the spoil, carried into. and sold at St. John's, where there are no bidders able to exceed $150; and in such case restitution of the proceeds (which is the universal rule) were decreed-what is the effect? Invitation to plunder, although they have sufficient already. Sir, I am for exposing their judges by making them expose themselves; and for breaking the chains of vassalage, which our judges have put on thereby. Such a provision would effect the object. The 14th article relates to piracy. The 15th prohibits citizens from joining others in hostility. The 16th prohibits reprisals until complaint is made, and unreasonable delay; it is similar to the 22d of '94. The 17th, like the 23d of the Treaty of '94, admits all their armed vessels into our ports, and requires the punishment of those insulting their officers. I will not repeat the objections already urged, when discussing the 23d article. Art. 18th relates to arming, in the ports of the two nations. Art. 19th provides for the admission of their privateers, with their prizes, whenever they please. I wish not to be misunderstood, in discussing this treaty, as intimating that the provisions are not reciprocal upon paper; what I contend is, that there is none in reality. We are a peace-loving nation. Great Britain loves war. We preserve peace if possible. Great Britain prefers war to peace. We have, comparatively, no navy. Great Britain has" 1,000 ships of war." This article farther provides, that the privateers of the enemies of Great Britain shall not be allowed to enter with their prizes; but if forced in by necessity, we shall be compelled to hasten their departure; and that hereafter we will not make a treaty inconsistent with these provisions. Such a stipulation in time of war, is a gross departure from neutrality; which consists, in preserving a strict impartiality between the belligerents-granting no advantage to either, (that is not reciprocal,) to the detriment of the other: and it cannot fail to embarrass us in future; for, in this particular at least, every nation entering into treaties with us, and indeed without them, has a right to expect that we will admit them upon the terms of the most favored nation. Art. 20th, like the 26th in the old treaty, permits the merchants to reside here, trade &c, during a war with us. What I urged against the 26th article need not therefore be repeated. I have, however, an additional objection to this; it provides that if their merchants are suspected they may be warned to go off, and shall even after such warning be allowed to remain twelve months in the country. I want none of their merchants here, and I do not wish any of ours to reside in Great Britain. Art. 21st, like the 27th, is for delivering up fugitives from justice. The 22d, shipwreck. The 23d requires that, in future, Great Britain shall receive all the benefits of the most favored nation. We, sir, are shut out from British colonies: and let me suppose that France and Spain H. of R. should open theirs by treaty, in consideration of some commercial privilege-that Spain should cede Florida, and stipulate in the treaty for the reservation of some indulgence-shall Great Britain instantly without any equivalent enjoy the like benefits? Its operation necessarily is to prevent us from making a bargain; and let it be kept in mind, that Great Britain cannot enlarge her European possessions; that her system in them is unchangeable, and no inducements can be offered to vary it. The 24th article concerns the slave trade. The 25th provides a reservation that no treaties in existence shall be contravened. Such is the substance of this famous treaty: let any gentleman examine it impartially-let him consider the objectionable tendency of the articles, and above all, the total absence of any provision securing us, and I fear not that his decison will support his Government, in the ground it has taken. If the Treaty of 1794 had much to answer for the crime of omission, this has much indeed; for they far transcend the former. Upon the great points of difficulty and collision, no provision was made: we treated away all we had to give, and trusted to chance and fate for our security. By the treaty all our ports were opened, all our laws restricting British commerce, British ships, &c., were repealed. Upon the great point of impressment, the treaty was silent. The West Indies were shut upon us. The East Indies more than half closed beyond what they were in 1794. There was no provision for indemnification: there too, the treaty was silent-and silence upon that point is, in effect, a total abandonment of it. The Treaty of 1794 contained such a provision, and so did the treaty with France. It has been most uncandidly asserted. that we, in the treaty with France, promised to pay our citizens with our own money. It was a wise provision in the Louisiana convention, that a part of the purchase money should be applied to the indemnification of our citizens; the price was not thereby augmented one cent, and all candid men acknowledged that it was a good bargain; the island of New Orleans, alone, being