Page images
PDF
EPUB

FEBRUARY, 1813.

Regulation of Seamen.

H. of R.

ent with honor and justice which could impair either in the most remote degree.

Mr. Speaker, compacts are seldom entered into on any other principle than reciprocal benefits. Our naturalization system and regulations should be bottomed on the same principle, both in relation to the Government as well as the people, in their individual character. It is a fact, which will not be denied, that many foreigners come to this country, remain sufficiently long among us to avail themselves of the rights of citizenship, and then depart to the land of their nativity, sit down in business as the interest of trade directs; they are either, as conscience dictates, American citizens or not. Among those, to use the words of an Irish gentleman of my acquaintance, there who sit themselves down in business under the protection of either England or America, giving them a manifest advantage over the citizen, who is a merchant in this country. They ought not to be considered as Americans if they take up their residence in foreign countries, or act this double character.

can anticipate acquiring an honorable, and I fondly hope, a lasting peace for my injured and hitherto much insulted country. From this, my conscientious view of the bill, in relation to the declaration of my honorable colleague, as paralyzing the war, I cannot be considered as adding a pang to the poignant feelings and lacerated honor of my native land. Sir, I am wedded to its soil for life; its natural productions are inviting. I will never prevail on myself to leave them for that of any other; its Government maintaining to all its citizens rational liberty. To be compelled to change its form for that of the corrupt and towering monarchies of the ancient world, to me, would be death. Yes, sir, a combination of love, honor, and gratitude, binds every American heart to be faithful to its inter-are Englishmen, Scotchmen, and some Irishmen, ests, and hold inviolate its sacred Constitution; and I humbly trust, that so long as it shall please Him who gave me being, to permit reason to direct my mind, I shall not, by any act of mine, infringe either. I repeat, I will not paralyze the war; I will not succumb to the enemy. This bill will operate reciprocally if it becomes a law. We retain from foreign nations the use of our seamen, and they retain from us their seamen. This agreement will be much in our favor if it ever shall be acceded to.

You cannot put off from you a native born citizen, it is said; nor can you, says the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. LACOCK,) prohibit a citizen expatriating himself. I feel no mind to Where, let me ask you, Mr. Speaker, is the enter into a train of reasoning upon these topics. honest American, then, who feels indignant at If they be true, they appear to me to be irreconthe violation of honor; who feels for the injuriescileable. The Government shall afford protecheaped upon his country? All such must take their stands, fight, and conquer. Thus far have I gone; I go no further. This will, I think, be their language, and he who will not hold it, illy indeed deserves the name of an American.

tion to one of its citizens, who has renounced to it all fealty and allegiance, and solemnly promise it to another. Sir, a man cannot serve two masters; he must hate the one and love the other. He that will come, let him come; and he that will go, let him go. This is in part my political

catechism.

My honorable colleague (Mr. WRIGHT) has opposed this bill in all its stages with his usual zeal and eloquence. His philanthropy has carWe have. Mr. Speaker, the right to legislate ried him so far, if I understood him, as to fight upon this subject whenever the interest of the the cause of the oppressed of the whole world. nation may require it, and that right can only be To prevent them from enjoying all the privileges exercised by Congress to render it obligatoryof native born citizens, would in fact be a viola-see the Constitution. The question is, is it polition of their rights after they had come into this tic to legislate at this time upon this subject? country. Thus far, with him, I would afford them protection under our forms of law. Their personal liberty should not be invaded; and, when naturalized, they ought to participate in directing the affairs of this nation so long as they remained

with us.

Beyond our territorial limits I am not willing to extend my obligation to follow those to whom, as yet, I am not united as fellow-citizens. For protection against the Government of the country which gave them birth, or any other, I perhaps would not be justifiable in hazarding my own peace, much less that of my country, were I to attempt it at this or any future day.

It has been repeatedly said, that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and the present Chief Magistrate, all have made similar propositions to those contained in this bill to the British Government, of which alone we have to complain for exercising the right, or rather practising upon our citizens that diabolical system of impressment.

