our ships be permitted for British seamen, they may actually take American seamen. Sir, there is no doubt of the fact that by mistake, sometimes perhaps by wilful misconduct, on the part of officers engaged in the search, such a thing may happen. But, should we not think it exceedingly strange that the misconduct of an officer of the American Government, in one case in twenty if you will, should be a cause of war for any na tion against us? It is one of these cases which does occur, and will forever occur, to a neutral Power, whenever a general war is lighted up. It is one of the prices which this country has to pay for its rapid accession of wealth, such as is unheard of in the annals of any other nation but our own. And this, sir, is the state of things in which we have undertaken, in children's language, to quarrel with our bread and butter; and to identify ourselves with one of the belligerents in a war in which we have no proper concern. I will not touch at all the abstract question of the right of impressment: it has been so much more ably handled by others that I shall not say a word about it. I address myself to the common sense of the planter, the farmer, the agriculturist of our country-are you willing upon such grounds as these to continue this war? I have no doubt what will be their answer. On these subjects I have delivered my sentiments more than once before in this House. I think of them with horror as the accursed cause of this war. Not that the men who are in power are worse men than other people, but that they have brought upon this land of peace and freedom issues the end of which it would be impossible for any human being to divine. H. OF R. one of those belligerents-and for what? For a point of honor! Yet, whilst in this Quixotic spirit we have gone to war with England; although we have been robbed, reviled, contemned throughout by the Emperor of France, we can see no cause of war with him! What shall we say of the French doctrine in relation to this subject of impressment? If that has been dwelt upon in this debate by any honorable gentleman of this House it has escaped my notice. What is the French doctrine on this subject-established at the time when the United States stood in relations of peace and amity to that Power, when every heart beat high with sympathy for the success of French freedom; when some of those who have since transferred their admiration, I will not say their love, to the present Head of the French Government, to the enemy of French freedom, and all freedom, to all commerce, and right, and religion-at the time when some of those who have since so lamentably changed on this subject felt an interest for freedom and France scarcely inferior to that which they felt for freedom and America? What were then the doctrines of the French Government? That all who spoke the English language should be treated as Englishmen, unless they could give proof to the contrary; the onus probandi lying on those who spoke the language of Locke, and Newton, and Milton, and Shakspeare. Yes, sir, whilst the English Government establishes no such doctrine, the French Government acts upon the principle that speaking the English language is prima facie evidence of your being a British subject, and would justify their treating you as an enemy, the burden of the proof to the contrary being thrown upon yourself. One thing is certain, that the right of search does practically exist, and has been acknowledged Sir, I have nothing to say on the subject of by all nations. The President of the United the Presidential Election-I have nothing to say States and his Secretary of State, as great mas- of your choice of an occupant for the House that ters of the Law of Nations, will be among the stands half-way between here and my lodgings. first to acknowledge it; they have acknowledged On that subject I have taken a bond of faith that, it, and, by our treaties with foreign Powers, this let whosoever may be in authority there—if the country has heretofore acknowledged it, so far as principles which I profess be such as the Governconcerns the right to search for contraband goods ment (the Administration) cannot practise upon, and enemy's property. Suppose that there are or at least such as they never will practise uponnotorious abuses under this right: should we and knowledge, experience, has taught me to disbe justified in declaring that no search whatever trust them-whensoever they desert the princiof our merchant vessels shall be allowed? There ples they and I have heretofore professed, I will is no doubt that, under the color of the right of maintain them: I never will be ashamed of them. search-for I am advocating its lawful purposes They shall lift up their heads in States if not in only-abuses have been committed on neutrals; Courts. They shall not be disparaged; and we and as long as men exist it will be so. The have them on record. And, more, in the same liability to abuse of this right is the price which volume in which they are to be found is contained neutrals pay for the advantages which they derive the record of the antagonist doctrines, against from their neutrality; and I should like to know which at that day we held up our hands. But, whether it would be for me to join in the contest sir. be any man at the head of an army, unless it in which these belligerents are engaged for the be a very small and contemptible one in force; recovery of my neutral rights. Where are those of an army such as that of which we are now rights when great maritime Powers become bel engaged in augmenting the force-an army to ligerent? There are neutral rights undoubtedly, fill up the ranks of which it will take at least but there are also neutral duties. And shall a every tenth man in the country fit to bear armsneutral nation, a nation which