worth more than the sum given for all Louisiana, with its countless millions of acres. There was no provision against a British export duty, whereby they tax us to a large amount, and we by our Constitution are prohibited from retaliating. No provision against illegal blockades. And none for permitting the residence of our Consuls at any of their possessions except in Europe. In a word, there was no indemnity for the past, no security for the future. But, sir, there was a sting affixed to it more poisonous than the adder's. I allude to the infanous rider, in No. 3, page 163, which Lords Holland and Auckland say was the only condition or reservation annexed to the treaty. It declaresif France should attempt to execute the Berlin decree, "they are confident the good sense of the H OF R. Repeal of the Embargo. FEBRUARY, 1809. have examined, and I trust with candor, the treaties of 1794 and 1806, and shown that neither would comport with the just claims of the United States. The gentleman asks, has not an error been committed in relation to them? I answer, no; and further, I will say, that neither would have prevented the wrongs we endure; the first (unexpired) article in the Treaty of 1794 promises a firm and inviolable peace, and true and sincere friendship: repeated acts of war have been committed upon us, and sincere friendship has been substituted by the blackest perfidy. France is accused of violating her treaty, as if it were more criminal to do so, than to break the moral law of nations. France has violated both, and so has Great Britain; the only difference consists in this, that Great Britain has done so much more frequently, and more injuriously, than France has. 'American Government will perceive the fatal consequence of such pretensions to neutral commerce. andthat its spirit and regard for national 'honor will prevent its acquiescence." But if the enemy executes his threats and neutral nations acquiesce, Great Britain may be compelled to retaliate, and pursue the same measure towards neutrals that France practises. They proceed to sign the treaty in the persuasion that before its return from America the enemy will have for mally relinquished his pretentions, or that the United States " by its conduct or assurances will have given security to His Majesty that it will not submit" and they add, that the note is presented to let us know that without such abandonment, (a formal one too) or such assurances or conduct on our part, the treaty shall not be binding, or Great Britain restrained "from adopting such measures as (to her) may seem necessary for counteracting the designs of the enemy." Upon a former occasion I dwelt upon this subject, and The gentlemen ask, (Mr. VAN DYKE and Mr. it would be inadmissible to reconsider it at length; KEY,) will we go to war for British seamen? I but I acknowledge that it would fill me with put it to them as liberal men: is it not unfair to shame and anguish, if this nation could stoop to ask the question? They know well what has the degradation of sanctioning such an outrage been offered on that score; I have made a sumupon its honor and its rights. by accepting treaty mary of the offers to-day: it is certainly attemptto which it was affixed. They confide in ouring a very unfair diversion of the public mind to good sense-our spirit and regard to honor; are suggest such an inquiry. Other gentlemen (Mr. persuaded we cannot and will not submit; and DANA, &c.) ask will we go to war for the right require that we, by our conduct and assurances, of free ships to make free goods? This is equally will have given security to His Majesty that we uncandid; for it must be known, that however will not. If, however, regardless of our national desirable to us, we never have asserted the prinhonor, &c., we do submit and will not give se- ciple so as to make its recognition an indispensacurity, they will treat us as we allow France to ble condition. threaten or treat us. Away with the treaty and the rider too! Our Ministers had the meekness to inform Mr. Canning, page 221, that he ought to be satisfied with our conduct; for that the French Minister had assured ours, that the decree should not infringe our treaty or our rights, and that we had witnessed a practice conformable to the assurance. This was on the 18th of October, 1807, almost one year after the Berlin decree. Well, sir, on the 22d of October, Mr. Canning wrote his answer, in which, although he does not deny that the decree had not been enforced, he informs our Ministers that he is not satisfied that the American Government has taken such effectual steps as to do away the reservation contained in the note accompanying the treaty. He, as was to be expected, rejected the humble security we had to offer-nothing but unqualified war at the direction of Great Britain would satisfy him. If war be proper, do let us consult our people in making it. The gentleman from Delaware complained that this treaty was returned without being submitted by the President to the Senate. Who is responsible for the formation of treaties, and for them when formed? The President; and is it reasonable that he should incur such responsibility, where the treaty was not only disapproved of by him, but was made in express violation of his instructions? Should be deliberate on accepting the treaty with its insulting supplement? I Will you go to war (the gentlemen ask) for the right of search? Sir, both are given up in admitting search for enemies' property; and the latter particularly in the project of a treaty sent to Mr. Monroe by Mr. Madison. See No. 2, p. 7.