It is said by a large portion of this House, that peace would be restored if a system like this were adopted; the Executive of the United States was insincere in his propositions; that we were waging a destructive and unnecessary war; that protecting foreigners in our sea-service was the only pretext, and so soon as you exclude them from the service, peace will be restored and impressments cease forever; under these circumstances they could not support a war. Manifest a

We owe much to ourselves. It is a maxim inculcated to us in early life-protect yourself, and your own household. So in public; the safety disposition, say they, to the adoption of a sysand tranquillity of the State should be the chief tem which will exclude from our sea-service this care of every one in authority. This being the description of people, and we will maintain the Government of the people, it equally becomes essential rights of America, the persons of cititheir duty to avoid everything they can consist-zens shall be held sacred. To acquire, sir, and

[blocks in formation]

test the sincerity and truth of these remarks, I am willing to legislate upon the subject at this time.

The bill, if ever it goes into operation, as has been repeatedly said, will be reciprocally so. It does not withhold its protection from native or naturalized citizens, nor those who have, under the existing laws of the United States, intimated their intention of becoming citizens; the faith of our laws and the honor of the nation are preserved: none can complain. Union at home, and a vigorous prosecution of the war, are my motives, having given my vote in favor of the war, and all the measures hitherto adopted in its support. If gentlemen will have this as a peace measure, I can, with equal justice to myself and to those whom I have the honor in part to represent, declare what will in part go to restore peace, should that prove the immediate result. But, sir, however desirable that object is to us all, this bill will not, I fear, effect it so suddenly. I support it as one of the strongest war measures submitted to the consideration of this House, upon which ground it shall have my cordial vote-I mean union at home, and a vigorous prosecution of the war, as the only and best peace measure.

Mr. QUINCY said that he should submit a very few remarks in illustration of the grounds of his vote that it was his original intention not to have made any, and he should not have deviated from that purpose were it not that the charge of inconsistency had been carefully and repeatedly insinuated as lying against those on his side of the House who should vote in opposition to the proposed bill. It had been said that this was our policy, that it was what we had recommended, that we were pledged to support the bill, that it was what we had previously stated as the cause of national duty on this subject. He said he was induced to rise on another account. He was about to differ in vote, from very many, perhaps from a majority, of those with whom it was his happiness on other occasions to coincide. He thought, therefore, he owed it in some degree to himself to show that the grounds of his vote were neither light nor trivial; that they were such as he was both willing to explain and able to defend.

FEBRUARY, 1813.

men; that he had heard of virtually excluding foreign seamen in general from our service by certain gradual and temperate regulations which should give the merchant an opportunity to supply the deficiency such exclusion would produce by an increased stock of native seamen, which such encouragement would create. Of all this he had heard. For the wisdom of such a system of regulations, he and his friends had contended; but never did he hear of such a proposition as that contained in this bill. Never had he heard of the total and absolute exclusion of the seamen of all foreign nations at a blow; never that such exclusion was to be proffered by way of temptation to the caprice or the interest of other Governments, and to take place or not, according to the cool calculations they might make at their leisure concerning their policy or interest; never that the number of American citizens employed abroad was so great, and their absence so injurious to us, that it was the part of national policy to bribe foreign nations to drive them back again to the American shores, by proffering to every foreign Government, in case they would do it, to reciprocate the same favor towards such foreign Governments by driving their subjects out of our employ. Such are the provisions of this bill. In their nature they are novel, unanticipated, and never imagined. Whatever may be their merit or demerit, there is not a man in this nation who is not free to accept, or free to reject them. No man can be pledged to support a system which he had never advocated, never contemplated, nor, as a practical measure, ever conceived. Thus much, Mr. Q. said, he thought it necessary to say with respect to the charge of inconsistency which had been insinuated against those who might oppose this bill on his side of the House.