has in that char- any man so posted may at his will step into the acter prospered and flourished more than any peoP esidential Chair; the form of an election by ple on the face of the globe, sacrifice those riguts the People may remain, but the substance has and those advantages, and resort to war against gone. Yes, sir, whilst we are talking of thirty five, or fifty, or sixty thousand men, we forget that the organization of such an army is a draught from that part of our population fit to bear arms, such as has been felt, and felt for half a century in succession, by some of the first countries in the world. In Europe, requisitions by Government for every tenth man fit to bear arms are considered enormous draughts. On paper such numbers make a formidable show. Many of them, how ever, we know, are not fit to bear arms. The actual number of no army in existence ever equalled the returns of that army. It is a fact exemplified in a manner not more curious than instructive, by a writer in the last century, that the number of men very rarely equals two-thirds of the number on the returns of an army: And just so it is with your militia. Is it supposed that all those men whose names are borne on the returns are in health, are in a situation to be at once capable and willing to bear arms? Unquesticnably not. No, sir. Let me not, however, be understood to disparage the militia. It is not the least of my objections to this bill that it passes sentence of degradation on the militia; it cashiers them-runs them out of the regiment of the nation. I am a poor militiaman myself, sir; and I do not really choose to disparage my vocation; to consent that the militia of this country shall be degraded, held up to ridicule, have the finger of scorn pointed at it-for what purpose? To raise, at their expense, a great standing, military, mercenary force. Yes, sir, mercenary-mercenary. The militia are to be laughed at! And, why? Will you show me a militia officer or a militia private, who has gone as far in disgracing his country, whether we regard its reputation for courage or discretion-I do not mean that part of valor which consists in discretion-as the commanders of your armies of the centre, and your armies of the periphery, and of the circumference? Can you show me an instance of the kind? Sir, I honor the militia. They may be jeered at on this floor, but they compose the Constitutional army of this and every free country; and that country in which they are not honored, if already not in the jaws and gulf of despotism, is at the brink of that abyss. Honor, I say, to the militia. I have another objection to the raising of this large additional army; that is to say, the financial situation of this nation. I do not know whether it is expected of me or not that I should go into that subject: certain I am that it is not hoped: certain I am that the opening of this view of the question must be deprecated by every member within the reach of my voice, and by no one more than by yourself. I slur it over, therefore, observing only that the state of the finances of this country presents to the world, and not less to ourselves, a sort of libel upon the policy of the country; or, that the policy of the country is a libel upon its finances. A parallel between them, so far from running on all fours, has not even a single leg to halt upon. What is the fact? When men of acknowledged ability-of acknowledged richness of invention-under the operation of every consideration that can operate on human JANUARY, 1813. passions and understanding; when such men, in their conduct, present such a picture as is presented to this country and the world by the head of the American Treasury, it may require sagacity, penetration, to discover the cause, the object, the motive, of such an exhibition, but surely none to discover the fact-which I will not characterize by the epithet which it deserves. For what is the fact? That, in the last session of Congress, it was represented to us that it was indispensable to the financial credit of the country-to the prosecution of this just and necessary war-to infuse into it proper vigor and energy, to place the country in "an armor and an attitude," and all that-that a monstrous mass and burden of taxation should be imposed on the country. This was to eke out heavy deficits which might occur under that system of borrowing so often tried, (and rarely failing when it is conducted as it should be,) but ever failing when it is not bottomed on punctuality and good faith on the part of the borrower. And yet, sir, at this session of Congress, the Treasury finds itself without any resources for carrying on the Government and the war; and we have had presented to us a fresh prescription of taxes, which we were asked to swallow, being, as we were told, all for our good. Well, sir, after having had piled up on your table your batch of new tax bills-not, to be sure, the result of any very great labor on the part of those who prepared them; for, like most other bills of late presented to you, they are copied from the records of those very days of the Reign of Terror of which we sometimes hear-Mr. Secretary of the Treasury comes forward with his recommendation of a fresh resort to the resource of borrowing. He shows to you a beggarly account of empty boxes; and to fill them he proposes new loans, loans, loans! I know, sir, that in speaking of Mr. Secretary Gallatin it is necessary for every man in this nation to observe an especial caution; and, perhaps, it is fortunate for me that it is not in my power at this time to speak of this matter in the feeling by which I am animated in regard to it. But I may allow myself to state the naked fact, that the Secretary of the Treasury, by whose influence these tax bills were reported and have been voted upon in committee