-Article 3 relates to the right of search, and proposes to regulate the practice.-Article 11 allows the taking of enemies; and No. 3, p. 7, gives up the point of free ships make free goods. The right of search necessarily results from acknowledged principles in the laws of nations. The question of contraband implies it; going to blockaded ports, and seizing persons in the military service of an enemy on board, imply it also. The gentleman asserts all our embarrassments arise from refusing to be searched for British seamen. I ask him as a man of honor, pledged not to harbor the servants or secrete the property of his neighbor in his house, whether he would submit to have it searched by day or night; and without suspicion, (for being bound by honor and by compact it would be insulting him to suspect him,) or without authority, permit the neighbor wantonly to enter into his rooms, open all his trunks, desks, &c., to satisfy himself that no fraud had been committed, knowing too, that being in want of his purse, and having power to do so, he would carry it off? I can answer for him that he would not. The same gentleman asserts that if we go to war, it will be for the subject of impressments. There can be no doubt that we ought to make war rather than submit on this point; but it is not now the question of immediate collision: it is merged in the murders of the Chesapeake, and they are merged in the Orders of Council-in the avowed attempt to tax us. What are the causes of complaint? Impressments, spoliations, the case of the Cambrian, the murder of Pierce, the Chesapeake, blockades. colonial trade, orders of June, January, November, and every other month in the calendar: each one has given rise to some outrage. Invitatious to our citizens to violate our laws, and go to sea without papers, thereby inviting to piracy in its true definition, and taxing us-demanding tribute. Are not these sufficient causes of war? God knows, if we want a justification in the eyes of all men for going to war, it is to be found abundantly in them. The single case of Pierce was held sufficient; his murdered body was carried through New York by the exasperated citizens; the Federalists were vieing with the Republicans in expressions of indignation; Mr. King was at their head, and he is still a favorite, as the votes recently given by them for President and Vice President will show. All our difficulties, it is said, would have been avoided, if the Treaty of 1806 had been accepted. This treaty was to cure the king's evil or the evils of the King; it was to avert all our difficulties, although many of them preceded it, and were unatoned for thereby. No, sir; all of them were omitted or sanctioned by the treaty and its rider. We cannot get the subject resumed, says the gentleman, and it is evident, that it was the best bargain attainable. To my mind it is proof of hostility the most deadly; and as for the bargain it never could be worse. Well, sir, what shall we do? What, it is asked, will be the object of war? I answer resistance. I will resist while there is one man living to aid me; it will be more honorable to die in the contest than to crouch beneath the lash that penetrates to our vitals: we shall thereby avoid a lingering death, for death is inevitable if we submit. The gentleman (Mr. Key) asks if we mean to fight France, to coerce a respect for her treaty, to compel Great Britain to make one? On this score there is no difference; both have violated their treaties with us, and trampled upon our rights. If we fight them, it will be to resist their attacks upon us. I am not for dividing and subdividing the injuries done us, throwing the gauntlet and fighting for the case of the Chesapeake to-day, and after the battle is over, challenging them anew and fighting about the Orders of Council to-morrow. 1 prefer throwing all the injuries into one account, and fighting to resist and redress them in the lump. With great exultation it is asked, what will be the effect of war upon Great Britain? what profit will result to us? A nation like us will never make war for the profits of it; we profit more from peace. Not so with Great Britain; her foreign wars are highly beneficial to the Government; they keep the people united, their minds H. OF R. engaged, and inattentive to the crying corruption of their Ministry. When we go to war, no mercenary calculation of dollars and cents will weigh down the scale; it will be a question of country, of liberty, and independence. But, sir, we can injure Great Britain, and also remove a cause from which much evil is to be apprehended. We can take