Mr. Q. said that it was very likely that in a general argument having relation to a modification of the employment of seamen, with reference to the particular state of things existing between us and Great Britain, or having in view a gradual reduction of the number of foreign seamen in our service by establishing certain wise preferences in favor of native seamen, that some general expression may have been used which might give a color to the opinion that an ultimate exclusion of foreigners from our employment was contemplated. I doubt, said he, if this is the case. But, certainly, it was never proposed or conceived that this should be done by an instantaneous regulation, on a ground of reciprocating with foreign nations the driving away their citizens on condition of their driving away ours. Whatever argument on this subject has ever been urged by myself, or by any of those gentlemen with whom I have the happiness to be associated in political opinion, has always had in view one or other of two objects, and were regulated by one or other of two principles. The extreme importance to Great Britain of her Mr. Q. said that he had heard of the wisdom seamen, and the great temptation which the comof giving preferences to native over foreign sea-paratively great rate of wages in this country, men; that he had heard of excluding British sea-aided by the similarity of our habits and charac

Mr. Q. said that the provisions contained in the bill, so far from constituting a project which those on his side of the House had ever advocated, and on that account were pledged, under the terrors of a charge of inconsistency to support; that it was a project which no man on any side of any House-which no man in this nation had ever advocated, nor even conceived as a serious scheme of practical policy until it burst upon the astonished vision from the gentleman of Tennessee, (Mr. GRUNDY.) For his own part, he had never heard it, until that day, he would not say, even proposed as a serious purpose, but not even suggested as one of the dreams of the imagination.

FEBRUARY, 1813.

Regulation of Seamen.

H. OF R.

thers of this bill, and their known interests and connexions. its principle is not less suspicious than its parliamentary course is mysterious. During the whole extent of their political lives, the friends of this proposition, for a total exclusion of foreign seamen, have maintained the right and the interest of the United States to employ them in the fullest and most unlimited extent. And now, in a breath, at a thought, without any previous warning, they turn round and propose to exclude them altogether. Can any man have faith in the sincerity of those who advocate so extravagant a proposition, in face of all their previous theories and professions? Can any man, who knows the nature of this country and the composition of its population, believe in its practicability? Sir, what are the people of the United States in respect to their composite charac

men? Did we all spring out of mushroom soil? Does each of us carry about him the marks of the grit and clay of his mother earth? Sir, the fact is altogether the reverse. The column of our American State is neither composed of flint nor of granite, but rather of a sort of pudding-stone; of a casual collection of distinct individuals, aggregated together, with no selection in the particulars, and little strength in the cement. In a nation thus constituted, it is now seriously proposed, as it is pretended, to turn all foreigners from its sea service, and to form, by a sort of parliamentary magic, in a moment, a new marine of pure and exclusive native citizens. Let who will believe in this project, I do not. Considering the quarter from which it comes, I believe as little in its sincerity as I do in its practicability.

