN JONATHAN MEIGS and STANLEY GRISWOLD, from Ohio.

The number of Senators present not being sufficient to constitute a quorum, the Senate adjourned to 11 o'clock to-morrow morning.

TUESDAY, November 28.

The Senate assembled--present as yesterday; and OBADIAH GERMAN, from the State of New York; JAMES HILLHOUSE, from the State of Connecticut; ELISHA MATHEWSON, from the State of Rhode Island; and NAHUM PARKER, from the State of New Hampshire, severally attended.

ANDREW GREGG, President pro tempore, resumed the chair.

The PRESIDENT communicated a letter from the Surveyor of the Public Buildings, stating the difficulties that have prevented the entire completion of the permanent Senate Chamber; which letter was read.

Ordered, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is assembled, and ready to attend to business.

Ordered, That Messrs. GILMAN and GAILLARD be a committee on the part of the Senate, together with such committee as may be appointed by the House of Representatives on their part, to wait on the President of the United States, and notify him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled, and ready to receive any communications that he may be pleased to make to them.

Ordered, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives therewith.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the House have appointed a committee, on their part, jointly with such committee as may be appointed on the part of the Senate, to wait on the President of the United States, and notify him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled, and ready to receive any communications that he may be pleased to make to them.

Resolved, That James Mathers, Sergeant-at-Arms and Doorkeeper to the Senate, be, and he is hereby, authorized to employ one assistant and two horses, for the purpose of performing such services as are usually required by the Doorkeeper to the Senate; and that the sum of twenty-eight dollars be allowed him weekly for that purpose, to commence with, and remain during the session, and for twenty days after.

Mr. GILMAN reported, from the joint committee, that they had waited on the President of the United States, agreeably to order, and that the President of the United States informed the committee that he would make a communication to the two Houses to-morrow, at 12 o'clock.

WEDNESDAY, November 29.

JAMES LLOYD, from the State of Massachusetts, attended.

President's Message.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

Fellow-citizens of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:

At the period of our last meeting, I had the satisfaction of communicating an adjustment with one of the principal belligerent nations, highly important in itself, and still more so, as presaging a more extended accommodation. It is with deep concern I am now to inform you, that the favorable prospect has been overclouded by a refusal of the British Government to abide by the act of its Minister Plenipotentiary, and by its ensuing policy towards the United States, as seen through the communications of the Minister sent to replace him.

Whatever pleas may be urged for a disavowal of engagements formed by diplomatic functionaries, in cases where, by the terms of the engagements, a mutual ratification is reserved; or where notice at the time may have been given of a departure from instructions; or, in extraordinary cases, essentially violating the principles of equity; a disavowal could not have been apprehended in a case where no such notice or violation existed; where no such ratification was reserved; and, more especially, where, as is now in proof, an engagement, to be executed, without any such ratification, was contemplated by the instructions given, and where it had, with good faith, been carried into immediate execution on the part of the United States.

These considerations not having restrained the British Government from disavowing the arrangement, by virtue of which its orders in council were to be revoked, and the event authorizing the renewal of commercial intercourse having thus not taken place, it necessarily became a question of equal urgency and importance, whether the act prohibiting that intercourse was not to be considered as remaining in legal force. This question being, after due deliberation, determined in the affirmative, a proclamation to that effect was issued. It could not but happen, however, that a return to this state of things, from that which had followed an execution of the arrangement by the United States, would involve difficulties. With a view to diminish these as much as possible, the instructions from the Secretary of the Treasury, now laid before you, were transmitted to the collectors of the several ports. If, in permitting British vessels to depart without giving bonds not to proceed to their own ports, it should appear that the tenor of legal authority has not been strictly pursued, it is to be ascribed to the anxious desire which was felt, that no individuals should be injured by so unforeseen an occurrence: and I rely on the regard of Congress for the equitable interests of our own citizens, to adopt whatever further provisions may be found requisite for a general remission of penalties involuntarily incurred.

The recall of the disavowed Minister having been followed by the appointment of a successor, hopes were indulged that the new mission would contribute to alleviate the disappointment which had been produced, and to remove the causes which had so long embarrassed the good understanding of the two nations. It could not be doubted that it would at least be charged with conciliatory explanations of the step which had been taken, and with proposals to be substituted for the rejected arrangement. Reasonable and universal as this expectation was, it also has not been fulfilled. From the first official disclosures of the new Minister, it was found that he had received no authority to enter into explanations relative to either branch of the arrangement disavowed, nor any authority to substitute proposals, as to that branch which concerned the British orders in council. And, finally, that his proposals with respect to the other branch, the attack on the frigate Chesapeake, were founded on a presumption, repeatedly declared to be inadmissible by the United States, that the first step towards adjustment was due from them; the proposals, at the same time, omitting even a reference to the officer answerable for the murderous aggression, and asserting a claim not less contrary to the British laws and British practice, than to the principles and obligations of the United States.

The correspondence between the Department of State and this Minister will show how unessentially the features presented in its commencement have been varied in its progress. It will show, also, that, forgetting the respect due to all governments, he did not refrain from imputations on this, which required that no further communications should be received from him. The necessity of this step will be made known to His Britannic Majesty, through the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States in London. And it would indicate a want of the confidence due to a Government which so well understands and exacts what becomes foreign Ministers near it, not to infer that the misconduct of its own Representative will be viewed in the same light in which it has been regarded here. The British Government will learn, at the same time, that a ready attention will be given to communications, through any channel which may be substituted. It will be happy, if the change in this respect should be accompanied by a favorable revision of the unfriendly policy which has been so long pursued towards the United States.

With France, the other belligerent, whose trespasses on our commercial rights have long been the subject of our just remonstrances, the posture of our relations does not correspond with the measures taken on the part of the United States to effect a favorable change. The result of the several communications made to her Government, in pursuance of the authorities vested by Congress in the Executive, is contained in the correspondence of our Minister at Paris, now laid before you.

By some of the other belligerents, although professing just and amicable dispositions, injuries materially affecting our commerce have not been duly controlled or repressed. In these cases, the interpositions deemed proper, on our part, have not been omitted. But, it well deserves the consideration of the Legislature, how far both the safety and the honor of the American flag may be consulted, by adequate provisions against that collusive prostitution of it by individuals, unworthy of the American name, which has so much favored the real or pretended suspicions, under which the honest commerce of their fellow-citizens has suffered.

In relation to the powers on the coast of Barbary, nothing has occurred which is not of a nature rather to inspire confidence than distrust, as to the continuance of the existing amity. With our Indian neighbors, the just and benevolent system continued towards them, has also preserved peace, and is more and more advancing habits favorable to their civilization and happiness.

From a statement which will be made by the Secretary of War, it will be seen that the fortifications on our maritime frontier are, in many of the ports, completed, affording the defence which was contemplated; and that a further time will be required to render complete the works in the harbor of New York, and in some other places. By the enlargement of the works, and the employment of a greater number of hands at the public armories, the supply of small arms, of an improving quality, appears to be annually increasing, at a rate, that, without those made on private contract, may be expected to go far towards providing for the public exigency.

The act of Congress providing for the equipment of our vessels of war having been fully carried into execution, I refer to the statement of the Secretary of the Navy for the information which may be proper on that subject. To that statement is added a view of the transfers of appropriations, authorized by the act of the session preceding the last, and of the grounds on which the transfers were made.

Whatever may be the course of your deliberations on the subject of our military establishments, I should fail in my duty in not recommending to your serious attention the importance of giving to our militia, the great bulwark of our security and resource of our power, an organization the best adapted to eventual situations, for which the United States ought to be prepared.

The sums which had been previously accumulated in the Treasury, together with the receipts during the year ending on the 30th of September last, and amounting to more than nine millions of dollars, have enabled us to fulfil all our engagements, and to defray the current expenses of our Government, without recurring to any loan. But the insecurity of our commerce, and the consequent diminution of the public revenue, will probably produce a deficiency in the receipts of the ensuing year, for which, and for other details, I refer to the statements which will be transmitted from the Treasury.

In the state which has been presented of our affairs with the great parties to a disastrous and protracted war, carried on in a mode equally injurious and unjust to the United States as a neutral nation, the wisdom of the National Legislature will be again summoned to the important decision on the alternatives before them. That these will be met in a spirit worthy of the councils of a nation conscious both of its rectitude and of its rights, and careful as well of its honor as of its peace, I have an entire confidence. And that the result will be stamped by a unanimity becoming the occasion, and be supported by every portion of our citizens, with a patriotism enlightened and invigorated by experience, ought as little to be doubted.

In the midst of the wrongs and vexations experienced from external causes, there is much room for congratulation on the prosperity and happiness flowing from our situation at home. The blessing of health has never been more universal. The fruits of the seasons, though in particular articles and districts short of their usual redundancy, are more than sufficient for our wants and our comforts. The face of our country every where presents the evidence of laudable enterprise, of extensive capital, and of durable improvement. In a cultivation of the materials, and the extension of useful manufactures, more especially in the general application to household fabrics, we behold a rapid diminution of our dependence on foreign supplies. Nor is it unworthy of reflection, that this revolution in our pursuits and habits is in no slight degree a consequence of those impolitic and arbitrary edicts, by which the contending nations, in endeavoring, each of them, to obstruct our trade with the other, have so far abridged our means of procuring the productions and manufactures of which our own are now taking the place.

Recollecting, always, that, for every advantage which may contribute to distinguish our lot from that to which others are doomed by the unhappy spirit of the times, we are indebted to that Divine Providence whose goodness has been so remarkably extended to this rising nation, it becomes us to cherish a devout gratitude, and to implore, from the same Omnipotent source, a blessing on the consultations and measures about to be undertaken for the welfare of our beloved country.

JAMES MADISON.

NOVEMBER 29, 1809.

The Message and documents therein referred to were read, and five hundred copies of the Message, and also five hundred copies of the Message together with five hundred copies of the documents, were ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate.

On motion, by Mr. GOODRICH,

Resolved, unanimously, That the members of the Senate, from a sincere desire of showing their respect to the memory of the Honorable SAMUEL WHITE, deceased, late a member thereof, will go into mourning for one month, by the usual mode of wearing a crape round the left arm.

THURSDAY, November 30.

PHILIP REED, from the State of Maryland, attended.

JOHN CONDIT, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of New Jersey, in the place of Aaron Kitchel, resigned, produced his credentials, which were read; and, the oath prescribed by law having been administered to him, he took his seat in the Senate.

MONDAY, December 4.

RICHARD BRENT, from the State of Virginia, and WILLIAM H. CRAWFORD, from the State of Georgia, severally attended.

SAMUEL SMITH, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Maryland from the 15th of November, 1809, to the 4th of March, 1815, produced his credentials, which were read; and the oath prescribed by law having been administered to him, he took his seat in the Senate.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the House concur in the resolution of the Senate of the 30th of November, for the appointment of Chaplains, and have appointed the Rev. JESSE LEE Chaplain on their part.

TUESDAY, December 5.

The British Minister.

Mr. GILES, from the committee appointed on the first instant, reported in part the following resolution; which was read the first time, and passed to the second reading:

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the expressions contained in the official letter of Francis James Jackson, Minister Plenipotentiary of his Britannic Majesty near the United States, dated the 23d day of October, 1809, and addressed to Mr. Smith, Secretary of State, conveying the idea, that the Executive Government of the United States had knowledge that the arrangement lately made by Mr. Erskine, his predecessor, on behalf of his Government, with the Government of the United States, was entered into without competent powers on the part of Mr. Erskine for that purpose, were highly indecorous and insolent; that the repetition of the same intimation in his official letter dated the 4th of November, 1809, after he was apprised, by the asseveration of the Secretary of State, that the Executive Government had no such knowledge, and that if it had possessed such knowledge such arrangement would not have been entered into on the part of the United States, and after also being officially apprised that such intimation was inadmissible, was still more insolent and affronting; and that, in refusing to receive any further communications from him in consequence of these outrageous and premeditated insults, the Executive Government has manifested a just regard to its own dignity and honor, as well as to the character and interest of the American people.

That the letter signed Francis James Jackson, headed "Circular," dated the 13th of November, 1809, and published and circulated through the country, is a still more direct and aggravated insult and affront to the American people and their Government, as it is evidently an insidious attempt to excite their resentments and distrusts against their own Government, by appealing to them, through false or fallacious disguises, against some of its acts; and to excite resentments and divisions amongst the people themselves, which can only be dishonorable to their own characters and ruinous to their own interests; and the Congress of the United States do hereby solemnly pledge themselves to the American people and to the world to stand by and support the Executive Government in its refusal to receive any further communications from the said Francis James Jackson, and to call into action the whole force of the nation if it should become necessary in consequence of the conduct of the Executive Government in this respect to repel such insults and to assert and maintain the rights, the honor, and the interests of the United States.

Privileges of Foreign Ministers.

Mr. GILES, from the same committee, also reported the following bill, which was read and passed to a second reading:

A bill to prevent the abuse of the privileges and immunities enjoyed by Foreign Ministers within the United States.

Be it enacted, &c., That if any foreign Ambassador, Minister, or other person, entitled to enjoy within the United States the privileges and immunities of a foreign Minister, shall have committed, or may hereafter commit, any such act as by the laws and usages of nations would justify the President of the United States in ordering such offending Ambassador, Minister, or other person as aforesaid, out of the District of Columbia, or out of the Territories of the United States; or in sending him home to his Sovereign, or to some place or territory within his Sovereign's jurisdiction; in every such case where the President of the United States shall deem it proper and expedient to exercise his constitutional authority, in either of these respects he shall be, and is hereby authorized and empowered to cause a warrant to be issued and signed by the Secretary of State, directed to any civil officer of the United States, authorized to serve process, or any military officer under the authority of the United States, commanding him to provide for and enforce the departure of such Ambassador, Minister, or other person offending as aforesaid, taking due precautions to avoid improper or unnecessary violence in executing such warrant. And all officers, civil and military, under the authority of the United States, are hereby required and enjoined to be obedient to such warrant. And in case any officer, civil or military, to whom such warrant shall be directed, shall fail, or unreasonably delay to execute the same, every officer so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall be punished by fine and imprisonment before any court of the United States having cognizance of the offence. Provided, That the fine shall not exceed ---- dollars, nor the imprisonment be for a longer time than ---- years.

Mr. GILES gave notice that he should call for the consideration of this subject on Thursday next.

FRIDAY, December 8.

The British Minister.

The resolution reported by Mr. GILES, approving the conduct of the Executive in refusing to hold any further communication with Mr. Jackson, was taken up in the Senate as in Committee of the Whole. The resolution having been read,

Mr. GILES rose, and spoke as follows:

Mr. President: Before I proceed to perform the duties enjoined upon me as chairman of the committee who reported the resolution before you, permit me to express my regret that the consideration of a subject which justly excites so much sensibility should have been delayed, even only one day, on my account; and be assured, sir, that nothing less than an indisposition, sufficient to justify it, would have caused me to have been absent from my place yesterday. Perhaps, sir, I owe an apology to the Senate at this time for entering into this debate under a state of hoarseness, which must necessarily disqualify me, in some degree, from discharging my duty on the present occasion. But, sir, it is a subject of great consolation to me, to reflect that I am fortunately favored with associates on the committee, either of whom could perform the task I am now engaged in better than myself, and some of whom will certainly do me the favor of correcting any errors I may unintentionally commit, or supplying any omissions I may inadvertently make.

Although it appears to me that the propriety and urgency of the resolution now under consideration must be strongly addressed, both to the judgment and sensibility of every gentleman who has carefully attended to the distribution of powers under our constitution, and who has also carefully attended to the correspondence which gave rise to the resolution, yet, in a case of so much delicacy, it would naturally be expected, and is a respect due to the Senate, from the chairman of the committee, to present to it at least some of the general motives which induced the committee to report the resolution at this time.

It is to be observed, Mr. President, that our constitution is peculiar in the organization and distribution of its powers; and in no respect is it more peculiar than in the distribution of the particular powers embraced by the resolution. In all other Governments known to us, the same department which possesses the power to receive and negotiate with foreign Ambassadors and other public Ministers, also possesses the power to make war. It has been thought wise in our constitution to separate these powers. With a simplicity of language, and a solidity of wisdom almost peculiar to our constitution, the President is invested with the power to receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; thus using the broadest terms in granting this power, without even an attempt at limitation or specification; evidently with a view that all the incidental or consequential powers might flow from this general expression to the department thus invested with this general power. It was easy to foresee (and no doubt the framers of our constitution did foresee) that the multiplicity and diversity of cases which would arise in the course of various diplomatic manoeuvres and negotiations, would set at defiance all attempts to limit or specify the powers of the department, in this respect, to which these powers were confided, and to be exercised on the part of the United States; and, therefore, every attempt of that kind was wisely avoided, leaving to the President to exercise his authority upon his own responsibility, to be regulated by the only established standard amongst nations, to wit: the laws and usages of nations. For, it never can be presumed, sir, that the wise sages who framed our excellent constitution could for a moment have tolerated the idea that the Ministers of foreign nations residing near the Government of the United States, should possess greater privileges and immunities than the Ministers of our Government residing near foreign Courts. Of course, the same laws--to wit, the laws and usages of nations--were left reciprocally to govern in every reciprocal case.

But, sir, notwithstanding the President is invested with the power "to receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers," and, as I think, all other incidental or consequential powers applicable to the various agencies with such Ambassadors and other public Ministers, yet Congress is invested with the power, without limitation or qualification, "to declare war." Now, sir, it must be obvious to every understanding, that these several powers are so intimately connected, and may be so dependent upon each other, that the exercise of the power conceded to the President may consequentially involve the necessity of the exercise of the power conceded to Congress, as in the case now under consideration. The refusal of the Executive to receive any further communications from His Britannic Majesty's Minister, (Mr. Jackson,) may consequentially involve us in war with Great Britain; or, in other words, may serve as a pretext for Great Britain to make war upon us, if she should conceive it her interest to do so, which I think not very improbable. Hence arises, in my judgment, the propriety and urgency of expression of the Congressional opinion upon this Executive act, and a declaration of the Congressional will as to the course of conduct Congress will pursue under any consequences which may flow from, or possibly be attributed to, this Executive act.

I conceive, sir, that the expression of this opinion, and the pledge of a solemn declaration, by Congress, are due to the people, because the people have the greatest interest in the character of their Government; and in no part of its attributes have a deeper interest than in its efficacy to resist and impel injuries and insults from foreign Governments. The people, also, are the mediate or immediate electors of Congress, and as such have a right to expect and demand that Congress will execute all their duties, and will never shrink from their constitutional responsibility in any case; and, last of all, in a case of so high and solemn a character as the one under consideration.