Canada, and thereby put down the hostile spirit of the Indians, to whom the war-belt has been sent from Canada some time since, with an invitation to them to take up the tomahawk against us, in the event of a war with Great Britain. We should be able to subdue the war spirit which so much predominates in savage man. This would be doing much for their happiness, and the future peace of our country. Besides this, we should harass their commerce by our privateers, whose profits would excite a sufficient spirit of adventure to go upon the ocean in search of prey; and, above all, we should avoid a pusillanimous, dishonorable, and degrading submission. This, in my opinion, will be gaining much. War has been painted in glowing colors; it is a great calamity to any nation; it is the greatest calamity that ever infatuated man devised to scourge the world. But great as it is, to us submission would be greater. The gentleman from Maryland deprecates the consequences of trusting an army of 50,000 in the hands of any man, lest such an one as Burr, seated at the helm, should crimson the Presidential chair, and deluge the country in blood. How, and of what materials would this army be composed? Of men, sir, fighting for their families, their altars, and their firesides-for the liberty consecrated by the blood of their fathers. It would contain some of the best blood in this nation, and you might as well suppose that they would tear up the foundations of the earth, as become mercenaries. Sir, even at hearing the din of war as it rumbles across the horizon, you already find them entering your service. There are many men who would not accept the command of your forces on a peace establishment, that would draw their swords, and put on the habiliments of war in subordinate stations, in the hour of danger. Look over the list of your military officers, and ask yourselves whether the colonels, majors, captains, and subordinate officers you find there, would prostitute the liberties of their country, and cut asunder every tender ligament that binds them to it, to serve the designs of any ambitious, designing man?—It is impossible. There are men on that list of the most unquestionable patriotism, public and private virtue; and in talents, inferior to none on this floor. Such men cannot be led into, or excited to partake of, the scheme. We are not yet in such a state of degradation and meanness, too often produced by love of money, as to submit to the ambitious projects of a Bonaparte, who could wield the nation in his right arm, and smite its liberties with his left. All these injurious consequences, however, in their fullest extent, are predicted, as if we were unworthy of trusting ourselves. Instances have been given from des potic States of a daring leader's usurping the government. They do not apply to us; the purse and the sword are wielded by Congress; we hold the purse-strings, the sinews of war; and we thereby have in sufficient check any ambitious projector. The gentleman from Maryland complains of an usurpation already, and argues from it that worse is to follow! and pray hear his charge: "The Secretary at War, in communicating the orders of the President to call out the 100,000 militia, requests the Governors to be careful in selecting fit and proper persons." Risum teneatis. Why, in truth, it is a high misdemeanor, and no doubt will be duly considered upon the trial of that gentleman before the Senate, where it appears he has been impeached. The gentleman from Delaware warns us to avoid war; for in the midst of arms the still voice of reason is not heard. We have reasoned long enough; everything that appertains to the reasoning faculties of man has been tried; we have the better of the argument, as our enemies admit, and we do not propose to go to war for the purpose of old-fashioned reasoning. Force is the only expedient that can produce reason with such nations as we have to deal with. I am for no more "supplemental broadsides." There is more energy and weight, in the diplomatic correspondence, through the mouths of our cannon. The gentleman from Delaware asks, will the nation give its blood to biot out the errors of the Administration? Sir, the people of this country have too much good sense to believe that errors exist, when it is not in the power of ingenious and able opponents to point them out. I defy them to do it. There is no point upon which I, humble as my talents may be, would be afraid to meet them before the nation. The gentleman begs the question, we are not disposed to hide errors, or palliate them. If they exist, we shall be happy to discover them; and I assure gentlemen, that wheresoever they may be found, we will endeavor to apply the proper and Constitutional corrective. The gentleman warns us to "put the enemy in the wrong." Who, I pray you, are in the wrong, ourselves or the enemy? They have put themselves in the wrong. What, sir! does the gentleman mean to defend the murders of Pierce and the Chesapeake, the orders [Mr. VAN DYKE explained: He had not in tended to convey the idea that Great Britain was justified, but merely that we should put her in the wrong upon every point.] Mr. JACKSON proceeded.