of supply, and who now tells you that they are not wanted, and, by fair inference, that they never will be, has, to say the least of it, trifled with the respect due from him to this body. He has trifled with the dignity of this House: I say so boldly-I say that he must show cause why, at the last session of Congress, these heavy taxes were represented to be indispensable to the carrying on of the Government, and now, forsooth, that there is not, nor has been, any occasion for them. How much must my respectable colleague on my right be relieved by this information, after having sacrificed himself for the good of his country by moving the reconsideration of the tax upon salt! Yes, sir, all this time the balance-master of the Treasury has really been trifling with the dignity of the House. He has been either false to himself or false to the nation; and, if he has not, let it be shown that he has not, and I shall be the first man to make him the amende honorable-in the strict, true, dignified sense of that term. H. or R. House sat with doors closed, but which I have [Mr. R. here read from a letter from Mr. Sec- * * I must now say a word on the subject of Mr. Russell, and his overtures, his "negotiations," so called, with the British Government. I know, or at least believe, that he had no more power to negotiate with the British Government than I had, because there is only one mode in which such a power could be conferred under the Constitution and the law. Now, sir, if he had been really nominated and appointed with the consent of the Senate in quality of Minister Plenipotentiary to London, he then would have had power to negotiate with the British Government; but not otherwise. While I state this, I hope I shall not be misunderstood to suppose that it was competent for Lord Castlereagh, or anybody else, to question his authority any further than as resulting from his instructions. It was competent for the English diplomat to call for his instructions and powers; but I should forever lift up my hand and voice against the right of any foreign Government to question the mode by which this authority was devolved on the agent: I do not find that in this case it has been; but I have no hesitation in saying-broad as the declaration may be thought, fatigued as I am, and as little under my command as my judgment in such a case may be supposed to be-that the proposition of Mr. Russell to Lord Castlereagh, in regard to the point of "The turn which the negotiation has taken impressment, was an insult, not upon him, Lord was not expected, and exacts as much of regret Castlereagh, but upon me, you, and the whole as of disappointment. The result of body of the American people. What was the his (the President's) deliberations is, that it does offer? I cannot quote the words, but the sub-not comport with his views of the national senstance is impressed upon my memory. It was,timent or of the national policy, that any treaty that England should, in addition to forthwith re should be entered into with the British Governpealing the Orders in Council, immediately con- 'ment which would include no article providing sent to discontinue the impressment of persons for the case, (of impressment.) found on board American vessels, with the un- 'President thinks it more eligible, under all cirderstanding that the British Government would cumstances, that, if no satisfactory or formal assent to enter, as soon as may be, into definite stipulation on the subject of impressment be atarrangements to the same effect. This propositainable, the negotiation shall be made to termition called upon her to yield-what? That which, nate without any formal compact whatever."] in the letter of the American Commissioners of It was not known, at the time, to use a lawyer's November 11, 1806, the gentleman told us Eng-phrase, that our Government was in the quo aniland would never yield until she yielded the mo of rejecting that treaty; and yet, strange to Tower of London, or words to that effect-a point tell, the negotiators of that treaty of 1806 were which she had announced to this Government, put under the ban, not of the Emperor of France, sub sigillo, that she never would yield. That but of faction at home, for having dared to nevery thing being yielded, Mr. Russell informed gotiate a treaty with the obnoxious "Note" of the British Ministry he was ready to commence December 1, from the British Commissioners, a negotiation for the suspension of hostilities be- attached to it. Strange as may appear the fact, tween the two countries! It was an insult upon it is nevertheless true, and is a lamentable proof every man in the country, to call that a proposal of the weakness of poor human nature, never for negotiation. The declaration in the year enough to be deprecated, that the admission of 1806 (the very one to which I have referred) is one of these Commissioners of the United States contained in the letter in this book, in which our-these very missionaries of peace and conciliaGovernment was informed, by our Ministers at tion-into the Executive Councils of this counLondon, that England would not, under any circumstances, abandon this right; and that, even if the Ministers were to consent to do so, public opinion would not allow of it. Permit me, sir, in passing, while noticing this letter of the 11th of November, to call the attention of the House to a fact which I mentioned twice while the 12th CoN. 2d SESS.-26 6 * The try has been the signal of war with Great Brit- And, sir, is it nothing to the bill which we are ப twenty thousand men—or is it a departure from order to hint on this floor at a circumstance which all men are employed and occupied in discussing at their fire-sides?