ter, held out to her seamen, seemed to constitute a state of things out of which resulted an obligation upon the United States to limit the injury thus incidentally done to her by some regulation, either directly excluding her subjects, or, at least, diminishing the temptation which the condition of things in this country offered to the cupidity of her seamen. Thus, doing her less injury, she would have less reason to complain, and less justification for a resort to the exercise of her claim of impressment. This, it was contended, would be a precursor of relief from that suffering. At least, that it was our duty to make a trial of this policy previous to a war on that account. Such was the principle and policy of the gentlemen on his side of the House, in this aspect of the question. There was another principle of policy which this embarrassment of our relations with Great Britain suggested. The thoughts of re-ter? Are they a simple homogeneous race of flecting men were drawn to consider the basis on which the interests of navigation rested, and it began to be seen, and was contended that, by a gradual and systematic exclusion of foreign seamen, the condition of our maritime affairs would be improved by a service exclusively, or in a great measure, composed of native citizens. Beyond the limitation resulting from these two principles, and having relation to these two objects, no proposition was ever seriously suggested. It never was heard nor thought that the United States were losers by the employment of foreign seamen. It was never heard that we could be gainers by a system of reciprocal provisions, which, adopted on some sudden suggestion, should force home the few native citizens of ours which were in the employ of foreign nations, and force away the multitudes of foreign subjects, which were confessedly and notoriously in our employ. Sir, if I wished to press far into the discussion There is a something, said Mr. Q., singularly of this bill, which I do not, I would ask, what strange and mysterious in the manner in which has become of that great doctrine of the right of this bill is made to pass through this House. expatriation, so obtrusively and clamorously mainNever did any bill meet with so many counter-tained, from the first establishment of our nationcurrents and repugnant eddies in its course; yet, al Government down to the present day, by the it holds its way notwithstanding, and seems to be patrons and authors of this bill, their friends and facilitated rather than obstructed by circum-supporters? Are all those choice topics of decstances apparently so inauspicious. On the other lamation to be abandoned? Are they forgotten side of the House, it is advocated as a measure of by gentlemen on the other side of the House? permanent policy; on this side, as a temporary If they are, will they be forgotten by this people? expedient. There, it is carefully and systematí- This bill proceeds upon the principle, that the cally denied to have any pacific intention; here, right of expatriation does not exist in the subit is as carefully and systematically inculcated as jects of foreign Governments. For, if it does exa measure of a certain pacific result. At one ist, then such foreign Government has no right moment it is asserted to be an independent regu- to reclaim them, and we have no right to drive lation, yielding nothing to Great Britain; at the them home. The bill abjures this right of exnext, it is said to be proffering her so much that patriation; and, in doing this, cuts up by the roots if she fail to accept the proposition all hearts and not only the claim of the individuals whom it hands must without fail unite in the war. By contemplates to force back to the service of their this sort of vacillating, accommodating argu-respective sovereigns, but also your whole right ment, every species of political party seems to be to protect, beyond the limits of your local jurisfascinated, and made to concur in the immediate diction, even your naturalized citizens. For, if object. We for peace; they for war. We pull-the right of expatriation do not exist, then every ing one way; they another. We looking North; foreigner, in taking upon himself the obligations they South. We East; they West. All give of allegiance to this country, does it subject to the machine the same direction. By the exer- the inalienable principle of native allegiance tions of all, the passage of the bill is facilitated. which this bill admits to exist. So that it recogConsidering the character of the political fa-nises the justice of the claim of foreign Sover

H. OF R.

Regulation of Seamen.

FEBRUARY, 1813.

eigns to their original subjects, as well those who is the case? Who ever heard that their employare naturalized, as those who are not. I wish to be ment of our citizens was an injury? The parunderstood as making no objection on this ac- ticular circumstances of the British nation, and count; I ask, only, where is the consistency of the temptation which employment in our marine it? I see the effects of this bill too plainly, not and merchant service offered to her seamen, was to be satisfied that it does not abandon the pro-a cause of embarrassment with her, which, in rejects for which the clamor about the right of ex-lation to that nation, it was important to obviate. patriation was originally raised. It varies the But Great Britain out of the question, and the means, without losing sight of the end. It is, employment of the mariners of other nations is however, most extraordinary, that men, who have highly useful and important to us; and particubeen all their lives long, perfect knight errants, in larly is it important, if we are about to set ourfavor of distressed foreigners, who have set their selves seriously to drive from our employ British spears in their rests, and gone tilting all over the seamen. world in defence of oppressed humanity; who have been inviting it to our shores with both hands, should turn round at once, and pretend to be about to send them all home again, and leave them to the mercy of ancient systems and of their former masters.