This course of conduct is essentially due to the Executive. The President ought to know whether, with the indispensable co-operation of Congress, he ought to proceed with dignified moderation and intelligence to assert and maintain the rights, the honor, and the interests, of the American people; or whether, for the want of that co-operation, he shall with shame and confusion of face be compelled to retrace his steps, and leave to Congress to abandon these high attributes of the nation, and, with their degradation, to record their country's ruin and disgrace. No, sir, it is not possible that an American Congress does exist, or can ever exist, that would not spurn from themselves every vestige of an idea that they could be brought, under any circumstances, to perform so degrading and dishonorable a task. It is imperiously demanded by the dignity and candor of Congress itself. What, sir, shall the exercise of one of the highest constitutional functions of Congress be brought into question, and every individual in the nation engaged in expressing an opinion on it; and shall Congress alone stand aloof, for fear of incurring a responsibility imposed on them by the constitution? Shall Congress stand by as idle spectators, and see a contest before the people, between the President and a foreign Minister, and feel no interest and take no share in such an unprecedented scene, especially when one of their highest constitutional functions may be affected by it! No, sir. Congress must speak--Congress must act. Congress never can shrink from its constitutional responsibility. It is due to the dignity--it is demanded from the candor--of Congress.

Above all, sir, it is important to the United States as a nation, that the Congressional will should be proclaimed upon this delicate and solemn occasion. It is of importance, it may be of the last importance, to the United States, that Great Britain should know, before she decides upon this subject, what is the Congressional will in relation to it. Whether she will be called upon to act against an united, harmonized Government and people--or whether she shall have for her prey, a divided people and a discordant Government.

Do you believe, Mr. President, that the conduct of Great Britain would be very different under these different conditions of the people and Government of the United States? Let me ask you this question, sir: would you not, sir, if you were Prime Minister of Great Britain, consulting her interest alone, pursue a very different course of conduct under this different state of things? Let every gentleman put the question to himself; and the answer of every one would be the same. Why then, sir, do we not unanimously take the ground here which, if we were called upon to act in an opposite hostile character, would most certainly deter us from persevering in that hostile character against the United States? Sir, if there had been any doubt upon this subject, our late experience ought to have removed it; for, sir, I have no hesitation in saying, and with pain at heart I shall be compelled to show it in the course of this debate, that, in my judgment, our present embarrassments are too much to be ascribed to our former manifestations of indecision, to our unfortunate dissensions and divisions. Sir, whenever I approach this sorrowful and awful subject, my heart feels as if it were bleeding at every pore, when I am compelled to reflect, and to believe, that this our beloved and happy country may shortly become a bleeding victim, from wounds--if not inflicted by the hands of her own sons, at least by their unhappy divisions and dissensions. Yes, sir, with a full knowledge of what is past, and strong presages of what is to come, is it not deplorable to be compelled to think, that, in a very few months, perhaps in a still shorter time, American blood must be shed, to repel the hostile spirit of Great Britain, now rendered too manifest to every understanding; and worse than all, sir, to wash away the stains of our own unfortunate divisions and dissensions; and is it not wonderful, as it is deplorable, that the virtuous and patriotic American people, and sometimes called the most enlightened in the world, with the experience of the horrible consequences, through all ages, of the divisions of a people amongst themselves, should permit themselves from the same cause, to fall a prey to the same inevitable calamities?

Look, Mr. President, through all history, from the first dispute between Cain and Abel, down to the late disastrous dissensions between the Spanish branch of the Bourbon dynasty, and find if you can, sir, a single instance of a people who gained any advantage from dissensions among themselves, and especially, sir, when they carried them so far, as to join a foreign against their country's standard! I believe, sir, not one solitary instance of this kind stands recorded. Nor is it possible or practicable in any state of human affairs--because in all cases, the foreign interference in the internal concerns of its neighbors is always for its own and never for its neighbor's benefit. With these monitory lessons before our eyes, and a full conviction of their truth upon our hearts, is it not wonderful, that we should voluntarily give up ourselves victims to the same calamities? But, sir, gentlemen may ask, where is the remedy? How can we make a sacrifice of our own opinions? Sir, the case is a plain one. Let gentlemen exercise their opinions and persevere in their arguments at all times respecting our internal concerns, as well before as after the measures are adopted; let them, respecting our foreign relations, urge their arguments with a zeal proportioned to the magnitude of the subject; they will be pleasurably received, and respectfully considered; but after the Government has taken its attitude against a foreign nation, it would be going too far to desert its standard, and to join that of the enemy. It is then time for opinion to pause and reflect, whether any consequence can be worse, or more disgraceful, than joining a foreign against its country's standard? Whether it would not be better, more patriotic, more virtuous, to support your country even in a supposed unwise course of policy, than to join a foreign standard, and use it to correct and change the course of policy thus disapproved?

Sir, in a contest between your own and a foreign nation, it never can be wrong to join the standard of your own country; nor right to join the standard of your enemy. Then, sir, here is a rallying point. It is a plain and obvious one. No understanding can mistake it. No heart can disapprove it. It is our own Government. Let that be the rallying point. There never can be a more propitious moment than the present for casting into oblivion all former irritations and dissensions. There can never be a plainer case presented to the human understanding. There never were more urgent considerations in favor of the course recommended. Whether we respect their repulsive effects upon British hostility or their harmonizing effects among ourselves, they appear to me to be equally strong and persuasive. May I not then, sir, indulge the pleasing hope, that the resolution before you will be received as the signal of unanimity in Congress, and joyfully hailed in that character through the whole of this great and extended country? Sir, does it not manifest a strange perverseness in the human character, for us to observe that, when it is perfectly at our option, we should choose to distress and injure ourselves by irritations and resentments, rather than delight ourselves with union and harmony and mutual good offices? Especially, sir, when the latter choice would command the respect, if not excite the alarm of our enemy. For, sir, do you believe that if Great Britain saw the strong arm of this nation stretched out to oppose her unjust spirit of hostility, guided in all its operations by one undivided will, she would so readily encounter its powerful influence, as if she saw it paralyzed in all its efforts from the want of a unity of will and action? No, sir, we undervalue our energies and importance, if we were to suppose that her conduct would be the same in both of these situations; or that she is at all indifferent to the course of conduct now to be pursued by us. Let us then all unite, sir, in this proposition, and disappoint her mistaken calculations upon her influence in this country. I verily believe, that union is all that is wanting to appease her hostile spirit towards us. But perhaps, sir, every gentleman present will admit, and it appears to me that no human being can deny, that if the facts stated in the resolution be supported by the correspondence upon which it is founded, that then every gentleman would readily assent to the resolution. But, sir, it is possible, although it appears to be scarcely possible, that some gentlemen may doubt whether the facts stated in the resolution be supported by the correspondence or not. This I admit is a fair though delicate inquiry, and I will therefore immediately proceed to the examination of that question--and I beg the most critical attention of the Senate in the course of the investigation.

I will now proceed, Mr. President, to inquire whether the facts stated in the resolution are supported by the correspondence upon which it is founded? In performing this task, I propose to read the whole of the correspondence which I conceive bears any material relation to the subject of the resolution, and no other; although the whole may not be entitled to, nor receive any animadversions from me, yet as my sole object is to get at the true exposition and meaning of the correspondence, if I should unfortunately omit, misconceive, or misinterpret any material part of it, I shall have the consolation to reflect, that, by presenting the whole, the means of my correction in either case will be presented to the Senate and the world, if the observations I propose now to make should ever find their way out of the walls of this Chamber. I shall also present this correspondence in its responsive order, which will be found to be indispensable to the due comprehension of some of its most essential parts.

Permit me, then, sir, to call your attention first to the letter of Mr. Jackson to Mr. Smith, dated the 11th October, 1809, pages 32, 33, of the printed documents. For, sir, although this letter is not mentioned in the resolution, yet it furnishes the original offensive insinuations, and is referred to and reiterated in the letter of the 23d October, which is noticed in the resolution, and therefore the offensive expressions of the letter of the 11th are entitled to, and shall receive, the most accurate and critical attention and analysis.

[Here the exceptionable passages were read.]

Now, sir, after thus stripping this extraordinary sentence of all its disguises, and translating it into plain English, to what does it amount? Why, sir, certainly and unquestionably to this:--You, Mr. Smith, Secretary of State of the United States, have entered into an arrangement with my predecessor, Mr. Erskine, under such scandalous and dishonorable circumstances as could only lead to a disavowal of it; and you yourself were so well apprised of them, and so conscious of their inevitable operation, as even to think it unreasonable to complain of the disavowal. I defy gentlemen to give to this offensive paragraph any other fair and correct interpretation; and if this be the fair and correct one, can you conceive, sir, of an insult more outrageous and premeditated? And will you not be surprised, sir, to be told that the insult does not stop here; that, as offensive as it already appears, it does not stop here; that it is still further aggravated? Yes, sir, Mr. Jackson, not content with making this extraordinary and insolent communication in its ordinary form, underscores the words "could only," containing the point or gist of the insult, thus aggravating the act, either by the distrust thus manifested of Mr. Smith's mental perceptions; or by letting Mr. Smith know, that the insult was known to, and intentionally given by Mr. Jackson; for the underscoring could not have had any other object in view. In this impudent act of underscoring, Mr. Jackson reminds me, sir, of a set of miserable, conceited pretenders to wit, who, having great confidence in the acuteness of their own mental perceptions, and very little in that of their hearers, will kindly and compassionately explain the point of wit to their hearers, before they approach it in the recital of the story, to prepare and qualify the hearers' minds to join in the laugh intended to be produced by it. Yes, sir, this underscoring was as much as saying to Mr. Smith, I am afraid that I have so nicely wrapped this insult in the veil of mysteries and disguises, that it may escape observation from the obtuseness of your mental perception, but am determined it shall not. I have underscored it for you; you shall look at it; you shall know that I, Mr. Jackson, understand and mean it. I have wrapped it up in mystery and disguise to be sure, but I will rend the veil, I will make an eyelet hole for you, that you shall look through, and behold the insult in all its front of grossness and impudence.

But, sir, if Mr. Jackson had then known, as well as he now does, the dignified character, the high sensibility, and the correct intelligence of the Secretary of State, he would have found it more honorable to himself to have spared his insult altogether, or at least might have spared himself the trouble of underscoring. Sir, I conceive this insult so gross and outrageous that I am surprised how the Executive Government could reconcile it to itself to proceed another step in the communications with Mr. Jackson. Certainly, sir, proceeding beyond this point manifests on the part of the Executive great moderation, great forbearance, and a condescension scarcely excusable; and, sir, I am perfectly sure, that nothing could have induced it to consider such gross intimations argumentatively, but the ardent and sincere desire which has invariably actuated the present, as well as the last, Administration to preserve peace and cultivate harmony and a good understanding with Great Britain. And, sir, we shall see, in the course of this investigation, how it has been requited for this, as well as for all former acts of moderation, forbearance, and condescension.

Let me now, sir, select out of the quotation another extraordinary expression, for a few animadversions, in the following words: "But the very act of substitution evidently shows that those original conditions were in fact very explicitly communicated to you, and by you, of course, laid before the President for his consideration."

It is somewhat curious to observe what stress Mr. Jackson placed through the whole of his correspondence, upon what he is here pleased to term "the very act of substitution," and demonstrates to every impartial mind how slender are the pretexts with which Mr. Jackson is furnished, to apologize for, or rather to equivocate about the disavowal of Mr. Erskine's arrangement. Let me, therefore, inquire, in what this horrible act of substitution, as Mr. Jackson would make it appear, consists? Why, sir, simply in this: That the three inadmissible conditions mentioned in one of the despatches to Mr. Erskine, were verbally communicated to Mr. Smith, and insisted upon by Mr. Erskine, and that Mr. Smith, in rejecting those conditions verbally, and with great propriety and frankness, told Mr. Erskine what conditions he might obtain. Mr. Erskine, upon a review of all his letters of instructions, finding it impossible to obtain his, the three conditions first proposed, conceived himself fully empowered to propose those which possibly might have been intimated to him by Mr. Smith in conversation; and the arrangement was accordingly and promptly made between these two gentlemen on the part of their respective Governments. And now let me ask you, sir, what is there dishonorable, unfair, or even unusual in this proceeding, which is the whole amount of Mr. Jackson's "very act of substitution." Sir, it is very easy to see, that Mr. Jackson keeps his ingenuity constantly upon the stretch respecting this very act of substitution, evidently with a view of producing an impression by the insinuation, that the Executive Government of the United States had more than its share in that arrangement, and, in fact, was concerned in a dishonorable and scandalous combination with his predecessor, Mr. Erskine, for the purpose of producing the arrangement. Which insinuation, if true, must represent Mr. Erskine as a fool, a knave, or a traitor, or all three, and our Executive Government still further lost to every honorable sentiment, and utterly destitute of even the most ordinary understanding. An insinuation so insidious and affronting, cannot fail to excite the indignation and contempt of every patriotic heart in America. But, fortunately for the Executive Government, Mr. Erskine's previous explanation of this point to our Government strips the transaction of every shadow of a shade of a doubt, of which Mr. Jackson perhaps was not apprised at the time he was employed in devising the gross insinuation. Yes, sir, this was one miserable effort of Mr. Jackson to reproach our Executive Government for an act, for which it merited, and universally received, the sincere applause and grateful thanks of the American people. It restored the Executive, as it ought to have done, to universal confidence, and utterly rooted out every doubt of its sincerity in its diplomatic intercourse with Great Britain, under which some of our misled and mistaken citizens, for a while, unfortunately labored. For the moment terms were proposed on the part of Great Britain, which could, with honor or propriety, be accepted by the United States: they were frankly and promptly accepted by the Executive, regardless of all consequences from any other quarter. Sir, there is another part of this quotation which requires a few animadversions.

I allude, sir, to the first solemn declaration made to this Government by Mr. Jackson, respecting the despatch, in which the conditions were prescribed to Mr. Erskine. It is in the following words:

[Here Mr. GILES read the paragraphs from Mr. Jackson's letter, which charged that Mr. Erskine had shown to Mr. Smith, Secretary of State, the inadmissible conditions laid down in Mr. Canning's despatch; and then read Mr. Erskine's statement that he had not shown that part of Mr. Canning's despatch, and giving the reason why he had not done it.]

It is to be observed from this quotation, in the first place, sir, that Mr. Erskine explicitly disavows ever having shown the Executive Government the despatch containing the inadmissible conditions; and thus entirely exculpates it from the odious imputation attempted to be thrown on it by Mr. Jackson, and for this respectful forbearance to our Government, he is certainly entitled to the applause of his own. In the next place, Mr. Erskine explicitly states that the despatch in question contained but one part of his instructions, and that he thought that, from the spirit at least of his several letters of instructions, he was fully authorized to make the arrangement he had done. And I think there is very little doubt but he had--that Mr. Erskine still thinks so, there can be no doubt--for he nowhere says he is now convinced that his powers were incompetent--he only says, that the disavowal by His Majesty is a painful proof to him, that he had formed an erroneous judgment of His Majesty's views and the intentions of his instructions. Whether or not he had formed an erroneous view of His Majesty's views, or the intention of his instructions, I imagine, will depend very much upon the point of time to which the judgment he had formed is referable. If it be referred to the time of Mr. Oakley's mission, I am inclined to think he had neither formed an erroneous judgment of His Majesty's views, nor the intentions of his instructions; but, if he refers to the time of the disavowal, then I think it pretty certain, he had formed an erroneous judgment of both--for I have no doubt but His Majesty's views at least had completely changed between these two periods of time, and the real cause of this change, and of the disavowal itself, is to be looked for in the occurrences which took place, both in Europe and in the United States, during that interval. No, sir, the want of powers on the part of Mr. Erskine is not the true cause of the disavowal. I will now venture to conjecture the true cause, and, if it be the right one, the case will be a plain one, and all equivocations in the explanations rendered unnecessary. To do this, sir, I must call your attention to the state of events in Europe and in the United States, at these different periods of time. Mr. Oakley's mission was immediately after the British Government was apprised of the precipitate retreat of Sir John Moore's army from Spain, and the fortune escape of the remains of it from Corunna. The affairs of Spain, which had before excited such high expectations in the British Cabinet, were given up as hopeless, &c. Contemporaneously with a knowledge of these events, the British Government was also informed of the measures of resistance against her outrageous aggressions, contemplated by Congress; which she then believed would certainly be carried into effect, &c. Such was the state of things at the time of sending the despatches by Mr. Oakley. At the time of the disavowal, a new coalition had been formed, Austria had boldly entered into the war against France, and the Spaniards had been animated into further efforts at resistance, which excited new hopes of success, &c.

In this country, too, sir--it pains my heart to be compelled to recite the circumstances--our contemplated measures of resistance had been relaxed, and the whole country exhibited such scenes of divisions and disaffections as paralyzed in some degree the movements of the Government. I wish, sir, I could throw a shade of oblivion over these unfortunate scenes, or recollect them only as they furnish the strongest argument. Indeed, sir, they point with an infallible index to the course it now becomes us to pursue. Yes, sir, it is to these changes in the state of things, you are to look for the real causes of the disavowal, and not to the want of competent instructions on the part of Mr. Erskine; and it would have been more dignified on the part of the British Government to have told us so at once. She would then have said to us, the state of things is changed; at the time of giving the instructions, I was depressed from a combination of untoward events; I am now flushed with new hopes of elevation and of triumph. Besides, you have convinced me that you are untrue to yourselves--that you will shrink from the assertion and support of your own rights--if you will not, I am not bound to respect them, &c. I was then down, I am now up, and therefore I cannot grant you, in a spirit of triumph, what I solemnly promised in a spirit of despondency--I now find this the most favorable moment for establishing my favorite doctrine of the despotism of the ocean; and I cannot, and will not deprive myself of the advantage merely to avoid the imputation of bad faith. Yes, sir, this would have been a much more correct and dignified course on the part of Great Britain than the miserable effort made by Mr. Canning in devising an ingenious mental retort, for converting the bad faith of his own Government, in the disavowal of the arrangement, into a reproach upon ours, for the circumstances under which that arrangement was pretended to have been made. It is true, sir, that in the one case there would have been an admission of mala fides, which is basely attempted to be avoided by a miserable subterfuge in the other; but, then the British Cabinet would have had the consolation of having told the truth, taken the responsibility upon themselves and set us at defiance; and we should have been left to our own remedy, with a perfect understanding of the case. She would, also, have had the plea of necessity, the old-fashioned plea of tyrants, and, indeed, of everybody else, who has no better; but this is not Mr. Canning's mode of doing business; he chooses to act by tricks and contrivances; and, in the case of the disavowal, by a mental retort, flowing solely from his own visionary mental conceits, without a fact or pretext for its support.