-that this army, to constitute an aggregate of fifty-five thousand regular troops, is about to be put under the control of the man who was the author of the Anonymous Letters at Newburg at the close of the Revolutionary war, inciting a handful of men, the remnant of the old American army-perhaps not numbering six thousand altogether-to give a master to the nation? Is that a consideration to have no weight upon such a question as this ? With me, sir, it is conclusive. I will tell gentlemen on both sides of the House that a Government or a man may despise a calumny-that the arrows of slander will fall blunt and harmless upon them-provided that the Government and the man be true to itself and himself. Yes, sir, ask yourself this question in regard to any man to whom you are about to confide important trusts: Does he pay his just debts? Is he a man of truth? Does he discharge as he ought the duties of a friend, a brother, in society? After having done that, be his politics what they may, and his peculiarity of opinion in politics what it may, he is a good man; he acquires the esteem of all who know him; he is impenetrable to mere vulgar calumny. This Government ought to employ men of real worth and capacity: it is not always that those showing qualities attracting attention in private life, or as companions, are of real capacity. Do those who administer the Government make it a rule to employ in the public service none but men of real capacity, or worth, of 'integrity, and of high character? Do they give their contracts and offices, without fear, favor, or affection, to men of responsibility and characterto such men as you would in private life give your own contracts to? Or do they bestow them, as is done in some Governments differently constituted from ours, where church preferment and military preferment are sometimes made a dirty job of Parliamentary interest? Do they employ men of clean hands, with fair characters; or is every caitiff, without examination, welcome to their arms, provided he can bring with him the proof of his treachery to his former employers? It depends on these facts whether confidence is due to any Administration of the Government. Sir, I have much yet to say which appeared to me, when I rose, not to be unworthy your attention; but I confess to you, with feelings something like contrition, that my opinion on this subject has undergone a change. There is one point, however, on which I do not know how to speak in this place with the reverence which is due to it. I cannot pass it over, and yet I know not how to touch it. Yes, sir, there is one reflection pressing itself as a crown of thorns upon my own head, which I am bound to present to the consideration of this Assembly and this people. Is it fitting that the only two nations among whom the worship of the true God has been maintained with anything like truth and freedom from corruption; that the JANUARY, 1813. only two nations among whom this worship has been preserved unstained shall be the two now arrayed against each other in hostile arms in a conflict in which, let who will conquer in the fight, his success in one point, if that be an object, will have been attained: so much of human life, liberty, and happiness, will have perished in the affray-in the service of this scourge with which it has pleased God, in his wisdom and justice, not in his mercy, to afflict mankind? Is it fitting that those hands which unite in giving to idolators and to the heathen the Word of God, the Book of Life-that those hands, and those alone, should be thus drenched in each other's blood? Will you unite as a Christian with your Protestant brother across the Atlantic for these noble purposes, and then plunge the dagger into his breast with whom you are associated in a cause so holy-one so infinitely transcending the low, the little, the dirty business we are called upon here to transact? I hope that the sacrifice may be stopped. We have nothing to expect from the mission of our Minister to the Ruler of France, whether at Moscow, or wherever else he may be. The Deity or Devil whom we worship is not to be mollified by our suppliant appeals. Let us turn from him-come out of his house-and join in the worship of the true and living God, instead of spilling the blood of his people on the abominable altar of the French Moloch. Sir, I have done. I could have wished to continue my remarks further, but I cannot. When Mr. RANDOLPH concluded, the House adjourned. THURSDAY, January 14. A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed the bill supplementary to the act, entitled "An act for the more perfect organization of the Army of the United States," with amendments; in which they desire the concurrence of this House. A Message, received yesterday from the President of the United States, was read, communicating copies of an act of the General Assembly of Maryland, passed on the 2d instant.-Referred to Mr. ARCHER, Mr. RIDGELY, Mr. TALIAFERRO, Mr. CONDICT, Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH, and Mr. BAKER. Mr. TROUP stated that he had a communication to make to the House which, in his opinion, required secrecy: When the House was cleared of all persons except the members and officers of the House, and the doors were closed; and, after remaining so for some time, they were again opened. The amendments proposed by the Senate to the bill "supplementary to the act, entitled 'An act for the more perfect organization of the Army of the United States," were read, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed the bill "providing Navy pensions in certain cases," with amendments; in which they desire the concurrence of JANUARY, 1813. Additional Military Force. H. OF R. this House. The Senate have also passed a bill supplementary to an act, entitled "An act to pro'vide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, and to repeal the act in force for those purposes;" in which they desire the con-"that the war was originally unjust." Secondly. currence of this House. ADDITIONAL MILITARY FORCE. The House then resumed the consideration of the bill to raise twenty additional regiments of infantry for one year.