Mr. Q. said that the nature of the arguments which had been urged in support of the bill, and the particular character of the support it had received, was another objection. The particular argument in favor of the bill had been vacillating from one principle to another. It was uncertain as to its tendency, and plainly a game of expedients, and not the foundation of any enlarged system of policy. Plain good intention is easily discerned. It is direct and steady in all its move

But this is not all. This great right of expatriation, which the advocates of this bill and their political friends have been maintaining these twenty years, in favor of all the world, is now denied by the bill to exist, even in our own citi-ments: its object is distinct, and its course tozens. The reciprocity of the bill consists in this, that these, our citizens, should be forced home, according to the obligations of their natural allegiance. For, on this principle alone, have we a right to claim their return. Thus strange and mysterious is both the character and parliamentary course of this bill.

wards it certain. In this way confidence is inspired. But who can have confidence in a measure which, in its nature, contravenes all the previously declared maxims of its advocates, relative to the subject; and which, on one hand, is supported as a measure of war, and on the other as a measure of peace; in the House, as yielding nothing to Great Britain, and out of it, as yielding everything? It is impossible-good never did proceed from a contrivance of this motley, nondescript character.

Mr. Q. said that his first objection to the bill, considered in the light in which it had been placed by its advocates, as a measure of permanent policy, was, that its provisions were unnatural. By which he meant, that they were irre- Had the proposition contained in this bill been concileable with the known nature, and habits, adopted in a time of peace, had it been temperate and prejudices, of the great majority of the peo-in its character, had it reference to any distinct ple of this country. These had always been accustomed to the employment of foreigners in their sea service, and been taught to view it in a favorable light. Now, although it might be wise to counteract these prejudices, and to change these habits, yet this could not be done suddenly, nor by virtue of mere law. It must be done gradually, and, as it were, insensibly, by such systematic, temperate regulations, from which no great temporary embarrassment should result, and which would make the community more ready to cooperate with the general policy. Nothing violent could be permanent. And considering the previous practice and prejudices of the community, nothing was ever more violently repugnant to both than the provisions of the bill.

Mr. Q. said, another objection was, that the bill proceeded upon the assumption of a state of things as a fact, which was notoriously false. The only possible ground upon which a proposition, such as that contained in this bill, could be made to all the nations of the world, must be that of interest. We would offer to drive their subjects out of our employ, on the proposed condition, that they should drive our citizens out of theirs, only on the principle that, in the present existing reciprocation of service, we were losers and they gainers. Now, who believes that this

interest, by which it was modelled, its effects must have been in the highest degree salutary. In such a course, adopted under such auspices, Great Britain would have seen a wise intelligence operating, on which she might have calculated. But what calculation can be made on the provisions of this bill? Will that nation, or any other, credit that the United States are seriously intending to drive all but native and naturalized seamen out of their employ? Or, if such be our intention, will it not be viewed, as it is, a temporary expedient, having reference to particular exigencies; and which will be abandoned as soon as the present end is answered?

I know it is said, that the generalization of this bill is a mere cover to conceal its true nature, which it is pretended, out of doors, is that of a proffer to Great Britain, and that foreign nations will not reciprocate. For my part, I shall wonder, indeed, if they do not. For, Great Britain excepted, there is not an European nation, as I believe, which would not be gainers, and in the same proportion would the United States be losers, by the reciprocity.

As a system of general policy, then, the provisions of the bill are illusive. It remains to be considered what efficacy the bill will have in the attainment of peace, so anxiously and so justly

FEBRUARY,, 1813.

Regulation of Seamen.

H. OF R.

desired by the people of the United States. It is One of two things is inevitable. Either the said to be an instrument of peace. It is, in my ap- terms of the bill are more than Great Britain prehension, altogether the reverse. It has not that will require from us, or they are less. If they tendency; nor do I believe it introduced with are more, we have shown our whole hand, that intention. I give entire credit to the gen- and cannot hope for anything better than our tleman from Tennessee (Mr. GRUNDY) when he own voluntary terms. If they are less, negotiasays, it is not a measure of peace. It has not tion is hopeless. The President of the United that intention. I ask this question, Mr. Speaker: States will never dare go beyond what this bill Suppose an agent of yours has full powers to ne-authorizes, when it is said that, to go as far as this, gotiate upon any subject; and that he should it is necessary that such a bill should pass. come to you and ask a limitation of those powers In this lies the mischief of this bill. It offers in -what reason can he have? Plainly, but one, effect, as our ultimatum, terms which Great Brithe means to have a justification, in his hand, in ain has rejected, over and over again. It profcase he refuses certain terms of settlement which fers terms, apparently, but not really, reciprocal. may be offered. Having full powers to do his When rejected by her, as they will be, the Exbest, if he reject any offers, the responsibility rests ecutive has obtained an apology for continuing upon him self. But if he have terms and condi- the war, and the opportunity to cast the respontions specified by which he is to to govern him-sibility of its continuance upon Congress. self, then he is justified in refusing any proposition, not fairly included within the terms of limi