Mr. President, I am told that Mr. Canning is a professed punster. But, sir, I would not condescend to make the observation here, had he not, after heaping upon us, during the whole of his administration, every injury and insult in his power, at the close of it placed us in a ludicrous situation by imposing on us an obligation, in a grave and serious concern to the nation, of expounding his equivoques, and unriddling his riddles. I really feel some condescension in being compelled, in my place, to hunt out for his and Mr. Jackson's meaning, through a transition of sentences, a collocation of words, and a shifting of verbiage. And indulge me, sir, with remarking, that I conceive the situation of a nation never can be more disastrous, calamitous, and lamentable, than when its great and serious affairs are placed in the hands of a parcel of punsters. For, sir, men of minds of that description are too much employed in the pleasing amusement of looking out for coruscations of wit and sentiment, to have any leisure for the more dull and unpleasurable business of observing and marking the great occurrences in human affairs, and of devising means of giving them a direction favorable to their own views, or to their country's interests. No, sir, this is too dull and plodding a pursuit for men of such light, flitting, brilliant imaginations, and if ever they unfortunately undertake it, they soon find the woful misapplication of talents. If, sir, any illustration were wanting of the correctness of these observations, it could nowhere be found better than in an attentive review of the historical events which occurred during the late British administration--the administration of the energetic, the brilliant, the sarcastic, the facetious, the joking Mr. Canning. He has carried his joking propensities far indeed. It may be truly said he jests at scars indeed--at scars of the blackest disgrace and ruin inflicted upon his bleeding country--upon a great nation, which probably would have received, and certainly merited, a better fate, if it had fortunately placed its destinies in better hands. Sir, it appears to me, that all the military enterprises during his whole administration, from the abominable attack on Copenhagen, down to the last expedition against the islands of Zealand, were nothing more than belligerent puns and conundrums. It has been constantly announced that some grand, secret expedition was on hand, and each succeeding one grander than the preceding, until the last expedition to Walcheren, which was the grandest of all; and, when the secret really came out, it appeared either that the object was abominable or contemptible, and the means of executing even the contemptible object, upon experiment, were generally found incompetent. Yes, sir, probably these enterprises have cost the British nation the lives of fifty thousand brave officers and soldiers, and I will not undertake to count the millions of dollars. Sir, the same little-minded course of policy has also been uniformly manifested during the same time against the United States; and in no respect more than in the disavowal of Mr. Erskine's arrangement--in avoiding to avow the real motives for it--and in the uncandid attempt to convert the bad faith of the British Government into a reproach upon our own; and this was to be done by an ingenious mental device, prettily conceived by Mr. Canning, and adroitly executed by Mr. Jackson, who, if not equal to Mr. Canning in the mysterious art of punning, I think can be very little way behind his prototype in the art of equivoques. Sir, the disavowal, in my judgment, was not for the want of competent powers. Too great a share of the real cause of the disavowal, unfortunately, is attributable to ourselves, and now is the moment to relieve ourselves from the imputation.

Sir, it is painful for me to be so often compelled to question the candor of any gentleman, particularly one clothed with the high functions of Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty; but permit me to ask you, sir, how it is possible for Mr. Jackson not to conceive that offence would be taken at his offensive insinuations after Mr. Smith's letter of the 1st of November, telling him in strong and decisive terms that offence had been taken at them? or how can Mr. Jackson reconcile it to himself to say that in adhering to these gross insinuations, he did not intend to give offence? Let me ask you, sir, what else he did, or could intend? For my part, I can see nothing else that he could either rationally intend or expect. Here then, sir, is another false or fallacious disguise thrown out before the people of the United States, as will always be the case in every appeal to them, calculated, or evidently intended, to excite their resentments and distrusts against their own Government.

Now, sir, upon the most critical review of this exposition, is there a single gentleman present, who is not prepared to say, that the facts stated in the resolution are fully justified by the correspondence? And if they be, sir, what inducement can possibly prevent unanimity on the present occasion? Surely those, who wish peace with Great Britain, will find unanimity upon this occasion the most likely to deter from war; and surely, sir, every gentleman must feel and see that the declarations contained in the resolution are imperiously due to the dignity and honor of our own Government, as well as to our respect for the people and ourselves. Sir, what would be the effect of passing by unnoticed these gross and insidious insults to both the people and Government? Why, sir, foreign Ministers would begin to conceive, that an appeal to the people was amongst the most sacred of their privileges and immunities. The frequency of them already is almost sufficient to establish and sanctify the rule. The cases of Genet, Yrujo, the publication of Mr. Canning's letter in one of the Boston newspapers, &c., never received sufficient animadversions from Congress; and if this most aggravated case of all should pass over unnoticed, I should not be surprised to see Mr. Jackson during the present winter set himself up as a British President in New York, contesting the point of jurisdiction before the people, with the American President at Washington; whilst Congress, regardless of their own constitutional powers, &c., should stand by and behold the extraordinary scene in a state of perfect neutrality. Sir, is it possible that Congress can so far forget their duties to the people and their respect for themselves? Independently of the obvious propriety of this proceeding in itself, have we, sir, no examples of the course of conduct recommended by the resolution? Let me remind you, sir, of the case of Count De Palm in the British Parliament. In that case, sir, the Count De Palm presented a memorial to the British King by the express order of his Government, complaining of the misrepresentation of facts made in the King's speech to Parliament, which complaint the British historians admit was well founded. After presenting the memorial, he caused it to be published and circulated through the country, etc. What, sir, was the conduct of the British Parliament and nation upon that occasion? Sir, the Parliament unanimously entered into resolutions expressing the highest indignation at the insolent procedure; and presented an address to His Majesty requesting him to order the Count De Palm out of the country immediately. Sir, I will not trouble the Senate with reading the proceedings of the House of Commons upon this memorable occasion; because I presented them to the Senate last winter in the case of the publication of Mr. Canning's letter in the Boston paper, and I, therefore, presume they are now fresh in the recollection of every gentleman. And what, sir, was the conduct of the opposition in the British House of Commons, when their King and country were insulted by a foreign Minister? Did they hold back, did they attempt to paralyze the proceedings of their Government in resenting this conduct and retrieving its wounded honor and dignity? No, sir, they were Englishmen, and felt the indignity to themselves! They were patriots, and could not see their Government and nation insulted with indifference! They stepped forward, sir, and were the first to move the resolution and address. The proceeding was unanimous; and what benefit did the British nation receive from this unanimous and prompt proceeding? Why, sir, from the year 1726 to the present time, the insult has not, I believe, been repeated, and probably never will again.

Sir, how honorable, how patriotic, was this course of conduct to the British opposition! How honorable and laudable would be its imitation here! Especially, sir, when union is all that is wanting to make us happy and victorious. Why then, sir, should we not have union, when it is so easy and efficacious a remedy for all our difficulties? Sir, the nation expects it; the nation has a right to demand it. May I not then hope, sir, that the hitherto dominant spirit of party will now yield to an occasion, so obvious, so urgent, so honorable! Sir, I cannot express to you the pleasure I should feel at my heart, if I could see all irritations banished, and harmony and mutual good will universally pervading all political scenes and all social intercourse. That the present occasion may be improved to this desirable end, is the most fervent prayer of one, who, in the present delicate, interesting crisis of the nation, feels a devotion for his country beyond every thing else on this side of Heaven!

After Mr. GILES concluded, the question was taken on the passage of the resolution to a third reading. There were twenty-four members present, besides the President pro tem.; of whom twenty voted in favor of it. It was ordered to be read a third time on Monday next.

MONDAY, December 11.

Mr. GILMAN, from the committee, reported the resolution relating to the official correspondence between the Secretary of State and Francis J. Jackson, Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty, correctly engrossed; and the resolution was read the third time.

On the question, Shall this resolution pass? it was determined in the affirmative--yeas 20, nays 4, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brent, Condit, Crawford, Gaillard, German, Giles, Gilman, Gregg, Griswold, Lambert, Leib, Mathewson, Meigs, Parker, Pope, Reed, Smith of Maryland, Sumter, and Turner.

NAYS.--Messrs. Goodrich, Hillhouse, Lloyd, and Pickering.

MONDAY, December 18.

JOHN SMITH, from the State of New York, attended.

THURSDAY, December 21.

JOSEPH ANDERSON, from the State of Tennessee, attended.

TUESDAY, December 26.

JESSE FRANKLIN, from the State of North Carolina, attended.

THURSDAY, December 28.

CHARLES TAIT, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Georgia, in the place of John Milledge, resigned, produced his credentials; which were read, and, the oath prescribed by law having been administered to him, he took his seat in the Senate.

TUESDAY, January 2, 1810.

JAMES A. BAYARD, from the State of Delaware, attended.

THURSDAY, January 4.

JENKIN WHITESIDE, from the State of Tennessee, attended.

FRIDAY, January 12.

ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Ohio, in place of Edward Tiffin, resigned; and CHRISTOPHER G. CHAMPLIN, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Rhode Island, in the place of Francis Malbone, deceased; severally produced their credentials, which were read. And the oath prescribed by law having been administered to them, they took their seats in the Senate.

TUESDAY, January 23.

Naval Armament.

The Senate resumed the third reading of the bill authorizing the fitting out, officering, and manning, the frigates belonging to the United States.

THURSDAY, February 1.

The PRESIDENT communicated a letter from the Governor of the State of Kentucky, enclosing a certificate of the appointment of HENRY CLAY a Senator of the United States, in place of Buckner Thruston, resigned. And the certificate was read, and ordered to lie on file.

MONDAY, February 5.

HENRY CLAY, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Kentucky, in the place of Buckner Thruston, attended, and the oath prescribed by law having been administered to him, he took his seat in the Senate.

THURSDAY, February 22.

Non-Intercourse.

Mr. GILMAN, from the committee, reported the amendments to the bill, entitled "An act respecting the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and for other purposes," correctly engrossed; and the bill was read the third time as amended.

Mr. CLAY.--Mr. President: At all times embarrassed when I have ventured to address you, it is with peculiar diffidence I rise on this occasion. The profound respect I have been taught to entertain for this body, my conscious inadequacy to discuss, as it deserves, the question before you, the magnitude of that question, and the recent seat I have taken in this House, are too well calculated to appall, and would impel me to silence if any other member would assume the task I propose attempting. But, sir, when the regular troops of this House, disciplined as they are in the great affairs of this nation, are inactive at their posts, it becomes the duty of its raw militia, however lately enlisted, to step forth in defence of the honor and independence of the country.

I voted yesterday against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland, because, while that vote did not pledge me for the ultimate passage of the bill, it would have allowed me to give it my support if no better proposition was tendered. I do not like the bill as sent from the House of Representatives. It was a crazy vessel, shattered and leaky; but it afforded some shelter, bad as it was. It was opposition to the aggressive edicts of the belligerents. Taken from us without a substitute, we are left defenceless, naked, and exposed to all the rage and violence of the storm.

Sir, have we not been for years contending against the tyranny of the ocean? Has not Congress solemnly pledged itself to the world not to surrender our rights? And has not the nation at large in all its capacities of meetings of the people, State, and General Government, resolved to maintain at all hazards our maritime independence? Your whole circle of commercial restrictions, including the non-importation, embargo, and non-intercourse acts, had in view an opposition to the offensive measures of the belligerents, so justly complained of by us. They presented resistance--the peaceful resistance of the law. When this is abandoned without effect, I am for resistance by the sword.

No man in the nation wants peace more than I; but I prefer the troubled ocean of war, demanded by the honor and independence of the country, with all its calamities and desolation, to the tranquil and putrescent pool of ignominious peace. If we can accommodate our differences with one of the belligerents only, I should prefer that one to be Britain; but if with neither, and we are forced into a selection of our enemy, then am I for war with Britain, because I believe her prior in aggression, and her injuries and insults to us were atrocious in character. I shall not attempt to exhibit an account between the belligerents of mercantile spoliations inflicted and menaced. On that point we have just cause of war with both. Britain stands pre-eminent in her outrage on us, by her violation of the sacred personal rights of American freemen, in the arbitrary and lawless imprisonment of our seamen, the attack on the Chesapeake--the murder, sir. I will not dwell on the long catalogue of our wrongs and disgrace, which has been repeated until the sensibility of the nation is benumbed by the dishonorable detail.

But we are asked for the means of carrying on the war, and those who oppose it triumphantly appeal to the vacant vaults of the Treasury. With the unimpaired credit of the Government invigorated by a faithful observance of public engagements, and a rapid extinction of the debt of the land, with the boundless territories in the west presenting a safe pledge for reimbursement of loans to any extent, is it not astonishing that despondency itself should disparage the resources of this country? You have, sir, I am credibly informed, in the city and vicinity of New Orleans alone, public property sufficient to extinguish the celebrated deficit in the Secretary's report. And are we to regard as nothing the patriotic offer so often made by the States, to spend their last cent, and risk their last drop of blood, in the preservation of our neutral privileges? Or, are we to be governed by the low, grovelling parsimony of the counting room, and to cast up the actual pence in the drawer before we assert our inestimable rights?

It is said, however, that no object is attainable by war with Great Britain. In its fortunes, we are to estimate not only the benefit to be derived to ourselves, but the injury to be done the enemy. The conquest of Canada is in your power. I trust I shall not be deemed presumptuous when I state that I verily believe that the militia of Kentucky are alone competent to place Montreal and Upper Canada at your feet. Is it nothing to the British nation; is it nothing to the pride of her Monarch, to have the last of the immense North American possessions held by him in the commencement of his reign wrested from his dominion? Is it nothing to us to extinguish the torch that lights up savage warfare? Is it nothing to acquire the entire fur trade connected with that country, and to destroy the temptation and the opportunity of violating your revenue and other laws?

War with Great Britain will deprive her of those supplies of raw materials and provisions which she now obtains from this country. It is alleged that the non-intercourse law, constantly evaded, is incapable of execution. War will be a non-intercourse, admitting of but partial elusion. The pressure upon her, contemplated by your restrictive laws, will then be completely realized. She will not have the game, as she will if you press this bill without an efficient system, entirely in her own hands. The enterprise and valor of our maritime brethren will participate in the spoils of capture.

Another effect of war will be, the reproduction and cherishing of a commercial spirit amongst us. Is there no danger that we shall become enervated by the spirit of avarice, unfortunately so predominant? I do not wish to see that diffusive military character, which, pervading the whole nation, might possibly eventuate in the aggrandizement of some ambitious chief, by prostrating the liberties of the country. But a certain portion of military ardor (and that is what I desire) is essential to the protection of the country. The withered arm and wrinkled brow of the illustrious founders of our freedom are melancholy indications that they will shortly be removed from us. Their deeds of glory and renown will then be felt only through the cold medium of the historic page. We shall want the presence and living example of a new race of heroes to supply their places, and to animate us to preserve inviolate what they achieved. Am I counting too much on the valor of my countrymen, when I indulge the hope, that, if we are forced into war, the American hero now lives, who, upon the walls of Quebec, imitating his glorious example, will avenge the fall of the immortal Montgomery? But we shall, at least, gain the approbation of our own hearts. If we surrender without a struggle to maintain our rights, we forfeit the respect of the world, and (what is worse) of ourselves.

We are often reminded that the British navy constitutes the only barrier between us and universal dominion. When resistance to Britain is submission to France, I protest against the castigation of our colonial infancy being applied in the independent manhood of America. I am willing, sir, to dispense with the parental tenderness of the British navy. I cannot subscribe to British slavery upon the water, that we may escape French subjugation on land. I should feel myself humbled, as an American citizen, if we had to depend upon any foreign power to uphold our independence; and I am persuaded that our own resources, properly directed, are fully adequate to our defence. I am therefore for resisting oppression, by whomsoever attempted against us, whether maritime or territorial.

Considering then that the bill as amended in this House, in furnishing no substitute for the law of non-intercourse, which it repeals, nor the proposition of the other House, intended to take its place, is a total dereliction of all opposition to the edicts of the belligerents, I cannot vote for it in its present form. I move a recommitment of the bill to supply this defect. What ought to be the substitute, I confess I have not satisfied myself--not expecting that it would fall to my lot to make you this motion. The committee, however, can deliberate upon the subject, and propose one. I would suggest two for consideration--either a total non-importation, which our laws can doubtless enforce, or to arm our merchantmen, and authorize convoys. A day may be fixed, allowing sufficient time for the last effort of the negotiation. That failing, our merchants then to be permitted to arm, and to receive all the protection by convoys which the public vessels can give. This latter measure may lead to war, but it is not war. Our neutral rights are violated by the belligerents. Each places our commerce under restrictions, not warranted by the law of nations. We must then submit, or protect it. Whilst we confine ourselves within the pale of that law, neither has a right to complain. When so armed, and pursuing our lawful destination, let those who attempt to molest us take to themselves the consequences of their own violations. On our part, a war thus produced will be a war of defence.

But, Mr. President, if, after all our deliberation, it shall be deemed unwise to adopt either of these expedients, perhaps some other unexceptionable course may occur. I insist that you do not return the bill to the other branch of the Legislature in its present form. They have sent you a measure, I acknowledge, weak; it is, however, not submission. It professes to oppose (in form, at least) the injustice of foreign Governments. What are you about to do--to breathe vigor and energy into the bill? No, sir; you have eradicated all its vitality, and are about to transmit back again the lifeless skeleton. I entreat the Senate to recollect the high ground they occupy with the nation. I call upon the members of this House to maintain its character for vigor. I beseech them not to forfeit the esteem of the country. Will you set the base example to the other House of an ignominious surrender of our rights, after they have been reproached with imbecility, and you extolled for your energy? But, sir, if we could be so forgetful of ourselves, I trust we shall spare you the disgrace of signing with those hands, so instrumental in the Revolution, a bill abandoning some of the most precious rights which it then secured.

The motion of Mr. CLAY to recommit the bill, for the purpose of amendment, was determined in the negative--yeas 13, nays 20, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brent, Campbell, Clay, Condit, German, Mathewson, Meigs, Parker, Pope, Robinson, Sumter, and Whiteside.

NAYS.-Messrs. Anderson, Bayard, Champlin, Crawford, Franklin, Gaillard, Gilman, Goodrich, Gregg, Hillhouse, Horsey, Lambert, Leib, Lloyd, Pickering, Reed, Smith of Maryland, Smith of New York, Tait, and Turner.

On the question, Shall this bill pass as amended? it was determined in the affirmative--yeas 26, nays 7, as follows;

YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bayard, Brent, Campbell, Champlin, Crawford, Franklin, Gaillard, Gilman, Goodrich, Gregg, Hillhouse, Horsey, Lambert, Leib, Lloyd, Mathewson, Meigs, Pickering, Reed, Smith of Maryland, Smith of New York, Sumter, Tait, Turner, and Whiteside.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bradley, Clay, Condit, German, Parker, Pope, and Robinson.

So it was resolved that this bill pass with amendments.

On motion, by Mr. SMITH of Maryland, it was agreed that the title of the bill be amended, to read as follows: "An act to interdict the public ships and vessels of France and Great Britain from the ports and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes."

WEDNESDAY, February 28.

The VICE PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceded to the election of a President pro tempore, as the constitution provides, and the honorable JOHN GAILLARD was appointed.

Ordered, That the Secretary wait on the President of the United States, and acquaint him that the Senate have, in the absence of the Vice President, elected the Honorable JOHN GAILLARD President of the Senate pro tempore.

TUESDAY, March 6.

Non-Intercourse.

The Senate resumed the resolution of the House of Representatives disagreeing to their amendments to the bill, entitled "An act respecting the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and for other purposes."

The question pending, when the Senate adjourned yesterday, was on adherence to their amendments to the bill.

Mr. ANDERSON observed that, when he had made the motion yesterday to adhere, he had done it under the impression that it was proper to bring the subject to a conclusion, and because he believed the interest of the country required that it should be finally acted on. He said he was still impressed with that idea; but, paying a deference to the opinion of his friends, desiring also to treat the House of Representatives with the respect due to that body, and because it was more conformable to the rules of proceeding generally observed, he withdrew the motion to adhere, and moved to insist on the amendments. He said he should, by parliamentary practice, have been fully justified in the motion to adhere before insisting. But it was proper that the two Houses of Congress should be courteous in their conduct to one another, and the state of affairs at present peculiarly required it; he therefore varied his motion. The question was then taken to insist, and carried without a division.