-I accept the gentleman's explanation with great pleasure. Sir, we have put the enemy in the wrong on all points. The gentleman from Maryland says, that we will fight for our altars and our firesides; besides them, all is calculation. I differ with him. The murders at sea, of Pierce, and of the Chesapeake; the invasion of our maritime jurisdiction; the impressment of seamen, and subjecting our exports to pay tribute, are not questions of calculation; they are questions of sovereignty and of independence, and existence itself; we must fight, rather than submit to them. We, by our Con FEBRUARY, 1809. stitution, are prohibited from taxing exports; Great Britain asserts the right, and has taxed them, and I would resist that alone, at all hazards. The two gentlemen say Great Britain will not relinquish impressments, as by them alone she supports her navy, and it is a vital principle to her. And we are to submit, forsooth, because it keeps up her omnipotence at sea, to a measure that grinds this nation to powder, and stabs us to the vitals? The gentleman asks, will we not submit to a cutting off a member to save the body? I answer no; I will not submit to the amputation by Great Britain. I will not sacrifice all the members to preserve a lifeless political trunk. If the legs, arms, ears, and nose are cut off, and the head, too, I am incapable of perceiving the use or value of the body; and submission to Great Britain will be a sacrifice of all these. I have read of a great general-I believe it was Cæsar-who directed his soldiers to aim their weapons at the faces of the enemy's army, because, being handsome men, and more attached to their beauty than their country, they would surrender rather than lose it. But, by the gentleman's system, the body is the only desirable place; do not touch that, and the members-eyes, head, and all, may be quietly destroyed. The gentlemen have urged that notwithstanding impressments, &c., we have flourished. Sir, if we made it merely a question of dollars and cents, perhaps we might flourish under the Orders in Council-but, let me ask, do not our national and personal rights transcend in value all such calculations? Are our liberty and independence worth nothing? Gentlemen say, we are all powerful for defence-we wish for no more than to defend our just rights-we are not aiming at conquest, and for defence we will be mighty indeed, in a war against those who dare to assail us. Gentlemen ask us to convince the people that war is necessary and they will act with spirit and vigor, but not till then. This is true, sir; but by what means are they to be convinced, if they are still incredulous? Those who do not discover the necessity of maintaining our rights, and that we have been deeply injured, must be as callous to feeling as the miserable poltroon who, on being forcibly thrust out of doors, at length discovered that his presence was disagreeable. It is true, as the gentleman states, that the genius of our Government leads to peace; but it is honorable peace alone that can be fostered by them; they will prefer war to disgrace, cost what it may. Peace is the sheet anchor of our prosperity; but if forced into war we will be terrible as the tigress robbed of her whelps. With much preparation and deliberation the gentlemen have announced to us their system-one is for trying the pen first and then the sword. Why, sir, we have already tried this war of goose quills long enough; and if we repeat the warfare I should not be surprised at hearing the whole feathered tribe squalling and squeaking like the British merchants and some of our own too, when a bristle belonging to them is touched; they squeak from one end of the nation to the other, and although they make a great cry FEBRUARY, 1809. Repeal of the Embargo. H. OF R. we get but little wool. Sir the spirit of the na- Mr. Pinkney. Perhaps he deemed it politic to tion has almost been destroyed by this goose-quill hold such language. We, however, must apprewarfare-I beg pardon of the people, it is the spirit ciate it according to the actual state of things. of this House I mean; we write reports, resolu- I know that I may be asked why, under all these tions, bills, &c., we talk and write much about unpropitious appearances abroad, and unfavorable them, until all our spirit evaporates. Not so with circumstances at home, delay any longer? Why, the people; we have indeed for some time been sir, notwithstanding my want of confidence in lulling them into a fatal security; they have been their friendly dispositions, I am still willing to dozing over our lethargy; but I trust that like a await the events of a few fleeting months. As sleeping lion the nation will awake and rise up in to any inherent regard for our rights, I put it out its full strength and vigor to assert and maintain of the question. I look to more powerful causes its rights. The other gentleman (Mr. KEY) is to the occurrences in Spain, and the British for letting loose these embargoed ships, permit disasters there-for