tation.

This is precisely the situation of the President of the United States, and this, as I conceive, is the exact bearing of this project.

Mr. Q. said, that to show how utterly destitute of all reciprocity, even in terms, its provisions were, he would only refer to a single circumstance. By the first section, we require Great Britain to permit us to retain, in our own employment, all her native citizens, whom we have naturalized, It is foreseen that negotiation of some kind will or who have declared, or shall declare before a soon be inevitable. The President of the United treaty is made, their intention to become natuStates has full power to negotiate upon this sub-ralized. In the eighth section, which contains ject, under the provisions of the Constitution. His business and his duty are to exercise his entire powers, free and full, as that instrument has granted them, and make the best arrangement he can. His duty then, is to come to the Senate, and, if necessary to the House-and say, "These are the best terms I can make; ratify, or reject them, according to your sense of public duty. I have done my duty. It remains for you to do yours."

This is the plain and the only Constitutional course. The provisions of the bill reverse the whole order of proceedings. It causes the Legislature to present an ultimatum to Great Britain; to which, if she does not accede, the President throws the responsibility of continuing the war upon Congress, who have thus limited the general authority of the Constitution. It is in vain to say that the provisions of this bill are not, in effect, a limitation of the treaty-making power of the Executive. In the nature of things it must be so. It is so undeniably upon the grounds, on which rest the very argument, on which it is maintained that this bill is necessary. The reason for passing this bill is, that as the subject must require Legislative interposition, it is necessary that the President of the United States should know to what point the Legislature will advance, in such settlement; and that without such previous declaration of the Legislature, that foreign nations can have no confidence in any treaties which may be made, since the Legislature are not bound to enact the requisite provisions. It is, then, apparent that if this bill be necessary to give confidence in any treaty which shall go thus far, that a treaty can be entitled to no confidence, which would go farther. In other words, beyond the limits of our law, the treaty-making power cannot advance.

the pretended reciprocating proposition, we require Great Britain to prohibit from her employment all naturalized citizens of the United States, without exception of those naturalized, or those voluntarily resident. The very class of her citizens which we claim the right of keeping, is the very class of our citizens which we demand of her to restore. And this is called reciprocal! These are the terms, to which if Great Britain do not accede, all Americans are forever after bound to unite heart and hand in the war! For my part, I consider it, said Mr. Q., as no pacific measure. Its true purpose is to give a peace aspect to the time-to clear the atmosphere, for a moment, so that the money-gudgeons may be made to bite sharp at the Treasury hook. He said that he viewed it as a scheme calculated to deceive the people-to buoy them up with false hopes, when the real intention was to continue the war. Under this belief, it should have no support from him.

Mr. Q. concluded by apologizing for the desultory manner in which he had treated the projectthat he had gone farther into its examination than he had at first intended; his chief motive in rising having been to repel the charge of inconsis tency; and to make such an explanation of his vote, when he was about to differ from many of his political friends, as might show the true principles upon which it proceeded.

Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH said, that late as it was in the day, and anxious as the House appeared to be for the question upon the bill under considertion, he was under the necessity of asking their indulgence, and of soliciting their attention for a few moments. It was not his intention to engage fully in this debate, or to detain them by an extended argument on the merits of the bill before them; he had no anxiety to make prose

« PreviousContinue »