Mr. ANDERSON then moved to appoint a committee of conference, to confer on the subject with such committee as should be appointed by the House of Representatives.--Agreed to.

Messrs. ANDERSON, LEIB, and SMITH of Maryland, were accordingly appointed on the part of the Senate.

THURSDAY, March 8.

Demands upon Great Britain--Reprisal.

Mr. LEIB submitted the following resolutions:

"Resolved, That the President of the United States be required to instruct our Minister at the Court of Great Britain to demand of the British Government an immediate compliance with the arrangement made by their Minister, Mr. Erskine, with this Government, comprising atonement for the attack upon the frigate Chesapeake, and a relinquishment of the Orders in Council; and that, on failure to execute that arrangement, our Minister be directed forthwith to return to the United States.

"Resolved, That the President of the United States be required to instruct our Minister at the Court of Great Britain to demand of the British Government an immediate release of all American citizens impressed into the British service, and that, on failure or refusal to make such release, our Minister be directed forthwith to return to the United States.

"Resolved, That, on the failure or refusal of the Government of Great Britain, after demand made by our Minister to carry into effect the arrangements made by Mr. Erskine, the British Minister, or, on the refusal or failure to release all American citizens impressed into the British service, the President of the United States be authorized to issue letters of marque and reprisal against the ships and vessels belonging to the Government and subjects of Great Britain."

MONDAY, March 12.

Withdrawal of Resolutions.

Mr. LEIB, on request, had leave to withdraw his resolutions submitted for consideration on the 8th inst.

Mr. LEIB remarked that he had submitted the resolutions upon the table of the Senate under a conviction that the honor and interests of the nation required such a course of measures. He believed that it was time to have done with trifling, with a war of words, and with what had been termed gasconade; that the cup of expedients had been drained to the last dregs, and that a new mode of warfare became indispensable, to vindicate our honor and assert our rights. His impressions were, that a determined attitude alone could rescue us from the oppressor's wrong, awaken a sense of justice, or lead to that necessary alternative which an injured nation is sometimes obliged to resort to, to avoid greater calamity. He said that he was no friend to war--that peace was the first wish of his heart--but that he could not consent to preserve it by a prostitution of the attributes of freemen. Insult, robbery, and murder, cried aloud for justice or for vengeance; and duty requires of him the aid of his feeble efforts to rescue the nation from degradation. He remarked, that the resolutions were directed against one of the belligerents only, and he would assign his reasons for the discrimination, and why he had selected Great Britain for their object. It had been admitted that we had a right to choose our enemy, and Great Britain was selected, because she was first in the career of maritime despotism, and had exercised it with unrelenting severity; because she stands alone in the impressment of our citizens, and dooms them to ignominious punishment, or compels them to fight her battles; because the national honor had been vitally wounded, in the attack upon our flag; and because she had heaped outrage upon aggression, and had imbrued her hands in the innocent blood of our citizens. Since the resolutions were offered, he further remarked, the aspect of things seemed to be somewhat varied, and a hope is entertained, from the advices received, that a change of attitude may be rendered unnecessary; and that, under present circumstances, such change is inexpedient, and may prove injurious. However skeptical he might be on this subject, he had no wish to embarrass the Administration in its negotiations; but, on the contrary, he wished to give full scope to any efforts for an amicable adjustment of our differences. He wished not to throw in a cloud to intercept that glimpse which was supposed to be breaking upon us. His enmities, he said, were national, and would cease with the cause of excitement. Under these impressions, and in deference to the judgment of political as well as personal friends, to whose opinions he was always ready to render a willing homage, he said that he would withdraw the resolutions, reserving to himself the right to renew them under other circumstances.

MONDAY, March 19.

Non-Intercourse.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the managers at the conference on their part, on the bill, entitled "An act respecting the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and for other purposes."

On motion, by Mr. CLAY, to postpone the further consideration thereof until to-morrow, it was determined in the negative. And the question recurring on the original motion--

Mr. S. SMITH said: Mr. President, the question before the Senate is, to adhere to their amendments made to the bill "respecting the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France."

It is with extreme reluctance that I rise on the present occasion. I feel, sensibly feel, the situation in which I place myself by opposing a measure countenanced by the vote in the other House, of almost all those with whom I have been accustomed to act, and by many in the Senate, for whose superior judgment and correct opinions I have ever had the highest respect. Finding, however, that I differed with those gentlemen, I took the bill to my lodgings, and considered it with a disposition to find in it something that should induce me to give up my own opinion to that expressed by the vote in the other House; but I looked in vain, and I found myself compelled to take the ground of opposition to the bill. In doing this, I must hope for the indulgence of those with whom I differ, and of the Senate, for detailing the reasons for the motion I made to amend the bill. To do this, it may not be unprofitable to take a review of the causes that led to the measures adopted by the United States, and the course taken by Congress to resist the injuries imposed upon us by Great Britain and France.

The insult offered to the honor of the nation in the affair of the Chesapeake, so far from being redressed, was heightened by a proclamation from the King of Great Britain, authorizing publicly, in the face of the world, the boarding of our merchant ships, and taking therefrom whomsoever their officers should call a British subject; to palliate this outrage on our independence, it was recommended to the boarding officer to execute this indignity with politeness. About the same time the Government was informed of the case of the Horizon, condemned under the Berlin decree, and that the Emperor had determined that that decree should embrace Americans as well as other neutrals. This determination was directly contrary to the assurance given General Armstrong, by the French Minister of Marine, as well as to the practice under the decree. This was the first intimation given to our Government that the Berlin decree would operate on the interest of the United States.

The President (as was his duty) laid both of those subjects before Congress in a Message, and it was well known at the same time, (although not officially,) that the British Order of Council of November had been issued.

What was then our situation with those nations? France had declared every American vessel that was bound to or from Great Britain, or having on board goods, the produce or manufacture of Great Britain, to be lawful prize. Great Britain declared that every American vessel bound to any port of Europe, should first come into her ports, there land her cargo, pay a transit duty, and depart (if they pleased) to their original port of destination; and any vessel failing to do so, should be liable to condemnation; that any American vessel having a certificate of origin on board, should be considered good prize. Thus situated, we had a choice of war or embargo. To make war on France would have been idle; we could inflict no wound on her by war, except that of withholding our supplies from her West and East India colonies, and this would as effectually be done by an embargo. In a war with England, we could inflict severe wounds on her immense commerce, and she is always vulnerable on the side of Canada. A more pacific system was however adopted--the embargo. Had that measure been rigidly enforced, it could not have failed to have compelled a removal of the unjust conduct of those nations, most certainly of that of Great Britain. The Senate, aware that a measure of that kind could not be enforced without a physical force, sensible that the prospect of profit would induce many to prevent its intended operations by evasions, did immediately pass a bill authorizing the President to fit out and put to sea all the armed vessels of the United States, for the purpose of preventing evasions of the law, to employ our seamen who were thrown idle, and to be prepared for events should a war ensue. The bill slept in the other House, and, by an ill-timed economy, was ultimately rejected, by which a free scope was given to evaders of the law, and the system (which was a wise one) was in some degree frustrated; yet it had an effect highly salutary on Great Britain, it compelled her to modify the Orders of Council of November, and no longer were our ships compelled to go into her ports, and there pay tribute; no longer were our vessels subjected to condemnation for having a certificate of origin on board. The embargo was severely felt by Great Britain while in force, every article which they had been accustomed to receive from us rose immediately in price, and I am confident that had it been continued and executed, full satisfaction would have been given by Britain for the various outrages which had been committed on our honor and independence. It was relinquished, and a non-intercourse was substituted as to both nations. This measure, although less strong, was such as would have been very severely felt by the British nation. It completely excluded the importation of her manufactures into the United States; it took from her a market for more than one-half of her manufactures; it turned idle a large number of workmen, and although it did not prevent her from getting our productions, yet she obtained them in such a way, that they cost her, in some instances, double their usual price. This new system was however checked in its course by the arrangement made with Great Britain through Mr. Erskine. Our ports were thrown open, and our vessels (then nearly all in our harbors) soon filled Great Britain with every thing she wanted at low prices; flour fell instantly in England to nine and a half and ten. dollars the barrel.

Great Britain, in lieu of the Orders of Council, excluded us from France and Holland, and their colonies, and from Italy, by a paper blockade; an iniquitous, illegal system, which she had adopted in 1793, and has either contracted or extended at her pleasure ever since. Our own law excluded us from France and Italy. This tended to give a direction to a great proportion of our trade to Great Britain, and thereby completely supplied her wants. On the disavowal of Mr. Erskine's arrangement, the non-intercourse was renewed, and a stop put to our exports to Great Britain; the consequence was, that flour rose immediately to fourteen and fifteen dollars in England; cotton, tobacco, and other articles, in a proportion still greater. I mention this to show, that whenever we stop our trade to Great Britain she feels it sensibly in the high prices she has to give for our exports, and thus to show the efficacy of the system that had been taken, if it had been duly executed. But in her exports Great Britain felt little, for our merchants had given their orders under the arrangement, and it would have been unjust to have prevented them from receiving the goods they had ordered; the non-importation part, which I conceive the most essential part of the non-intercourse, had in consequence been inoperative.

What, then, was our situation when Congress met? The French privateers were capturing our defenceless merchant ships, burning those of little value, and carrying into their ports for condemnation those which were valuable. Great Britain had, by a pretended blockade, excluded us from entering the ports of Holland, France, Italy, and their West and East India colonies. She had sent a Minister to succeed Mr. Erskine, who, so far from offering any explanations on the disavowal of the arrangement made with his predecessor, added insult to injury, and bearded us to our teeth; he gave us to understand that the terms proposed in the instructions to Mr. Erskine would be insisted on--terms that I am confident no citizen of the United States would accede to.

In this state of our foreign relations Congress met, the members brought with them the feelings of the people, who were all alive to the late indignity offered their Government, all expected that measures of energy would be pursued. This House felt and acted. Resolutions passed almost unanimously, expressive of their sense of the insult offered by the British Minister.

The Senate passed a bill ordering the whole of the vessels of war to be put in commission, (which bill sleeps still in the other House,) and were progressing in preparations for the defence of the honor and safety of the nation, when the bill now under consideration was reported by the Committee of Foreign Relations. It operated instantly like an electric shock, it paralyzed every effort, and gentlemen were astonished when they were told that this bill was the great measure that was to preserve our honor in the eyes of all the world; that it was the grand panacea which was to heal the wounds that had been inflicted on our rights by the belligerents. In fact, it was the only measure on which we were to rely for a redress of all our grievances.

Mr. President, I read this grand effort with attention. In vain did I look for something therein that would tend to obtain satisfaction for the insult on the Chesapeake; in vain for any thing that would tend to prevent the future impressment of our seamen; in vain for any thing that would induce or coerce the belligerents to repeal their unjust orders and decrees against our lawful commerce. One great feature, and one only, was to be discovered, to wit: the repeal of the non-intercourse law--covered by a thin veil, composed, as the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. CLAY) has said, of shreds and patches. Not so, Mr. President; if it had been patchwork alone, I should not have disturbed its arrangement. But I found in it, or believe I did, that which would be ruinous to the commerce of the United States, and therefore felt myself bound by the duty I owe to my constituents to remove the veil, and leave the measure open to public view; the Senate concurred with me in opinion, to wit: to strike out the injurious sections, to which opinion I shall vote to adhere.

I have been asked, shall Congress rise and do nothing? I answer, that it is better to do nothing than to do that which will only injure ourselves. But, sir, I wished to do something; I proposed, in select committee, to strike out those sections which would only do us injury, and then fill their place with sections (which I had draughted and presented for consideration) authorizing the arming of the merchant ships, not for defence alone, but with authority to capture and make prize of any vessel that might assail them while engaged in lawful commerce, and to employ the public ships of war in convoying the trade of the nation. I met with no support in this system; there were in committee four against my motion. Discouraged by so large a proportion voting against me, I neglected, or was deterred from making the same motion in Senate, and this error I regret, although I know not whether I should have been more successful in Senate than I had been in committee; but I should have been better pleased with my own conduct. I had, it is true, an expectation that, in a committee of conference between the two Houses, that something might be introduced that would please both branches of the Legislature; and I presumed that the convoy system would be substituted. I have been mistaken. The conferees met, and the committee of Senate submitted a section, "authorizing the President, under his instructions, made conformably to the laws of nations, to grant convoy to the merchant ships of the United States engaged in lawful commerce." That proposition spoke this language to the belligerents: The United States have taken every pacific means of obtaining justice from you without success. We will no longer deprive ourselves of commerce; we will open our trade, and we will defend it. We are ready to meet the consequences that may arise, and will stand prepared for war, if war shall ensue. This, Mr. President, appeared to your committee as a course that would be honorable to the nation. It was unanimously rejected by the committee on the part of the House, who, in turn, proposed that "British ships should be permitted to bring into the United States the produce and manufactures of that nation, but should not be permitted to carry from the United States any of the produce thereof," and the same as to France. This most extraordinary proposition was unanimously rejected by the conferees on the part of the Senate. Strip the proposition, and what language does it speak? That the British merchant may send into your ports his ships and fill your market with British goods, to the great injury of your infant manufactories; he may enter into competition with them and work their destruction. But he must not enter into competition with the merchants in the purchase of a return cargo, nor with the ship owners in the carrying of the produce of the country. No, sir, that was hallowed ground, and must not be trodden. The conferees of the two Houses could not agree, and the question now before the Senate is, to adhere to their amendments. For which I shall vote, although the bill will then not be such as I wish it had been. But, sir, it cannot in this stage be amended. I am aware that my vote will be disapproved by many of my friends. But, sir, I trust that time, and a further consideration of the subject, will convince them that my objections to the rejected sections have not been unfounded.

The question being then taken that the Senate adhere to their amendments, it was determined in the affirmative--yeas 17, nays 15, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bayard, Champlin, Gaillard, German, Gilman, Goodrich, Gregg, Hillhouse, Horsey, Leib, Lloyd, Parker, Pickering, Smith of Maryland, Sumter, and Whiteside.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brent, Campbell, Clay, Condit, Crawford, Franklin, Giles, Lambert, Mathewson, Meigs, Pope, Smith of New York, Tait, and Turner.

THURSDAY, March 22.

National Bank.

Mr. BAYARD, from the committee appointed on the subject the thirteenth instant, reported a bill making provision for the establishment of a National Bank; and the bill was read and passed to a second reading.

[The bill was for a new bank of 30 millions capital, the subscription for shares open to every citizen of the United States or of its Territories, to copartnerships composed of such citizens or body politic incorporated within the United States, to the amount of 1000 shares.]

WEDNESDAY, April 4.

Bank of the United States.

The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following report of the Secretary of the Treasury, made in pursuance of the resolution of the Senate of the 2d instant:

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 3, 1810.

SIR: I have the honor to transmit a report, prepared in obedience to the resolution of the Senate of yesterday.

I have the honor to be, &c.,

ALBERT GALLATIN.

To the honorable the President of the Senate:

The Secretary of the Treasury, in obedience to the resolution of the Senate, of the 2d instant, respectfully reports--

That the statement annexed to the report made to the Senate on the 2d day of March, 1809, contained all the dividends made by the Bank of the United States, from its establishment to the date of the report, as stated to the Treasury by the bank.

That the annexed table, (A,) being a transcript of the above-mentioned statement, with the addition of the dividends made on the 1st day of July, 1809, and on the first day of January last, embraces not only the semi-annual dividends of 4 per cent., but also all the extra dividends which are within the knowledge of this Department, and which, it is believed, have ever been made by the bank; making, in the whole, an average of 8 13-36 per cent. a year.

That there remained to the credit of the bank, after payment of the dividend made on the first day of January last, a surplus of $409,410, consisting of two items, viz: $125,000, designated by the name of "General Bank Estate," intended as an offset against decay and presumed loss, in case of sale of the real estate of the bank--that estate having been paid for from the capital stock, and not from the profits of the bank; and $284,410, designated by the name of "Contingent Fund," intended in the first place to cover losses arising from bad debts, not yet actually lost; and the residue of which, if any, will be applicable to another extra dividend.

That the nominal profit resulting to the bank, from each of its offices of discount and deposit, could not be ascertained without an investigation of all the weekly returns made to this Department; and that there are no returns from which the actual loss sustained by each office can be known.

But, that the statement (B) shows the permanent capital given to each office of discount and deposit; the balance due in account current by the offices of the bank, (exclusive and in addition to the said permanent capital,) on the 27th day of March last; the amount of the notes actually discounted and due to the bank by the last returns, specifying the amount discounted at Philadelphia, and at each office respectively; and an estimate of the gross amount of the annual expenses and losses of the bank, including its several offices, by which it appears that the annual expenses, being about $125,000 a year, the ascertained losses must in the whole have amounted to about $35,000 a year.

All which is respectfully submitted.

ALBERT GALLATIN.

Dividends on United States Bank Stock.

========================================== No. | Date. | Rate p. ct. -------+-----------------+---------------- 1 | July, 1792 | 4 2 | January, 1793 | 4 3 | July, " | 3-5/8[7] 4 | January, 1794 | 3-7/8[7] 5 | July, " | 4 6 | January, 1795 | 4 7 | July, " | 4 8 | January, 1796 | 4 9 | July, " | 4 10 | January, 1797 | 4 11 | July, " | 4 12 | January, 1798 | 5[8] 13 | July, " | 4 14 | January, 1799 | 4 15 | July, " | 4 16 | January, 1800 | 4 17 | July, " | 4 18 | January, 1801 | 6[8] 19 | July, " | 4 20 | January, 1802 | 4-1/2[8] 21 | July, " | 4-1/2[8] 22 | January, 1803 | 4-1/2[8] 23 | July, " | 4 24 | January, 1804 | 4-1/2[8] 25 | July, " | 4 26 | January, 1805 | 4 27 | July, " | 4 28 | January, 1806 | 4 29 | July, " | 4 30 | January, 1807 | 6[8] 31 | July, " | 4 32 | January, 1808 | 4 33 | July, " | 4 34 | January, 1809 | 4 35 | July, " | 4 36 | January, 1810 | 4 ==========================================

Statement of the capital of the several branches, and of the Bank of the United States, and of the amount of discounts by the last received returns.

=================================================== Cities, &c. | Capital. | Amt. of notes | | discounted =================================================== Boston | $700,000 | $998,859 New York | 1,800,000 | 4,175,874 Baltimore | 600,000 | 1,349,550 Washington | 200,000 | 485,285 Norfolk | 600,000 | 880,170 Charleston | 600,000 | 1,409,916 Savannah | 500,000 | 1,054,113 New Orleans | 300,000 | 611,517 Philadelphia-- | | Balance due the | | bank, in account | | current, by the | | offices $750,000 | | Cap. res'd 3,950,000 | | --------- | 4,700,000 | |-------------| | $10,000,000 | Funded debt | -- | 1,411,620 | |------------- | | $16,949,497 ===================================================

Estimate of the expenses and losses of the Bank.