-The question being on the passage of the bill. Mr. STOW said: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the delicacy and novelty of my situation, as well from the indulgence of the House, as from the neutral course which I mean to pursue. He must have been indeed an inattentive observer of mankind who proposes to himself such a course without being exposed to difficulties and dangers from every side. Our country has experienced them too long from the great belligerents of Europe, and an individual will quickly find them here. For even this House is not exempt from its great party belligerents who issue their conflicting decrees and Orders in Council; and, in imitation of the hostile Europeans, it is sometimes a sufficient cause of condemnation to have been spoken with by the adverse side. Yet, notwithstanding all these dangers, I mean to launch my neutral bark on this tempestuous ocean, conscious of the rectitude of my intentions, and humbly hoping for the approbation of my country and my God. The proper extent of the discussion growing out of this bill seemed to be confined to these inquiries: Can the force contemplated be obtained? If obtained, will it accomplish the end proposed? And lastly, will the force be an economical one? If the discussion had been confined to these limits I would have listened, and not have spoken; but, sir, it has taken a wider range, and assumed a more important aspect. It has embraced the present, the past, and the future. The causes of the war, and the mode of conducting it, have been investigated, and even confident predictions have been made as to its end. The history and the state of our negotiations have been carefully examined-and the Presidential order of succession has been scrutinized by the light of experience as well as that of prophecy. We have sometimes been forced into the scenes of private life; and, at other times, we have been chained to the car of Napoleon. In short, sir, the discussion has ranged as wide as existence, and, not content with that, the speakers "have exhausted worlds, and then imagined new." I do not pretend to censure this-it may be well for the people to have their political concerns thus splendidly dressed and passed in review before them. But still I will attempt to call the attention of the House from the regions of fiction, of fancy, and of poetry, to the humble, but I trust no less profitable, sphere of reality and prose. Passing by many of those things which have amused by their ingenuity, or surprised by their novelty, but which do not deserve a serious answer, I will endeaver to state distinctly the grounds taken by the opponents of this bill, or rather the opponents of furnishing the means of prosecuting the war: Firstly. It is alleged "That if the war was originally just, it has become unjust to continue it in consequence of the revocation of the British Orders in Council." Thirdly. "That it is inexpedient to prosecute the war, because we have no means of coercing our enemy or enforcing our claims." Fourthly. "That we are unable to support the war." And fifthly. "That, in consideration of all these circumstances, the House ought to withhold the means of further prosecuting the war." First, then, it was alleged that the war was originally unjust. Here let me call on the House to distinguish between unjust and inexpedient. Nothing can be more important than to have clear and distinct ideas about those words which lie at the bottom of a science, or inquiry. This is happily illustrated in mathematics-there every word, by the help of diagrams, is carefully defined; and the consequence is, that there are no disputes among mathematicians, while their labors have done honor to mankind. A thing may be just and yet inexpedient: the justice of an act relates to the conduct of another, the expediency to our own situation. It may be just for me to sue the man who withholds from me the smallest sum; and yet so inexpedient as to be even ridiculous. Thus a war may be perfectly just, and at the same time highly inexpedient. This, if I mistake not, was the ground generally taken the last year by the opponents of the war, particularly by the gentleman from Virginia before me, (Mr. SHEFFEY,) who pointed out the distinction which I have endeavored to do, though with more ability and success. I hope the House will bear this distinction in mind; because it is of the greatest importance in the investigation which I intend to make. Before I enter further on the argument, I ask the House to indulge me for a moment while I explain my views relative to the commencement of the war. I never saw any want of provocation on the part of Great Britain. I never for an instant doubted the justice of the war, while I urged its inexpediency with all my might. I considered man placed here by a beneficent Providence, on a fertile soil, and in a happy climate, enlightened by science, and protected by the wisest of laws. By our Revolution cut adrift, as I may say, from the old world, before the storm which was about to desolate Europe arose, I fondly hoped that this new world would furnish one fair experiment of what science, liberty, and peace, might achieve, free from those corruptions which have eternally attended on war. I hoped to see the country improved, and bound together by roads and canals, to see it adorned by literary institutions, and by every establishment which reflects honor upon man. Nor do I yet believe that this was an Utopian vision, or an idle dream. I still believe it might all have been realized by a different course-but |