there can be no question that them again to navigate the ocean, and resist by their armies have been cut off, unless, as at Dunforce all search for unlawful purposes. How is kirk, they have ran away; and that their dependthe lawfulness of the intended search to be fore-ence was upon their heels, there can be but little seen? While the gentleman was speaking I could doubt, when we look at the map, and examine not refrain from asking how he would discrim- their marches, in a line parallel to the seacoast, inate-I was anxious to know how an ingenious instead of advancing by the side of the patriots, gentleman could manage the subject: he said he and upon the frontiers of Spain, disputing the would tell me, but he failed to attempt it. The passes through which the enemy had to enter into right of search is an acknowledged right, resist the country. The British nation are a high-spirance to it is war, or piracy; for instance, (as sta- ited people, and they will illy brook the disgrace ted in my previous examination) to ascertain the of running, or (if their armies were compelled to character of the vessel and cargo. Well, sir, a fight) of being cut off. Either alternative is ruin British ship meets one of your vessels with the to the ministry. When we look at the sensibility intention of enforcing the British orders, but the excited by the convention in Portugal, we can commander does not order his trumpeter to pro- have little doubt of the effects of the expedition claim it at the mast-head; he comes alongside, in Spain. About the same time the communicaand orders the captain with his papers on board; tions made to Congress will have reached them. unless, out of courtesy, he boards the American They will put down the slanders there, that we vessel. After getting possession of his vessel, the were for submitting to France; they will show the American learns that the object is unlawful, but liberal offer made by us to Great Britain; an offer his vessel is captured; and then, and not till then, in effect, to join England against France, by tradhe is permitted to resist. Why, sir, resistance ing with England, and resisting France; and the comes too late, and ever will, unless we suppose insolent rejection of the offer. All these concurrent that an intuitive knowledge pervades the navi- circumstances will crush the ministry, or compel gators of the ocean. The gentleman wishes to them to relax towards us, and come to an accomleave the door of reconciliation open a little long-modation. Wise politicians yield something to er. Sir, I wish not to be misunderstood by gentlemen. Although I can see no possible good that can result from further negotiation, I am for a little longer delay. I prefer letting the goosequills lay idle for a season, and the cannon tooalthough, as I have remarked, war is not such a dreadful expedient to me, as some gentlemen would represent it; and unless we receive redress, I, for one, will say it must be resorted to. I am at present opposed to granting letters of marque and reprisal. If we send out privateers, they will make war; and if we allow our merchants to arm, they will make it also-or if they do not use their guns until they are searched for unlawful purposes, they will be captured, guns and all. If they resist a search, they become the aggressor, and a species of war ensues. It is said that Mr. Canning's last letter proves their sincere desire for peace-proof was indeed necessary; but I would rather rely upon their acts, than their professions. In my opinion this last letter is not less hostile than the former ones. It persists in the unmanly insinuation that we have acted with duplicity, and made our communications with the British Government dependent upon our relations with France. He has said, to be sure, it would be gratifying to him to settle all differences with circumstances and appearances; and if we disregard them now, after waiting with so much patience, and at a great sacrifice, for so long a time, we could not well answer it to the nation if we rushed into war, if, as is probable, the olive branch is crossing the Atlantic to us. As to fighting France it is idle; we can't get there, and they can't come here, and their ships are swept from the ocean. I will not join gentlemen in their project of fighting France, and submitting to Great Britain; I am for fighting the enemy who has done us most wrong. The injuries committed by England exceed those by France an hundred fold. While Great Britain kicks us on the highway, robs and insults us, we pocket the affront; but if France, like a man on horseback, happens to approach us near enough to spatter the mud upon us, and dashes on in full speed; after getting out of sight we offer battle, and taking courage from our security we look big and brave. Upon my soul I believe that one of the members of this House (Mr. QUINCY) would have nerve enough for such a daring. I am against arming our merchant vessels unless we make war; for on the day they sail the peace of the nation is gone; they have the power of making war transferred to them, and they may wage |