Six per cent, on $17,000,000, estimated as per above, as the amount usually loaned on interest, is, per annum, $1,020,000--to wit:

Dividend of 8 13-36 per cent. a year, on ten millions of $836,111 dollars actually paid to the stockholders, is, per annum

Undivided surplus on the 1st January, 1810, $409,410, 22,745 divided by 18 years, would be equal to an annual dividend of

Leaving for the estimated annual amount of expenses and 161,144 losses ----------- Total $1,020,000 ===========

TUESDAY, April 10.

The Mississippi River Pirate, Mason.

Mr. CLAY presented the petition of Elisha Winters, stating that, in the years 1801, 1802, and 1803, the wilderness from Natchez to Kentucky, and the river Mississippi, was infested by a notorious gang of highway robbers, headed by a certain Samuel Mason, and that the petitioner was the means by which the said Mason was killed, two of his accomplices apprehended and executed, and the remainder of the banditti dispersed, and praying he may be allowed the reward offered for the apprehension of the said Mason by the President of the United States, or by the then Governor of the Mississippi Territory; and the petition was read, and referred to a select committee, to consider and report thereon; and Messrs. CLAY, WHITESIDE, and CRAWFORD, were appointed the committee.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill for the establishment of a Quartermaster's department; and it was agreed that the further consideration thereof be postponed until to-morrow.

TUESDAY, April 17.

The VICE PRESIDENT being absent, the Senate proceeded to the election of a President pro tem., as the constitution provides; and the Hon. JOHN GAILLARD was elected.

Ordered, That the Secretary wait on the President of the United States, and acquaint him that the Senate have, in the absence of the VICE PRESIDENT, elected the Hon. JOHN GAILLARD, President of the Senate pro tempore.

Ordered, That the Secretary make a like communication to the House of Representatives.

WEDNESDAY, April 18.

National Bank.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill making provision for the establishment of a National Bank.

On motion, by Mr. HILLHOUSE, to strike out the first section of the bill, the Senate was equally divided--yeas 15, nays 15, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Brent, Champlin, German, Gilman, Goodrich, Hillhouse, Horsey, Lloyd, Meigs, Pickering, Pope, Reed, Smith of New York, Tait, and Whiteside.

NAYS.--Messrs, Anderson, Bayard, Bradley, Clay, Condit, Crawford, Franklin, Gaillard, Giles, Gregg, Lambert, Leib, Smith of Maryland, Sumter, and Turner.

So the question was lost.

FRIDAY, April 20.

Territory of Orleans.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill to enable the people of the Territory of Orleans to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and for other purposes; and on motion, by Mr. CLAY, to amend the bill, by adding at the end of the third section the following words:

"Provided further, That the said convention shall, by an article in the constitution so to be formed, irrevocable without the consent of the United States, provide, that, after the admission into the Union of the said Territory of Orleans as a State, the laws which such State may pass shall be promulgated, and its records of every description shall be preserved, and its written, judicial, and legislative proceedings conducted, in the language in which the laws and the written, judicial, and legislative proceedings of the United States are now published and conducted:"

It was determined in the affirmative--yeas 17, nays 12, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bayard, Campbell, Champlin, Clay, Giles, Gilman, Goodrich, Horsey, Lambert, Leib, Lloyd, Meigs, Pickering, Pope, Smith of Maryland, Smith of New York, and Turner.

NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bradley, Condit, Crawford, Franklin, Gaillard, German, Gregg, Hillhouse, Reed, Sumter, and Whiteside.

WEDNESDAY, April 25.

National Bank.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill making provision for the establishment of a National Bank. And on motion, by Mr. BAYARD, that the further consideration thereof be postponed until the first Monday in December next, it was determined in the affirmative--yeas 17, nays 14, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bayard, Bradley, Brent, Champlin, Crawford, German, Gilman, Goodrich, Hillhouse, Horsey, Lloyd, Pickering, Pope, Reed, Smith of New York, Sumter, and Turner.

NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Clay, Condit, Franklin, Gaillard, Giles, Gregg, Lambert, Leib, Mathewson, Meigs, Robinson, Smith of Maryland, and Whiteside.

THURSDAY, April 26.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill, entitled "An act providing for the sale of certain lands in the Indiana Territory, and for other purposes;" and having agreed to the amendments reported by the select committee, the PRESIDENT reported it to the House accordingly; and on the question, Shall this bill be read the third time, as amended? it was determined in the affirmative.

Mr. GILMAN, from the committee, reported the bill allowing compensation to Robert Robinson correctly engrossed; and the bill was read the third time; and the blank having been filled with the words five hundred--

Resolved, That this bill pass, and that the title thereof be "An act allowing compensation to Robert Robinson."

The Senate resumed the motion made yesterday on the subject, which was amended and agreed to, as follows:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to lay before the Senate a statement of all claims which have been adjusted and allowed at the Treasury Department, in virtue of the law entitled "An act providing for the settlement of the claims of persons, under particular circumstances, barred by the limitations heretofore established;" and also, a statement of the balances standing in the books of the Treasury against the United States, which are barred by the statute of limitations, together with his opinion whether the said statute can be modified or repealed, as to that or any other description of claims, without subjecting the Government to imposition.

Mr. CLAY gave notice that to-morrow he should ask leave to bring in a bill, supplementary to an act, entitled "An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States."

The bill entitled "An act authorizing a loan of money, for a sum not exceeding the amount of the principal of the public debt reimbursable during the year one thousand eight hundred and ten," was read the second time, and referred to a select committee, to consist of five members, to consider and report thereon, and Messrs. SMITH of Maryland, CRAWFORD, LLOYD, FRANKLIN, and HILLHOUSE, were appointed the committee.

Territory of Orleans.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill to enable the people of the Territory of Orleans to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and for other purposes; together with the amendments reported thereto by the select committee. On motion, by Mr. HILLHOUSE, to add, at the end of the bill, the following words:

"Provided, That the several States shall assent thereto, or an amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall authorize Congress to admit said Territory of Orleans into the Union, on the footing of the original States:"

It was determined in the negative--yeas 8, nays 20, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Champlin, German, Goodrich, Hillhouse, Horsey, Lloyd, Pickering, and Reed.

NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Brent, Clay, Condit, Crawford, Franklin, Gaillard, Giles, Gilman, Gregg, Lambert, Leib, Mathewson, Meigs, Pope, Smith of Maryland, Sumter, Tait, Turner, and Whiteside.

And the report of the select committee having been agreed to, and the bill further amended, the President reported it to the House accordingly. On the question, Shall this bill be engrossed and read a third time as amended? it was determined in the affirmative--yeas 18, nays 9, as follows;

YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Brent, Clay, Condit, Crawford, Franklin, Gaillard, Giles, Gregg, Lambert, Lloyd, Mathewson, Meigs, Smith of Maryland, Sumter, Tait, Turner, and Whiteside.

NAYS.--Messrs. Champlin, German, Gilman, Goodrich, Hillhouse, Horsey, Leib, Pickering, and Reed.

MONDAY, April 30.

Barred Claims.

The PRESIDENT communicated the report of the Secretary for the Department of the Treasury, made in pursuance of the resolution of the Senate of the 26th instant, on the subject of claims barred by the statute of limitations; and the report was read, as follows:

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 28, 1810.

SIR: I have the honor to transmit a report prepared in obedience to the resolution of the Senate, of the twenty-six instant. I have the honor to be, &c.,

ALBERT GALLATIN.

To the Honorable the President of the Senate:

The Secretary of the Treasury, in obedience to the resolution of the Senate, of the 26th instant, respectfully reports--

That it appears, by the letter from the Register of the Treasury, herewith transmitted, that the statement of all the claims adjusted and allowed, by virtue of the act, entitled "An act providing for the settlement of the claims of persons under particular circumstances, barred by the limitations heretofore established," cannot be completed before the day contemplated for the adjournment of Congress, but will be prepared so as to be laid before the Senate at the commencement of their next session.

That the statement (A) herewith transmitted, exhibits the amount of the balances standing on the books of the Treasury against the United States, which are barred by the statutes of limitation, and arranged under the following heads, viz:

Loan Office certificates $90,811 36 Indents for interest on the public debt 64,590 98 Final settlement certificates 23,873 24 Commissioners' certificates 4,304 83 Army commissioners' do. 46,468 97 Credits given in lieu of army commissioners' certificates cancelled 28,674 30 Credits for pay of the army, for which no certificates were ever issued 17,132 11 Invalid pensions 16,635 46 ---------- Amounting together to 292,491 25 ==========

That so far as relates to the said balances, which result altogether from accounts actually settled at the Treasury, the statute of limitation can be repealed without subjecting the Government to imposition; but that considering the length of time which has elapsed since the claims have been barred, and the little value on that account affixed to them, the repeal of the statute, unless properly guarded in that respect, may not generally benefit the rightful claimants.

And that with the exception of those balances, it is not believed that it would be safe to repeal the statute of limitation in relation to any other general description of claims; although there may be special cases in which, notwithstanding the lapse of time, the proper proofs and checks may still exist, so as to prevent any imposition on the public.

All which is respectfully submitted.

ALBERT GALLATIN.

TUESDAY, May 1.

Barred Claims.

Mr. HILLHOUSE, from the same committee, further reported as follows:

Resolved, That the Secretary for the Department of the Treasury report to the Senate, at their next meeting, the necessary provisions for guarding the Treasury of the United States from fraud and imposition on the removal of the statute of limitations, in relation to the following claims mentioned in his report of the 28th of April, 1810, viz:

1. Loan office certificates.

2. Indents for interest on the public debt.

3. Final settlement certificates.

4. Commissioners' certificates.

5. Army certificates.

6. Credits given in lieu of Army certificates cancelled.

7. Credits for the pay of the Army, for which no certificates were issued.

8. Invalid pension.

Also, how far the statute of limitations may with safety be removed, as to claims for personal services rendered in the Army of the United States, during the Revolutionary war, and the guard and checks necessary and proper to be adopted.

And the report was considered and agreed to.

Adjournment.

Mr. CRAWFORD, from the joint committee, reported that they had waited on the President of the United States, who informed them that he had no further communication to make to the two Houses of Congress.

Ordered, That the Secretary notify the House of Representatives that the Senate, having finished the business before them, are about to adjourn.

The Secretary having performed that duty, the President adjourned the Senate without delay.

FOOTNOTES:

[7] Dividends falling short of the rate of 8 per cent. per annum.

[8] Including extra dividends.

ELEVENTH CONGRESS.--SECOND SESSION.

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES

IN

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

MONDAY, November 27, 1809.

This being the day appointed by law for the meeting of Congress, the following members of the House of Representatives appeared, and took their seats, to wit:

From New Hampshire--Daniel Blaisdell, and Nathaniel A. Haven.

From Massachusetts--Ezekiel Bacon, Richard Cutts, William Ely, Barzillai Gannett, Josiah Quincy, Sam'l Taggart, Charles Turner, jr., Jabez Upham, Joseph B. Varnum, (the Speaker,) and Laban Wheaton.

From Vermont--William Chamberlin, Martin Chittenden, Jonathan H. Hubbard, and Samuel Shaw.

From Rhode Island--Richard Jackson.

From Connecticut--Epaphroditus Champion, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Jonathan O. Mosely, Timothy Pitkin, junior, Lewis B. Sturges, and Benjamin Tallmadge.

From New York--James Emott, Jonathan Fisk, Thomas R. Gold, Robert Le Roy Livingston, Peter B. Porter, Erastus Root, Ebenezer Sage, Thomas Sammons, John Thompson, and Killian K. Van Rensselaer.

From New Jersey--Adam Boyd, James Cox, William Helms, Jacob Hufty, Thomas Newbold, and Henry Southard.

From Pennsylvania--William Anderson, David Bard, Robert Brown, William Crawford, Aaron Lyle, William Milnor, John Porter, John Rea, Matthias Richards, John Smilie, George Smith, Samuel Smith, and Robert Whitehill.

From Maryland--Charles Goldsborough, John Montgomery, Nicholas R. Moore, Roger Nelson, and Archibald Van Horne.

From Virginia--Burwell Bassett, James Breckenridge, John Clopton, John Dawson, John W. Eppes, Thomas Gholson, junior, Peterson Goodwyn, John G. Jackson, Joseph Lewis, junior, John Love, Thomas Newton, John T. Roane, John Smith, and James Stephenson.

From North Carolina--Willis Alston, junior, James Cochran, William Kennedy, Nathaniel Macon, Archibald McBride, Joseph Pearson, Lemuel Sawyer, and Richard Stanford.

From South Carolina--Lemuel J. Alston, William Butler, Joseph Calhoun, Robert Marion, Thomas Moore, and John Taylor.

From Georgia--Howell Cobb, and George M. Troup.

From Ohio--Jeremiah Morrow.

From Kentucky--Joseph Desha, Benjamin Howard, Richard M. Johnson, and Samuel McKee.

From Tennessee--Pleasant M. Miller, John Rhea, and Robert Weakley.

From Mississippi Territory--George Poindexter.

From Indiana Territory--Jonathan Jennings.

From Orleans Territory--Julien Poydras.

ADAM SEYBERT, returned to serve as a member of this House, for the State of Pennsylvania, in the room of Benjamin Say, resigned, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

JONATHAN JENNINGS, returned to serve as a Delegate from the Territory of Indiana, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

A quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole number, being present, Mr. GOODWYN and Mr. ROOT were appointed a committee on the part of the House, jointly with such committee as may be appointed on the part of the Senate, to wait on the President of the United States, and inform him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled, and ready to receive any communications he may be pleased to make to them.

TUESDAY, November 28.

Several other members, to wit: from New Hampshire, JOHN C. CHAMBERLAIN and JAMES WILSON; from Rhode Island, ELISHA R. POTTER; from Pennsylvania, WILLIAM FINDLAY and DANIEL HEISTER; from Virginia, MATTHEW CLAY and JACOB SWOOPE; and from North Carolina, JOHN STANLEY, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

A message from the Senate informed the House that a quorum of the Senate is assembled, and ready to proceed to business. They have appointed a committee on their part, jointly with the committee appointed on the part of this House, to inform the President that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled, and ready to receive any communications that he may be pleased to make them.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a certificate of the election of ADAM SEYBERT, to serve as a member for the State of Pennsylvania, in the room of Benjamin Say, resigned; which was read, and, together with the certificate of the election of JONATHAN JENNINGS, the delegate from the Territory of Indiana, referred to the Committee of Elections.

WEDNESDAY, November 29.

Several other members, to wit: from New York, JOHN NICHOLSON; from Maryland, JOHN BROWN; and from Virginia, WALTER JONES, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

THURSDAY, November 30.

Several other members, to wit: from New Hampshire, WILLIAM HALE; from Massachusetts, GIDEON GARDNER and EZEKIEL WHITMAN; and from New York, VINCENT MATTHEWS, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

The SPEAKER laid before the House the following letter, which was read:

Respect for the House.

To the Speaker of the House of Representatives:

Sir: An occurrence having recently taken place between a member of the House of Representatives and myself, produced by circumstances not at all connected with his official duties or opinions, which from the time and place may be considered disrespectful to the House of Representatives, I take the liberty of tendering through you my most respectful declarations, that I am the last who would wilfully manifest a deficiency of that reverence which is due to the Representatives of my country, or that sacred regard which is also due to their privileges.

To yourself, sir, personally, I tender the assurances of my very great respect.

I. A. COLES.[9]

NOVEMBER 29, 1809.

[No order having been taken on it, the letter lies on the table of course.]

FRIDAY, December 1.

Two other members, to wit: from Virginia, EDWIN GRAY; and from North Carolina, MESHACK FRANKLIN, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

Navigation Laws.

Mr. MACON said he wished early to call the attention of the House to two motions, the object of which he deemed to be very important. The first of them had been formerly submitted to the House by a gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. EARLY) but never acted on, and afterwards by a gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS;) the other had been presented by Mr. MACON himself at the last session, but at so late a period that it had not been acted on. It appeared to Mr. MACON that these motions combined with one submitted at different times by a gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. DANA,) would form something like a system. The object of the first motion he was about to submit, was to prohibit any foreign vessel from coming from any port or place to which the vessels of the United States could not go. Gentlemen would at once observe that there were many places whence vessels came to this country, to which we cannot go, and would perceive the extent of the motion. The other motion related to sea-letter vessels only. Mr. MACON said he wished to put them out of the nation, and to have no vessels belonging to the United States which were not perfectly American. He would have our vessels wholly American, or they should not at all partake of the character of American vessels.

After declaring that he considered his motions as calculated for permanent regulations, Mr. MACON submitted the following resolutions:

Resolved, That the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures be instructed to inquire into the expediency of prohibiting the entry of any vessel into the United States from any port or place to which a vessel of the United States is not admitted by permanent regulation of the Government owning such port or place by treaty.

Resolved, That the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures be instructed to inquire into the expediency of authorizing the registering anew of vessels built in the United States, which are owned in whole by citizens of the United States, any disability incurred by such vessel to the contrary notwithstanding; and also into the expediency of forbidding by law sea-letters or any custom-house documents being granted to vessels not registered or licensed according to law, or not owned by citizens of the United States, within a limited time after the passing of such a law.

Mr. NEWTON having seconded these motions, Mr. MACON moved to refer them to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures.

Mr. DANA observed that these resolutions had in view merely an investigation by the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures into the subject of them. On such a question it was but necessary to ask whether the subject be of itself interesting, and whether or not the proposition bears on the face of it so much of probability and propriety that there could be no objection to it on the score of its being utterly inadmissible. Unless, therefore, the propositions were utterly inadmissible, if they related to a subject interesting to the nation in time of peace as well as of war, if they had a connection with one great branch of national policy, there could be no objection to have them investigated by a committee. Without expressing any opinion on the first proposition, which embraced a variety of important considerations, Mr. D. said that the motions were recommended to the House by their being founded on permanent principles, to which the nation may adhere in every alternative; and in addition to the attention due to them because they were of a permanent character and not merely temporary expedients, they might contribute to some of those measures of temporary policy deemed proper, and without a possibility of thwarting, might perhaps aid any project the Government might adopt. As to the second resolution, that he considered important in another point of view, as tending to encourage American manufactures. If there be any manufacture which requires great precision of science and experimental skill, any one which embraces more of the profound and elevated principles of science, and requires more dexterity in practical execution than any other, it is the constructing of ships. With these ideas, which Mr. Dana said were not applicable to the merits of the proposition, but to the question of reference, he should vote for referring them. He was extremely glad the motions had been brought forward, and particularly that they had been introduced by a gentleman so well qualified to sustain them, by his character and talents.

The motion for referring Mr. MACON'S propositions was carried.

[The following gentlemen compose this committee: Messrs. TALLMADGE, CLAY, BUTLER, REA of Pennsylvania, WEAKLEY, HALE, TURNER.]

7. Resolved, That so much of the Message of the President of the United States as relates to the finances of the United States, be referred to the Committee of Ways and Means.

8. Resolved, That so much of the Message of the President of the United States as relates to the fortifications of the ports and harbors of the United States, be referred to a select committee.

[This committee is composed of the following gentlemen: Messrs. CLOPTON, JOHN PORTER, EMOTT, MCKIM, GARDNER, MCBRYDE, and WITHERSPOON.]

MONDAY, December 4.

Several other members to wit: from Maryland, ALEXANDER MCKIM; from North Carolina, THOMAS KENAN; from South Carolina, ROBERT WITHERSPOON; from Kentucky, HENRY CRIST; and from Georgia, WILLIAM W. BIBB, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

Committee of Manufactures.

Mr. SAWYER asked leave to lay upon the table the following resolution, of a nature similar to one which he had proposed at the last session, which, from the shortness of the session, he presumed, rather than from any unfriendly disposition, never had been acted on:

Resolved, That a standing committee be appointed, to be called the Committee of Manufactures, whose duty it shall be to take into consideration all such petitions, matters, and things, touching manufactures, as shall be presented, or shall or may come in question and be referred to them by the House, and to report, from time to time, their opinion thereon.

Mr. S. said it was certainly too much to expect any one committee to do justice to two such important subjects, becoming daily more so, as those of commerce and manufactures. He wished to have employed on the subject of manufactures the undivided energies of the best talents of the House; he hoped that all the rays of patriotism and genius in the House would be directed to this subject as to a focal point at which they should all converge. How could one committee properly attend to the mass of business before the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures? The subject confided to them could not be acted on, and yet important matters were continually dropping into this gulf of oblivion. This committee, however, did all that could be expected of them; he did not believe that any member of it was hostile to manufactures; he could answer for the chairman, (Mr. NEWTON,) whom he knew to be friendly to manufactures, both from precept and example. It was because it was impossible for the committee to attend to all the business before it, that he offered the resolution.

Mr. S.'s motion lies on the table one day, of course, according to the rules of the House.

Violations of Neutral Rights.

Mr. TROUP begged leave to submit to the consideration of the House several resolutions, which had for their object the vindication of the commercial rights of the United States against the belligerent nations of Europe. He submitted them at this time with less reluctance, because the introduction of them was in nowise inconsistent with the most friendly negotiation which might be pending with foreign Governments. It is high time, said Mr. T., in my opinion, that these commercial rights were either vindicated or abandoned. The remnant of commerce, which the joint operation of the belligerent decrees has left to us, is scarcely worth carrying on. To designate what this little is, would be no difficult matter, but it would be superfluous; every one who hears me understands it.

But, it would be well to inquire, on what principle the belligerents pretend to justify these commercial restrictions? The avowed principle is retaliation, but is it the true principle? Unquestionably not. And why? Because it is equally asserted by both belligerents. Both cannot be retaliators; one must be the aggressor, the other the retaliator. If this principle, then, be equally urged by both, who is to judge between them? If the alleged principle of retaliation be not the true one, what is? As respects France, the true principle of her decrees is to be sought in the policy of embarrassing England by excluding from the continent British merchandise; and as to Great Britain, the principle of her Orders in Council may be found in the consideration of her interest and her power. She avowedly contends that it is her interest to engross the commerce of the world; that she has the power to engross it, and, therefore, she will engross it.

But, what are the principles more specifically asserted by Great Britain? First, the right of blockade by proclamation; second, the right to turn your vessels into her ports to pay duty and take out a license. This right of blockading by proclamation is not a right growing out of a state of war; it is no belligerent right; it is a pretension, as applicable to a state of peace as to a state of war, and if we submit to it in a state of war, we must submit to it in a state of peace. The only principle of blockade which we recognize is that which gives to belligerents a right to turn from ports so closely invested as to make the entry of them dangerous, and after due warning, vessels bound to them. But the right asserted by Great Britain to blockade by a piece of parchment or paper, issued from her Council Chamber, a port or ports, a kingdom or kingdoms, a continent or continents, is a right no more relative to a state of war than to a state of peace; and, if we submit to the pretension in a state of war, we must equally submit to it in a state of peace. It is founded on the most arbitrary tyranny, it goes to the annihilation of your commerce. As to the other right, of forcing our vessels into her ports, to pay duty and take out license, this is equally applicable to a state of peace as to a state of war. We acknowledge the right of Great Britain, or any other nation, to shut her ports against us, provided there be no treaty stipulation to the contrary. But the right of Great Britain or of France to shut the ports of any other nation against us is a right no more appertaining to a belligerent than to a neutral. If we submit to it in war, we must equally submit in peace; and this right, like the other, is founded in the most arbitrary tyranny. What right has Britain to tyrannize on the ocean, and prescribe limits to our trade? She will not permit to us a trade which she cannot herself enjoy; she prohibits to us a trade which our Government permits, because it is her interest to monopolize it. It is equally our interest to monopolize, and, therefore, if you please, sir, we will prohibit the trade which her Government permits, and which it is our interest to monopolize.

If Great Britain can rightly prohibit our trade, because it is her interest to prohibit it, have we not the right to prohibit her trade for the same reason? If she, with right and justice, can stop and seize, and confiscate our vessels because they attempt a trade which she forbids, and only because she forbids it, cannot our Government do the same in relation to her trade? If she can turn our vessels into her ports to pay duty and take out license, what prohibits us from doing the same as to her vessels? England is a nation, so are we. England is independent, so are we. What prohibits us from doing to England what England does to us? Unquestionably nothing. To say that we have no right to do to England what England does to us, is to acknowledge our own inferiority; it is to acknowledge that she may demand without limitation, and that we are under obligation to submit without limitation.

I am aware that it may be objected to the resolutions that the adoption of them would lead to hostility: but the same objection is equally applicable to any resolution which would go to the vindication of our commercial rights. They ought not to lead to hostility; they are merely retaliatory. They follow the spirit of the British Orders in Council and French decrees, and therefore cannot be complained of by either power. There is a great and profitable commerce, and rapidly increasing, passing not indeed before our doors, but near enough to make the capture of vessels engaged in it convenient to us, which the resolutions have chiefly in view. I allude to the Brazil and Spanish Main trade.

Is it not matter of surprise that a commerce so profitable, so extensive, and so convenient, should have been permitted to a Government which permits no commerce to us but what her convenience and her interest suggest? Is it not strange that we should have suffered that Government to participate in a commerce which both our interest and our convenience stimulate us to engross? But, above all, is it not inexplicable that we should passively have suffered the monopoly of it by her, when we ourselves were willing and able to engross it? The House will perceive, on the face of the resolutions, that, as they regard France, they are equivalent to a war measure--neither by a war measure, nor by that which I have the honor to submit, can we come in contact with France; she has no commerce on the ocean. In relation to England it is short, infinitely short, of war; because by war her Continental Colonies would fall; her West India Islands would be distressed, and our privateers would cut up her commerce; but the resolutions propose merely to retort the evils of her own injustice, to do to her what, and no more than what, she has done to us. Reserving for another occasion any further remarks, I beg leave to read the resolutions to the House.

Mr. T. then read the following resolutions:

Resolved, That it is expedient to authorize the President by law to instruct the commanders of the armed vessels of the United States to stop and bring into the ports of the same all ships or vessels with their cargoes, the property of the subjects of the King of Great Britain and of the Emperor of France, bound to ports other than those within the dominions or colonies of either.

Resolved, That it is expedient further to authorize by law the detention of all ships or vessels, with their cargoes, the property of the subjects of the King of Great Britain, until the duties to be regulated and ascertained by law shall be first levied and collected upon the goods and merchandise whereof the said ships or vessels shall be laden, and until the said ships or vessels shall have received due license to depart.

Resolved, That it is expedient further to authorize by law the detention of all ships or vessels, with their cargoes, the property of the subjects of the Emperor of France, brought within the ports of the United States, there to abide the final decision or order of the Government in relation to the same.

Resolved, That an ad valorem duty of ---- be levied and collected on all the goods, wares, or merchandise, of British product or manufacture.

Resolved, That it is expedient further to authorize the President, on payment of the duties authorized to be levied and collected on the goods laden on board vessels the property of the subjects of the King of Great Britain, forthwith to grant a license to such vessels to depart and to proceed to the port of original destination without further hindrance or molestation.

The House having agreed to consider these resolutions--

On motion of Mr. TROUP, they were ordered to lie on the table, as he stated, to give every member the same time to consider them as he had himself taken.

TUESDAY, December 5.

Two other members, to wit, from Maryland, JOHN CAMPBELL; and from Georgia, DENNIS SMELT, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

TUESDAY, December 7.

Another member, to wit, from New York, URI TRACY, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Challenges, Duels, &c.

Mr. BACON said he held in his hands three propositions which deemed it his duty to submit to the House. They were not for the regulation of the great concerns with foreign nations, but for the necessary object of regulating themselves. It would be seen that these resolutions had not grown out of any personal considerations, nor out of any particular case, but out of the serious evils to which the House had been exposed by the want of such regulations from the commencement of the Government. In 1796, the evil had risen to such a height that the House had unequivocally expressed its opinion on it.[10] Mr. B. said he felt it his duty to express his sense on the subject by laying the resolutions on the table, and more particularly as he understood that the subject was now agitated in the committee appointed to draught rules and orders for the government of the House. He would merely remark that the resolutions might not be correct in form, or they might be altogether erroneous in principle. He was not anxious as to the particular form; but he was decidedly in favor of the general object, and wished to take the sense of the House upon it. For himself he was well prepared to act on them; but for the convenience of others he wished them to lie on the table.

Resolved, That the committee appointed to report on the rules and orders for the government of the House, do report a rule declaring, "That if any member, in the course of debate, shall make use of opprobrious or vilifying language with respect to any member, or call into question the integrity of his motives, or those of either branch of the Government in relation to the discharge of his official duties, except on a motion for impeachment, or for other interposition of the constitutional powers of this House--or apply to either indecorous or reproachful expressions--it shall be deemed a breach of the orders of the House."

That said committee be instructed further to report a rule declaring, "That if any member, during the session of Congress, whether of the House or not, shall give or send to any other member during his actual attendance at the seat of Government, a challenge to fight a duel, or if the member so challenged shall accept the same, it shall be deemed a breach of the privileges of the House, as well on the part of such members as on that of any other person whether a member or not, who shall be aiding, abetting, or assisting in giving or sending such challenge, or in carrying the same into effect, and every such member shall be held liable to be expelled from the House therefor."

That said committee be further instructed to report a rule declaring, "That if any person, during the session of Congress, whether a member of the House or not, shall commit personal violence or assault upon any member during his actual attendance at the seat of Government, it shall be deemed a breach of the privileges of the House, as well on the part of the person so assaulting, as on that of any other person who shall be aiding, abetting, or assisting therein, and such person, if a member, shall be held liable to be punished therefor, at the discretion of the House."

Ordered to lie on the table.

FRIDAY, December 8.

Two other members, to wit: from Maryland, PHILIP B. KEY, and from Virginia, DANIEL SHEFFEY, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

MONDAY, December 11.

Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, WILLIAM STEDMAN and EDWARD St. LOE LIVERMORE; from New York, BARENT GARDENIER; and from Pennsylvania, JOHN ROSS, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from WILSON C. NICHOLAS, resigning his seat as one of the members of the House, for the State of Virginia. The letter was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

Batture at New Orleans.

A motion was made by Mr. SHEFFEY, that the House do come to the following resolutions:

Resolved, That provision ought to be made by law to authorize the President of the United States to cause the several persons who were removed from the batture, in front of the suburb St. Mary, in the city of New Orleans, on the 25th January, 1808, to be restored to the possession thereof; to be held with the same right with which they respectively held the same, prior to such removal; any thing to the contrary notwithstanding.

Resolved, That it is expedient to authorize the President of the United States, if he shall be of opinion that the United States have such a claim to the batture, in front of the suburb of St. Mary, in the city of New Orleans, as will justify the expense of prosecuting the same, with the assent of the persons removed therefrom, on the 25th January, 1808, to name three persons, who shall have full power to hear, and finally determine, all right, title, claim, and demand, whatsoever, as well of the United States as the persons so removed, both in law and equity; and their decision, or a majority of them, shall be binding, as well on the United States as the said parties.

Resolved, That it is expedient to authorize the President of the United States, if he shall deem it most proper, to compromise the conflicting claims of the United States and the persons removed from the batture of the suburb of St. Mary, in the city of New Orleans, or cause the same to be tried in a court of the United States, in such a manner, and at such place, as will secure an impartial trial.

The said resolutions were read, and ordered to lie on the table.

British Minister--Mr. Jackson's Circular.

Mr. QUINCY observed that he perceived that in the letter from Mr. Smith to Mr. Pinkney accompanying the Message from the President of the United States of the 29th November, 1809, an allusion was made to an important paper headed "Circular," which had not been communicated to Congress. He perceived, also, that by the resolution just received from the Senate, a specific declaration was required as to the contents of that very paper. It appeared to him extremely proper that the House should have that paper on its files, and within the reach of its members, before a declaration was made respecting it. Under this impression he offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to lay before the House a copy of a paper purporting to be a circular letter from Mr. Jackson to the British Consuls in the United States, referred to in the letter of the Secretary of State to Mr. Pinkney, accompanying the Message of the 29th November.

Mr. DANA observed that there was another document which it might be of some importance to have on the file of the House, and which it might be also necessary to consult--that was, the despatch from Mr. Canning, which it appeared was sent by Mr. Pinkney to the Secretary of State. He moved to add that paper to the resolution.

Mr. QUINCY accepted the amendment as a part of his resolution.

Mr. EPPES asked for a division of the question. He said he was willing to call for any paper which was, or might be presumed to be in possession of the Department of State; but it could not be presumed that the circular of Mr. Jackson was in that office in any other form than that referred to in Mr. Smith's letter, viz: in a printed form. Certain it was that it could not be in the Department of State, because it was dated subsequently to the intimation that no further communication would be received from that source by the Secretary of State. The only reason, he presumed, why the other paper alluded to had not been communicated to Congress, was, that it was a printed paper, purporting to be a despatch from Mr. Canning. He had no further objection to the call for either of these papers, other than it was neither decorous nor proper to call upon the President for that which could not be officially in his possession.

Mr. GARDENIER observed that, in addition to other forcible considerations, it would be treating the Executive rudely, when he had called their attention to a particular paper, to go to any other source to procure it; besides that, in the latter case, a spurious copy might be imposed upon the House. If the President referred to a certain document as justifying his conduct, by procuring that document the House would have the whole ground before it. What would be the situation of the House, if, pursuing the ideas of some gentlemen, every member was to bring forward a document which he believed to be the legitimate one, and all these copies should differ? Who was to decide which was the correct one? If the House were to act at all on this subject, it was not only respectful and just to the President, but extremely civil, to inquire of him on what ground he has acted. As a true American, and staunch republican, Mr. G. was desirous to give the President every opportunity of doing himself justice.

Mr. QUINCY said that a copy of this circular having been forwarded to our Minister in England, a copy must remain on the files of the Secretary of State's office; and, therefore, he asked for it merely that the House might have on this occasion precisely that information which the Secretary of State had communicated to Mr. Pinkney.

The question was taken on the first part of the resolution, viz: on that part moved by Mr. QUINCY, and finally carried--yeas 53, nays 52.

The question was then taken on Mr. DANA'S amendment, viz: on that part calling for a copy of the paper purporting to be a despatch from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine, and carried without opposition.

Mr. WHITMAN offered an amendment understood to be intended to embrace in the papers to be called for, the note from Mr. Erskine to Mr. Smith containing the "three conditions" which are admitted in Mr. Smith's letter of October 19, to have been submitted to him by Mr. Erskine.

On the suggestion of Mr. QUINCY, this motion was declared to be out of order, as it was now too late to receive an amendment to the resolution, both clauses of it having been affirmed by the House.

The question was then put on the whole resolution, as amended, and the yeas and nays being demanded on its passage.

Mr. RHEA said he should vote against the resolution, as by passing it the House could add nothing to its stock of information, nor receive any official document; in both cases it could receive only a printed paper.

The question was then decided by yeas and nays, in the affirmative--yeas 69, nays 46.

Mr. QUINCY and Mr. DANA were appointed a committee to present the foregoing resolution to the President of the United States.

TUESDAY, December 12.

Another member, to wit, from Massachusetts, EBENEZER SEAVER, appeared, and took his seat.

Committee of Manufactures.

Mr. SAWYER called for the consideration of the motion submitted by him for appointing a separate Committee of Manufactures.

The House agreed to consider the resolution, ayes 68.

Mr. SEYBERT supported the motion on the ground of the propriety of paying a more particular attention to the subject of manufactures, which had lately become of great importance.

Mr. NEWTON opposed the motion as unnecessary, because the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures was competent to the performance of all the business assigned it, and had always manifested a disposition to foster the manufactures of the United States.

The question on the resolution was decided in the negative, 24 members only rising in the affirmative.

FRIDAY, December 15.

Mr. Jackson's Circular.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

To the House of Representatives of the United States:

According to the request of the House of Representatives, expressed in their resolution of the 11th instant, I now lay before them a printed "copy of a paper purporting to be a circular letter from Mr. Jackson to the British Consuls in the United States," as received in a gazette at the Department of State; and also a printed paper, received in a letter from our Minister in London, purporting to be a copy of a despatch from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine, of the 23d of January last.

JAMES MADISON.

DECEMBER 12, 1809.

[The first paper enclosed was the "Independent American" of November 21, containing a copy of the "Circular." The second was a piece cut out of a London newspaper.]

The circular is as follows:

WASHINGTON, November 13, 1809.

(Circular.)

SIR: I have to inform you, with much regret, that the facts which it has been my duty to state in my official correspondence with Mr. Smith, have been deemed by the President of the United States to afford a sufficient motive for breaking off an important negotiation, and for putting an end to all communication whatever with me as the Minister charged with that negotiation, so interesting to both nations, and on one most material point of which an answer has not even been returned to an official and written overture. One of the facts alluded to has been admitted by the Secretary of State himself, in his letter to me of the 19th October, viz: that the three conditions forming the substance of Mr. Erskine's original instructions were submitted to him by that gentleman; the other, viz: that that instruction is the only one in which the conditions were prescribed to Mr. Erskine for the conclusion of an arrangement on the matter to which it related, is known to me by the instructions which I have myself received. In stating these facts, and in adhering to them, as my duty imperiously enjoined me to do, in order to repel the frequent charges of ill faith which have been made against His Majesty's Government, I could not imagine that offence would be taken at it by the American Government, as most certainly none could be intended on my part; and this view of the subject has been made known to Mr. Smith. But, as I am informed by him, that no farther communication will be received from me, I conceive that I have no alternative left, which is consistent with the King's dignity, but to withdraw altogether from this city, and to wait elsewhere the arrival of His Majesty's commands upon the unlooked-for turn which has thus been given to his affairs in this country. I mean in the interval to make New York the place of my residence, where you will henceforward please to direct your communications to me, as I shall be accompanied by every member of His Majesty's mission.

I am, &c.

F. J. JACKSON.

On motion of Mr. QUINCY, these papers were ordered to be printed--for the motion 59, against it 40.

MONDAY, December 18.

Another member, to wit, from New York, HERMAN KNICKERBACKER, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

THURSDAY, December 21.

Conduct of the British Minister.

The House again went into Committee of the Whole on the resolution from the Senate.

Mr. EMOTT concluded his speech against it, as given entire in preceding pages.

Mr. GHOLSON said, that notwithstanding much had already been said on the subject before the committee, he hoped he should be pardoned for occupying a small portion of their attention. The resolution before us seems to embrace several objects pre-eminently entitled to the dispassionate consideration of Congress; objects altogether unconnected with those factions and political dissensions which have unhappily too long prevailed among brethren of the same common family, and which may one day prove fatal to political liberty. The first question which presents itself in the investigation of this subject, involves on the one hand the veracity and dignity of the American Government, and, on the other, the character and reputation of a British Envoy, and, in some degree, of the British Ministry.

In my remarks on this subject, I consider it regular to commence with the origin of the mission from Great Britain to the United States; out of which has arisen the present unpropitious posture of the affairs between the two countries. What, sir, were the circumstances under which that mission was despatched here? In the month of May last, it was known to the British Ministry that a commercial arrangement had been made by their Envoy resident here, (Mr. Erskine,) with the American Government, but under the allegation that it was made contrary to instructions, it was no sooner known than it, and the Minister making it, were disavowed. Mr. Jackson was then appointed to substitute Mr. Erskine, the disavowed agent, and at the time he (Mr. Jackson) was sent to this country, it was well known by the British Ministry that the Government of the United States stood solemnly pledged to the American people to maintain, and that they had inviolably and steadily adhered, to certain points and principles in our differences with England, a surrender of, or departure from which, would be a sacrifice of the honor and best interests of this nation.

Yes, sir, when they well knew that, in the affair of the Chesapeake, our Executive would not, and the voice of almost the whole nation had pronounced that he ought not to make the first advance to a reconciliation, Mr. Jackson was charged, not only to require the first advance from us, to wit: that in the document which should contain the adjustment of that affair, the revocation of the President's proclamation of 1807, interdicting the British armed ships from our own water, should be recited as an indispensable preliminary; but to require from us also the violation of the principles of our naturalization laws, by insisting on the surrender of foreigners who had become naturalized. As to the Orders in Council, we know not what specific propositions he was charged with in relation to them. As far as we are able to deduce any thing from facts before us, it must be understood that the British Government had determined to accept of no conditions for the repeal of the Orders in Council except such as had been previously declared on the part of the American Government to be inadmissible. Notwithstanding what has been said by the gentleman from New York, (Mr. EMOTT,) I think it is easily to be demonstrated that the British Government did not intend to make any arrangement different from that contemplated by the celebrated instructions of the twenty-third of January, transmitted to Mr. Erskine. If the British Government, so recently as May last, disavowed an arrangement, and recalled its Minister, under an allegation that he violated his instructions, was it to be supposed that they would, in two or three months, so far change their policy as to authorize an arrangement on the same principles that they had just rejected? Certainly not, sir. It is evident that such an accommodation could not have been designed, because Mr. Canning says that such measures must be adopted as should secure the objects of the Orders in Council. That they did not by this mean the mere continuance of the non-intercourse law as to France, is manifest; for Mr. Canning says to Mr. Pinkney, that a repeal as to Great Britain, would be a repeal as to the whole world, unless the British Navy were to be permitted to enforce the law interdicting intercourse with France by the seizure of such vessels as should be found violating it.

These, sir, were the circumstances under which the mission commenced. What were those that characterized its progress and termination? I think it very easy to show that the conduct of the Minister himself, after he arrived, partook strictly of the same character as the conduct of the Ministry who sent him. I think I have shown that the disposition manifested by the Ministry in sending him here was insulting to this country. Let us next inquire into the character disclosed, and the conduct displayed by that Minister after his arrival. And, in this inquiry, without wading through all the documents, which gentlemen can as well understand by perusing them in their chambers as by hearing them read here, I will merely advert to the offensive expressions used by Mr. Jackson, and to the manner in which those expressions were met by the Secretary of State. By doing this, it will be very discernible, not only that the facts stated in the resolution are sustained by the correspondence, but that the resolution does not go so far as facts would warrant. In Mr. Jackson's letter of the 11th of October, he says, that the arrangement with Mr. Erskine was made under such circumstances as could only lead to a disavowal. If the circumstances were such as could only lead to a disavowal, they must have been dishonorable, and Mr. Jackson, by intimating that our Government had a knowledge of these circumstances, charges it with being particeps criminis. Can any thing be more palpable than this? He expresses this idea in still stronger terms when he intimates that Mr. Smith had a principal agency in the misconduct on this occasion. It certainly was not in Mr. Smith's power to substitute conditions for those which he declined accepting, but it must have been done by Mr. Erskine. But, notwithstanding this, he charges Mr. Smith, not only with conniving at a conduct improper in itself, because it could only lead to rejection of the arrangement growing out of it, but insinuates that he was the principal actor in the scene. In Mr. Smith's letter in answer to Mr. Jackson, the animadversions are too clear in their object to be mistaken. Mr. J. is informed of the displeasure of the American Government at such insinuations; and, in the very first letter which was written by the Secretary of State, he disclaims pointedly having had any knowledge whatever of the deficiency of Mr. Erskine's instructions at the time of making the arrangement. And what says Mr. Jackson in reply? He says again, that Mr. Erskine's instructions were known to Mr. Smith. Sir, I acknowledge very candidly, that on a superficial perusal of the correspondence, the charge of falsehood, from the art and adroitness with which it is wrapt up, does not appear so palpable as when it is more closely examined. Yet, sir, notwithstanding all knowledge of the instructions had been denied by Mr. Smith, Mr. Jackson reiterates the assertion that they were known. Do gentlemen say that there is no insult in this? That there is nothing wrong in the assertion of a knowledge on the part of the Secretary of State which he had before formally and solemnly disclaimed. In Mr. Smith's letter to Mr. Jackson, of the first of November, he intimates to Mr. Jackson that a language implying such a knowledge on the part of the American Government, was altogether inadmissible. What is Mr. Jackson's reply in his letter of the 4th of November, which is the last communication that a proper self-respect on the part of the American Government would permit it to receive from him? After again insinuating that our Government had a knowledge of Mr. Erskine's instructions, he says: "That any thing therein (in his former letter) contained may be irrelevant to the subject, it is of course competent to you to endeavor to show; and as far as you succeed in so doing, so far will my argument lose of its validity; but, as to the propriety of my allusions, you must allow me to acknowledge only the decision of my own Sovereign, whose commands I obey, and to whom alone I can consider myself responsible." In speaking of the propriety of his allusions, he acknowledges that he had made them, and does not deny that they are of the character ascribed to them. This insolent letter is concluded by expressions too plain for any misconception whatever. He says: "I have carefully avoided drawing conclusions which did not necessarily follow from the premises advanced by me, and least of all should I think of uttering an insinuation where I was unable to substantiate a fact." He here, in fact, recognizes the insinuation imputed to him, and says he would not have made it if he could not have substantiated it. Collecting all his insinuations, on the one hand, and the refutation of them, on the other, I draw the conclusion that Mr. Jackson not only insulted the Government, but charged it with one of the foulest crimes--with direct falsehood.

If the circumstances under which he was sent, and his conduct after he arrived here, were such as I have described, I ask if the occasion does not require that the American Government should take a firm and dignified stand? That we should repel insults and respect ourselves? Shall the authority to whom only is entrusted the most solemn act of government which can be performed, the act of deciding on the last appeal of nations, stand by and see the Executive insulted by an emissary, such as Mr. Jackson was? I hope not, sir.

Sir, I consider the present no time for the causeless crimination of our own Government, and much less is it a time to countenance any other. We should discard domestic differences and party spirit, which, at a juncture like this, may be disastrous to our country. If we differ among ourselves, in the name of God let us unite against foreign aggression and foreign insult. It is admitted by gentlemen on the other side, that both Great Britain and France have done us wrong. If so, why not unite against the one as well as against the other? A conduct like this must produce the happiest consequences. If any thing like union is discovered against insult and injury, I believe in God that it would not be long ere we met on reciprocal terms of amity. Sir, for my country, I only desire the rule of right; that we must obtain. If it is thought I wish any disaster to befall the British nation, I am misunderstood. I am willing that Great Britain should be great, happy, and prosperous. I should view her downfall as an inauspicious event; consequences might result from it which I will not undertake to estimate; but I hope that the expectation never will be encouraged from this Hall, that Great Britain can or will receive any terms from us other than such as are fair, honorable, and reciprocal.

The terms which have been offered to us are not of that kind. I submit it to gentlemen's own decision. We have long experienced injustice, and if we are only capable of being firm to our purpose, and adhering to the principles of neutrality which have hitherto guided the councils of our country, and especially the enlightened policy of the Executive department, we shall no doubt obtain justice.

In every view, therefore, it appears to me that the resolution from the Senate not only is supported by the correspondence laid before us, but is rendered peculiarly important by the occasion. The appeal made by Mr. Jackson from the Executive, from the organ with which alone a foreign Minister can have communication, to the people, to a tribunal with which he cannot communicate, adds great force to the arguments in favor of a firm stand on our part. I hope it will be made, and that it never will be abandoned till we receive that justice which has been but too long delayed.

Mr. Ross observed: I, for one, am an Administration man, if that Administration act correctly, whether it shall, in a time of great difficulty and doubt, insure a prospect of peace with Great Britain, or whether it may find it necessary in asserting the rights and independence of the Government to involve the nation in war. I think the importance of the one course is as great as the other, and I will, under such circumstances, equally support them when they are likely to make war as to make peace, however other gentlemen may differ from me on this head.

Before I proceed to state, sir, what I conceive necessary to be understood, in order to come to a correct judgment on these resolutions, permit me to premise that there is more than a presumption that Mr. Erskine had a power to enter into the arrangement which he made. 1st. Because he himself declared he had such power. 2dly. Because he acted in conformity to that declaration; and, 3dly. Because Mr. Jackson does not deny he had such power. Mr. Jackson does not pretend to say that Mr. Erskine had not other despatches and other instructions than those of the 23d of January, and that, in them, there were not other conditions of a different grade and character from those contained in that despatch. Hence, I think it is fairly to be concluded, that Mr. Erskine had the power to enter into the agreement. It has, however, been said by the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. DANA,) that this is not so much a question of what our Government was ignorant of, as of what they knew, or what they ought to have known; and he has entered into a long examination of the mode of commissioning diplomatic characters, whether by letters of credence or by full powers, and has drawn a distinction between the two. In the first place, I apprehend it is in nowise material, to enable the House to decide on the resolution, whether the President did or did not know the nature of Mr. Erskine's powers. But it is necessary to rescue him from the imputation which those are disposed to cast on him who are desirous to pull down the Administration. What was the amount of the gentleman's showing on this occasion? That in all cases, in order to complete a treaty, it is necessary there should be a commission or full power. But has he shown that it is necessary in order to make a preliminary arrangement similar to that entered into? I apprehend he has not. On referring to the letter quoted by him from Mr. Jefferson, then Secretary of State, to Mr. Hammond, we find the former calling upon the latter to exhibit his powers to enter into a negotiation; but Mr. Jefferson afterwards recedes from that demand, and receives the word of Mr. Hammond that he is possessed of power to negotiate as sufficient evidence of his being clothed with the proper power without the exhibition thereof. But the ratification was not withheld, as has been justly said, because there was an absence of a full power on this occasion. Mr. Jackson himself states that this was not the ground on which the ratification was withheld. It must first be proved that it was obligatory on the Executive to call for Mr. Erskine's full power, and it must then be proved that he did not, before his observations can be brought to bear on the question. Where is the proof that the Executive did not call for those powers? It is not pretended that Mr. Erskine had not a power to make an arrangement, but that it was not concluded in pursuance of his instructions. Therefore, if he had produced ten thousand powers, unless his instructions had authorized him to do what he did, the British Ministry would have rejected the terms stipulated for them, as they have done. But why is it necessary to know, on this occasion, whether the President did call for these powers or not? The inquiry composes no part of the resolution; it is neither expressly mentioned nor glanced at; and why this inquiry is raised, I confess I am utterly at a loss to know, unless it was to prove that the President of the United States had a knowledge of the instructions, and that they restricted Mr. Erskine's powers. The gentleman has not ventured to infer that the President of the United States had this knowledge, but the course of his argument goes to show that, in his opinion, he did possess this knowledge. He lays down the position, that it was the duty of the President to have seen those powers, and, I presume, supposes that the conclusion will be drawn that the President performed his duty; and, of course, taking it for granted that there were no other instructions than those of the 23d of January, that the President must have seen those instructions, and consequently have known that Mr. Erskine had not power to conclude the arrangement. All his argument went to raise a structure to induce a belief in this House, and in the public at large, that this knowledge must have been in possession of the President. The gentleman, at the same time, professes the utmost regard and respect for Mr. Madison. This, I confess, is following the direction of the poet, who says:

"Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer; And, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer."

But let us inquire if the President had any knowledge that Mr. Erskine had no full power; for if I show, beyond all doubt, that the President did not know it, all this insidious fabric, which is designed to produce so many delusions, will vanish at once. I think it is to be presumed that the President had no knowledge that Mr. Erskine had not full powers, because he entered into the arrangement. What object could he have in view which should induce him to conclude an arrangement, except with full confidence of its being carried into effect? Not to get rid of the embargo--that had long before been interred by its fathers with a truly Christian spirit. Not to get rid of the non-intercourse--because the moment the arrangement was disavowed, the President breathed life and spirit into that act, and gave it renewed existence. It was not from any hostile disposition to England, because he could have no reason to wish for a war. And because, if he had desired a war with that country, he had no occasion to seek a pretext therefor, inasmuch as long antecedents, and up to the very time of making the arrangement, the causes for war against Great Britain were great and numerous, as has been agreed by all parties. If not to get rid of the embargo, nor of the non-intercourse, nor for war, what object could he have, with such knowledge as has been imputed to him, not expressly, but by inference, in making the arrangement of April? Will gentlemen be good enough to condescend so far as to assign some object that the Executive could have had in view from such conduct? For it is not to be presumed that men, in or out of office, act without motive and without object. Therefore, hearing no reason assigned why the President should act thus preposterously, as it is attempted to be insinuated he did, by those in opposition, it would be reasonable to conclude that he had no such knowledge. But, in opposition to this insinuation, also, you have the solemn declaration of the President of the United States, through the Secretary of State. Humiliating in the extreme must it be to hear this solemn asseveration questioned, even in a side-way, in order to support the insolence of a British Minister! Was it not enough that the country has been enabled to endure, in order to secure the great object of remaining in peace, insult after insult, outrage after outrage, and even that the Government should be insulted by foreign diplomatic characters, without doubts and suspicions being insinuated by members of this House? Pray, sir, let me ask this House, or the whole of the United States, what the President of the United States has ever done in any official character, among the many which he has filled with honor to himself and reputation to his country, that the correctness of his declarations, made through his Minister of State, should be disputed? But I might suffer the humiliation of going still further into the subject. We have the word of the recalled Minister, if that be considered more conclusive by gentlemen than that of the President of the United States, that he did not communicate his instructions to Mr. Smith. We have, 1st. The presumption that the Executive had no knowledge of Mr. Erskine's instructions, because he could have no object in view in concluding an arrangement with that knowledge; 2d. We have his declaration to that effect through the Secretary of State; 3d. We have the declaration of the Minister, whose act was disavowed, to the same effect. What have we to destroy this proof? The deceptive, poisonous insinuations of Mr. Jackson. Mr. Erskine repeatedly declared that he had ample powers. On the news being received during the last session of the issuing of the order of the 26th April, he declared that he had no doubt his arrangement would be carried into effect. He, to the last moment, declared that he acted in the spirit, if not in the letter, of his several letters of instructions. How, therefore, was it possible for the President to receive information from Mr. Erskine that he was not invested with competent power, when Mr. Erskine himself declared and believed he was, and acted accordingly.

From these considerations I apprehend it most clearly appears that the President of the United States had not a knowledge, neither was it his duty to have had a knowledge that Mr. Erskine did not possess powers to make the arrangement which he did.

TUESDAY, December 26.

Two other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, BENJAMIN PICKMAN, jr.; and from Virginia, WILLIAM A. BURWELL, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

THURSDAY, December 28.

Conduct of the British Minister.

The House again resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of the Whole on the resolution from the Senate approving the conduct of the Executive in refusing to receive any further communications from Francis J. Jackson.

The motion for indefinite postponement being still under consideration--

Mr. STANFORD said, so many were the objectionable features of the present resolution before the House, he should vote for its indefinite postponement, and with permission of the House he would give his reasons for his vote. In the first place, he thought the language and style of the resolution highly objectionable, and calculated to render that which was already bad enough still worse; that it was, in the second place, a strange innovation upon all former practice and usage under our present Government; and lastly, that it was clearly unconstitutional. Thus much he should endeavor to show, and trusted he would be able to do it to the satisfaction of the House.

Mr. S. then premised that he had disapproved the introduction of the resolution of approbation at the last session; that he considered unnecessary; but the present he considered not only unnecessary, but even pernicious. That was a pacific one; this belligerent in all its aspects. He had suggested a mode to one or two gentlemen, of getting rid of that one, if they had thought proper, and in which case he would have contributed his vote to have got clear of it. But, had the question been put in a direct form, he should have differed from his colleague, (Mr. MACON,) inasmuch as he should have voted for it. He could not have done honestly otherwise, as he had most cordially approved the arrangement made by our Government with Mr. Erskine. Further, that as respected the rejection of Mr. Jackson, he thought entirely with his colleague, that he might well have been dismissed on the receipt of his first letter. He tells us for what he had been sent and commanded to do. In the case of the Chesapeake, to make "declarations" and to receive counter "declarations" simultaneously. In other words, for the arrogance, insults, and murders, we had borne and suffered, he came to stipulate atonement, if we would stipulate a sort of counter atonement at the same time. Stipulation for stipulation, at any rate. It had "not appeared to His Majesty necessary to command him to propose to our Government any formal agreement" to take place of the rejected one. For the matter, said Mr. S., of Mr. Jackson's instructions, much rather than for the manner of his negotiation, might the communication have been cut off with him. Both matter and manner were, to be sure, objectionable, but the former, in his estimation, formed much the most solid ground of dismissal. It was but too obvious the mission of Mr. Jackson would end as the former one had done. That he did not come to propitiate us was but too manifest.

While the resolution before us, sir, affects to support the Executive Government against insult, and language "highly indecorous," it descends into a style of expression, itself more culpable and degrading; unworthy, indeed, of the country and the dignity of its Government. It was a flattering truth to know that in the style of diplomatic correspondence the American side of the question suffered not in comparison with that of any other. In the late, as well as former instances, the advantage has been calculated, as he presumed, to inspire every American bosom with just sentiments of pride. Had it, therefore, been recommitted, as his colleague (Mr. MACON) had advised, he had no doubt it could have been amended, and rendered more worthy of consideration as a State paper, than it is likely to be in its present dress and form.

Besides, Mr. Speaker, if the measure be intended to have any effect, it must be a bad one. It looks toward war. Already are our difficulties with Great Britain critical enough, but if gentlemen wish war, the thing is altogether appropriate to its end; well calculated not to support, but to thwart the pacific views and intentions of the Executive. We may, in this way, foreclose the door of amicable negotiation which the Executive by his first Message showed us he had kept open. If rudeness of expression had been resorted to on the part of the British Minister, in his correspondence with our Government, had it not been repelled on their part? Had they not amply redressed the insult of the individual? It might well afford some consolation to ourselves and the country, if other wrongs and insults have been even as well repaired as this. Besides the murder of Pierce, the more horrid murders on board the Chesapeake, the continuation of impressments for years, we have had instances, more than one, it is said, of other Ministers conspiring with your conspirators, menacing you with war, and putting your Government at defiance, here in the ten miles square, and the sensibility of Congress had never before been awakened to a resolution of this kind in defence of the Executive. The truth is, sir, it never needed it, nor does it now. We have, in very deed, Mr. Speaker, refined upon the more substantial insults we have suffered, till we have literally reduced it to a war of words. It is the expressions of the individual we are combating, and pledging the whole force of the country to protect the President against the consequences of, and not the more palpable injuries received. Would to Heaven, sir, such a resolution had not been brought forward! It is unworthy of us--unworthy of the political professions we heretofore made, even those made at our last session.

That a resolution of approbation, Mr. Speaker, is against all example for the last eight years; that it is an innovation upon all usage and practice, reference need only be had to the speeches of gentlemen during the last session. They afford the most ample proof. They were then unwilling to pour out the oil of adulation upon the Executive head. It was deemed unnecessary, anti-republican, to do so. He hoped gentlemen understood him. He was using their own language upon that occasion, and not his own. He borrowed it for its excellence and fitness upon the present occasion. Such language conveyed his sentiments then, and still did; and, for his part, he could not comprehend how it could be correct then, and now the reverse of correct. Some gentlemen on the floor perfectly remembered that when Mr. Jefferson came into the Presidency, eight years ago, he changed the mode of personal address into that of written message. "In doing this," said he, in his first Message, "I have had a principal regard to the convenience of the Legislature, to the economy of their time, to their relief from the embarrassment of immediate answers on subjects not yet fully before them, and to the benefits thence resulting to the public affairs." All acquiesced in this new course, and from that time to the late instance mentioned, no time had been wasted in pouring back the oil of adulation or approbation, in any form, on the Executive head. The only instance which could be cited during the last eight years, was found incidentally incorporated in a resolution relating to the navigation of the Mississippi. The words were, "and relying with, perfect confidence on the vigilance and wisdom of the Executive." This, then, was the only drop of this oil which the last Administration produced, and has been called up at this first ordinary session of a new Administration to form an example to follow; or rather, might we not say, to resume the exploded practice of former times, and thus echo back messages in this new form of joint resolution. But what was the style in which gentlemen spoke at our last summer session, when the subject of approbation was then before us? The language of one was, if it were the object to bring before the House a discussion upon the Message of the President, and to return an answer to his Excellency's most gracious Message, he should certainly be opposed to it. If there had ever been a particular part of the former Administration which had met the approbation of the Republicans generally of this country, it was the discontinuance of the practice. Another had told us that he was "opposed to a deviation from what he conceived to be the duty, and becoming the dignity of the House." He thought the House had nobler duties to perform than passing abstract resolutions, out of which no legislative act is contemplated, merely for the purpose of pouring the oil of adulation upon the head of the Chief Magistrate. And again, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. FINDLAY,) whose opinions are always so much relied upon and respected in this House, and he, Mr. S., trusted by few more sincerely than himself, had, upon that occasion, with singular happiness and force, spoken thus: "Law," said the gentleman, "is the only language of a Legislature. It is the only language that can command obedience and respect. Any equal number of citizens met in a tavern, and there passing a resolution of approbation, would have equal force with such a resolution passed in this House, and would be more in character. They are acting without authority from the constitution or the rules of the House." It would be for that gentleman to tell us, to tell the House, and he would beg the gentleman's pardon for the particular request--but he must request that he would take the occasion to let us all know how his doctrine then is now to be got over. For his own part, he could not comprehend how right and wrong could change their respective sides in so short a time.

His colleague, (Mr. MACON,) in referring to former times, had expressed some doubt whether the majority were the same party now they were then. He felt no doubt himself they were the same; but there was no room to doubt, from the present question itself, they had undergone some strange modification since former times. The doctrines then must be well remembered by him, yourself, Mr. Speaker, and a few others on this floor. The advocates of this sort of adulation must go back beyond the times of the late and last Administration, if they would introduce the fashion again. At the opening of the fifth Congress, in the answer of this House to the speech of the President, these words are used: "We cannot omit to testify our approbation of the measure, and to pledge ourselves that no considerations of private inconvenience shall prevent, on our part, a faithful discharge of the duties to which we are called." And again, this sentence: "Whilst we view with great satisfaction, the wisdom, dignity, and moderation, which have marked the measures of the Supreme Executive of our country in its attempt to remove, by candid explanations, the complaints and jealousies of France, we feel the full force of that indignity which has been offered our country in the rejection of its Minister." This language was too much in the style of adulation for us then to brook, and our names, sir, stand recorded together against it. Let gentlemen compare for themselves.

It is the peculiar misfortune, sir, of this system, if again to be revived, that the right of approbation fully implies the right of disapprobation and censure; and during the same Administration of which we are speaking this right of disapproving and censuring was also attempted to be exercised. The resolution was introduced at the first session of the sixth Congress, by a gentleman then from the city of New York, (Mr. LIVINGSTON,) in the case of Jonathan Robbins. The same gentleman is occasionally present here at this time, and seems yet to be a stickler for judicial decision, and still thinks the Executive, against an individual, matchless odds. The part of the resolution alluded to, runs thus: "that the decision of those questions by the President of the United States against the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, in a case where those courts had already assumed and exercised jurisdiction, and his advice and request to the judge of the district court, that the person thus charged should be delivered up, provided, only, such evidence of his criminality should be produced as would justify his apprehension and commitment for trial, is a dangerous interference of the Executive with judicial decisions." Hence, then, sir, it might be easily seen from a practice of this sort, that a whole session might be wasted without doing any part of the public business. The thing would be endless.

In the fourth Congress, on a subject of a call for papers in relation to the British Treaty, an unhappy difference arose between this House and the Executive. General WASHINGTON was the President. His reply to the House was, "that a just regard to the constitution, and to the duty of his office, forbid a compliance with their request." The House, again by resolution, asserted their right, disclaiming, however, at the same time, any agency in making treaties. Notwithstanding the violence and passion of the moment, this House did not then think they had any right to meddle with the making of treaties; but now it would seem the present House were disposed to join the Senate in this sort of interference in the negotiations of the Executive to form a treaty.

In all the cases alluded to, sir, it should be distinctly kept in view, that each House had acted for itself in voting their approbation and homage to Executive speeches and proclamations. He had reference to the proclamation of neutrality by General WASHINGTON. This was the first time Congress ever legislated approbation before.

Mr. QUINCY.--It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to offer any common-place apology for the few observations I shall submit to the House on the subject now under consideration. Such is the character, and such the consequences of these resolutions, that no man, who had at heart the honor and happiness of this country, ought to continue silent, so long as any topic of illustration is unexhausted, or any important point of view unoccupied.

It is proposed, sir, that this solemn assembly, the representative of the American people, the depositary of their power, and in a constitutional light, the image of their wisdom, should descend from the dignity of its legislative duties, to the task of uttering against an individual the mingled language of indignation and reproach. Not satisfied with seeing that individual prohibited the exercise of his official character, we are invited to pursue him with the joint terrors of legislative wrath, couched in terms selected to convey opprobrium and infix a stigma. "Indecorum," "insolence," "affront," "more insolence," "more affront," "direct, premeditated insult and affront," "disguises, fallacious and false:" these are the stains we are called upon to cast; these the wounds we are about to inflict. It is scarcely possible to comprise, within the same compass, more of the spirit of whatever is bitter in invective, and humiliating in aspersion. This heaped up measure of legislative contumely is prepared; for whom? For a private, unassisted, insulated, unallied individual? No, sir. For the accredited Minister of a great and powerful Sovereign, whose character he in this country represents, whose confidence he shares; of a Sovereign who is not bound, and perhaps will not be disposed to uphold him, in misconduct; but who is bound, by the highest moral obligations, and by the most impressive political considerations, to vindicate his wrongs, whether they affect his person or reputation, and to take care that whatever treatment he shall receive shall not exceed the measure of justice, and above all, that it does not amount to national indignity.

Important as is this view of these resolutions, it is not their most serious aspect. This bull of anathemas, scarcely less than Papal, is to be fulminated, in the name of the American people, from the high tower of their authority, under the pretence of asserting their rights and vindicating their wrongs. What will that people say, if, after the passions and excitements of this day shall have subsided, they shall find--and find I fear they will--that this resolution is false, in fact; that a falsehood is the basis of these aspersions upon the character of a public Minister? What will be their just indignation, when they find national embarrassments multiplied, perhaps their peace gone, their character disgraced, for no better reason than that you, their representatives, following headlong a temporary current, insist on making assertions, as they may then, and I believe will, realize to be not authorized by truth, under circumstances, and in terms, not warranted by wisdom?

Let us not be deceived. It is no slight responsibility which this House is about to assume. This is not one of those holiday resolutions, which frets and fumes its hour upon the stage and is forgotten forever. Very different is its character and consequences. It attempts to stamp dishonor and falsehood upon the forehead of a foreign Minister. If the allegation itself be false, it will turn to plague the accuser. In its train will follow severe retribution, perhaps in war; certainly in additional embarrassments, and most certainly, in worse than all, the loss of that sentiment of self-esteem, which to nations, as well as individuals, is "the pearl of great price;" which power cannot purchase, nor gold measure.

In this point of view, all the other questions which have been agitated in the course of this debate dwindle into utter insignificance. The attack or defence of administration, the detection of fault, or even the exposure of crime, are of no importance when brought into competition with the duty of rescuing this House and nation from the guilt of asserting what is false, and making that falsehood the basis of outrage and virulence. I avoid, therefore, all questions of censure or reproach on either the British Minister or the American Secretary of State. I confine myself to an examination of this resolution, particularly of the first branch of it. This is the foundation of all that follows. I shall submit it to a rigid analysis, not for the purpose of discovering how others have performed their duties, but of learning how we shall perform ours. The obligation to truth is the highest of moral and social duties.

It is remarkable, Mr. Speaker, that of all the gentlemen who have spoken, no one has taken the precise terms of the resolution as the basis of his argument, and followed that course of investigation which those terms naturally prescribe. Yet the obvious and only safe course, in a case of such high responsibility, is first to form a distinct idea of the assertion we are about to make, and then carefully to examine how that assertion is supported, if supported at all, by the evidence. With this view I recur to the resolution, in the form in which it is proposed for our adoption, and make it the basis of my inquiries.

[The Resolution.]

This part of the resolution, it will not be denied, is the foundation of the whole. For if no such "idea was conveyed" in the letter of the 23d of October, then there could be no "repetition" of that idea, in the letter of the 4th of November; and if in the former part of his correspondence Mr. Jackson had made no such "insinuation," then the assertion in this letter that he had made none, was perfectly harmless and justifiable. This part, therefore, includes the pith of the resolution. If we analyze it, we shall find that it contains two distinct assertions. First, that the expressions alluded to convey a certain idea. Second, that this idea, so conveyed, is indecorous and insolent. Here again we are enabled to limit the field of our investigation. For, if no such idea, as is asserted, was conveyed, then the inquiry, whether such idea is indecorous and insolent, is wholly superseded. The true and only question, therefore, is whether the expressions alluded to, do convey the asserted idea. I place the subject in this abstract form before the House to the end that, if possible, we may exclude all those prejudices and partialities which so naturally and imperceptibly bias the judgment. In the light in which it now stands, it must be apparent to every one who will reflect, that the question has, so far as it respects the principles on which our decision ought to proceed, no more to do with the relations between Great Britain and the United States, than it has with those between the United States and China, and has no more connection with Mr. Francis J. Jackson and Mr. Robert Smith, than with the late Charles of Sweden, and the old Duke of Sudermania. It is a simple philological disquisition, which is to be decided by known rules of construction. The only investigation is, touching the power or capacity of certain terms to convey an alleged idea. However illy suited a question like this may be for the discussion of an assembly like the present, yet if we would be just to ourselves and the people, we must submit to an examination of it, in that form in which alone certainty can be attained. It is only by stripping the subject of all adventitious circumstances, that we can arrive at that perfect view of its nature which can satisfy minds scrupulous of truth, and anxious concerning duty. It is only by such a rigorous scrutiny that we shall be able to form that judgment which will stand the test of time, and do honor to us and our country when the passions of the day are passed away and forgotten.

The natural course of inquiry now is, into the idea which is asserted to be conveyed, and the expressions which are said to convey it. Concerning the first there is no difficulty. The idea asserted to be conveyed is, "that the arrangement made between Mr. Erskine and Mr. Smith was entered into by the American Government, with a knowledge that the powers of Mr. Erskine were incompetent for that purpose." It would save a world of trouble if the expressions in which this idea is said to be conveyed were equally easy of ascertainment. But on this point, those gentlemen who maintain this result are far from being agreed. Some being of opinion that it is to be found in one place, some in another, and others again assert that it is to be found in the whole correspondence taken together. Never was an argument of this nature before so strangely conducted. Gentlemen seem wholly to lay out of sight that this resolution pledges this House to the assertion of a particular fact, and expresses no general sentiment concerning the conduct of Jackson, or the conduct of his Government. Yet, as if the whole subject of British relations was under discussion, they have deemed themselves at liberty to course through these documents, collect every thing which seems to them indecorous, insolent or unsuitable in Mr. Jackson's language, and add to the heap thus made the whole list of injuries received from Great Britain--impressments, affair of the Chesapeake, murder of Pierce--and all this, for what purpose? Why, truly, to justify this House in making a solemn asseveration of a particular fact! As if any injury in the world could be even an apology for the deliberate utterance of a falsehood. Let the conduct of Mr. Jackson, or of Great Britain, be as atrocious as it will, if the fact which we assert do not exist, we and this nation are disgraced. It is evident, then, that irksome as such a task is, it is necessary that we should submit to a precise inquiry into the truth of that to which we are about to pledge our reputation and that of this people.

In our investigation, let us follow the natural course that is pointed out in the resolution. This alleges that the obnoxious expressions are contained in a letter of the 23d of October, and to this limits our assertion. In this letter, therefore, either directly, or by way of reference to some other, this obnoxious idea or insinuation must be found. For if it be not in this, even if it should be contained in other parts of the correspondence, which is not, however, pretended, still our assertion would be false. Concerning this letter of the 23d of October, I confidently assert, without fear of contradiction, that the obnoxious idea, if contained in that letter, is conveyed in the paragraph I am now about to quote. No man has pretended to cite any part of this letter, as evidence of the asserted insult, except the ensuing, and although there is not a perfect coincidence in opinion as to the particular part in which it resides, yet all agree that it lurks somewhere in this paragraph, if it have any dwelling-place in this letter.

[The paragraph.]

I have quoted the whole paragraph because, in that obscure and general mode of argument in which gentlemen have indulged, it has been read as that entire portion in which the insult is conveyed. It is difficult to conceive how some parts of this paragraph can be thought to convey any insult. However, in prosecution of my plan, I shall first exclude all those parts in which the obnoxious idea cannot be pretended to exist, and then limit my investigation to that part in which it must exist, if, in the letter of the 23d of October, it be conveyed at all.

With respect to the first sentence in this paragraph, I say confidently that the insult is not contained there. It is simply a declaration of the causes of the disavowal, so far from including the obnoxious idea of a knowledge in our Government of the incompetency of Erskine's powers, that in a manner it excludes that idea, by enumerating violation of instructions and want of authority as the only causes of the disavowal. In the first sentence, then, the insult is not. I pass by the second, as it will be the subject of a distinct examination hereafter. The third and fourth sentences it will not even be pretended convey this obnoxious idea. They simply acknowledge the frequency of graduated instructions, and assert the fact that Mr. Erskine's were not of that character. In this there is no insult. As little can it be pretended to exist in the fifth sentence. It merely asserts that Mr. Smith "already," that is, at or before the time Mr. Jackson was then writing, is acquainted with the instructions, (a fact not denied, and not suggested to be an insult,) and that the fact of these instructions being the only ones, Mr. Smith knows from the information of Mr. Jackson--an assertion, which so far from intimating the obnoxious idea of a knowledge in Mr. Smith at the time of the arrangement with Mr. Erskine, that it conveys a contrary idea, by declaring that he was indebted for it to his (Mr. Jackson's) information. Here, then, the insult is not. With respect to the last sentence in this paragraph, the only assertions it contains, are the fact that the terms accepted were not contained in the instructions, and the evidence of this fact derived from the statement of Erskine that those acceded to were substituted by Mr. Smith in lieu of those originally proposed. In all this, the knowledge of Mr. Smith of the incompetency of Mr. Erskine's powers is not so much as intimated. Indeed, no one has pretended directly to assert that they have found it in the parts of this paragraph, from which I have thus excluded the obnoxious idea. Yet, as the whole has been cited, and made the basis of desultory declamation, I thought it not time lost to clear out of the way all irrelevant matter, and to leave for distinct examination the only sentence of this paragraph in which the insult lurks, if it has any existence in this letter. This point we have now attained. And as little inclined as gentlemen may be to precise investigation, they must yield to it. I say, therefore, confidently, and without fear of contradiction, that if the assertion contained in this resolution be capable of justification by any part of the letter of the 23d of October, it is by the following, the only remaining sentence of the cited paragraph which I have not yet examined: "These instructions I now understand by your letter, as well as from the obvious deduction which I took the liberty of making in mine of the 11th instant, were, at the time, in substance made known to you; no stronger illustration, therefore, can be given of the deviation from them which occurred than by a reference to the terms of your agreement." The latter part of this sentence being merely a conclusion from the preceding part, and having no relation to the knowledge of our Government at the time of the arrangement, will be laid out of consideration as being obviously wholly without the possibility of any agency in conveying the obnoxious idea. There remains only the preceding part of this sentence for the residence of the insult. Here, if anywhere, it must exist. Accordingly this is usually shown as the spot where the ghost of insinuation first appeared before the eyes of our astonished Administration. Here we shall again find it; unless, indeed, it were in fact a mere delusion of the fancy, formed of "such stuff as dreams are made." Let us examine by way of analysis.

[Here Mr. QUINCY analyzed the paragraph.]

I have thus far proceeded by way of a strict analysis of every part of the correspondence, in which the insulting idea, asserted in this resolution, has been said to be conveyed. I have omitted no part which has been cited in support of this first resolution, and think that I have shown that it exists nowhere in the letter of the 23d of October, either in direct assertion, or by way of reference. And it is concerning what is contained in that letter alone, that the resolution under consideration makes assertion. The House will observe that, according to all rules of fair reasoning, it would have been sufficient for me to have limited myself to show the fallacy of the arguments of the advocates of this insult; it being always incumbent on those who assert the existence of any thing to prove it. I have not, however, thought my duty on so important an occasion fulfilled, unless I undertook to prove what the lawyers call "a negative," and to show, with as much strength of reasoning as I had, the non-existence of the idea asserted in this resolution; with what success, I cheerfully leave to the decision of such thoughtful men in the nation who will take the trouble to understand the argument. There is, however, a corroborative view of this subject, which ought not to be omitted.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us