It was not my intention, sir, to have detained the House so long. To their indulgence I owe an acknowledgment. I will close the remarks I have to make, by briefly repeating-that believing, as I do, that the proposed partial repeal of the embargo will be abandoning the ground of resistance to foreign aggressions we have taken, will degrade the honor and character of the nation-will not afford any substantial relief to your own people; that you adopt no real substitute in its place that it will favor the views of your enemies at home and abroad, whilst it will disappoint and damp the spirits of your best friends, and incur the disapprobation of a great majority of the American people; and also in addition to all this it will most probably produce a war of depredation in which your commerce will become an easy and sure prey to your enemies; believing all this I am decidedly opposed to it, and shall vote in favor of the motion to strike out the section. Should this motion not prevail, as will probably be the case, I will not at present declare what my vote may be on the final passage of the bill. It sometimes becomes necessary to make a choice, though it will be a very reluctant duty, between evils; we are compelled to take the less in order to avoid the greater. This may probably be such a case. Mr. MACON said that there was not a clearer proposition under the sun, than that the embargo had been and was still the shield of our safety. In the early part of the session he had stated his impression that there were but three alternatives, to go to war, continue the embargo, or to submit. He was still of the same opinion, and thought it demonstrable that every proposition made, which had for its object the removal of the embargo, was either war or submission. Take off the embargo, said he, in any way you please, if the orders and decrees remain in force, and where can you go? Only into trouble. The embargo did and does prevent Great Britain from getting your property under the Orders in Council. The merchants of this country, when orders were issued by Great Britain, which did not go half so far as at present, forced upon you the prohibitory law. I did not wish it. I thought the measure was unwise. At that time the Chesapeake had not been attacked. Those decrees had not been issued, which now make me wish to continue the embargo for a longer time. I would try it till September. I have stated before to the House, that if we went into the war we should be thrown on the side of France-I hope not into her arms, for I want no entangling alliances, nor treaties, more than we are compelled to make. Suppose you repeal the embargo, and in order to go to France, first go to England and pay her what duty she chooses to exact. Would not that be submission? Suppose you refuse to trade with France in consequence of the Orders in Council would not that be submission? Both these cases would to my mind be submission; and that all the evils imputed to the embargo are chargeable to the decrees and orders, I believe, as I do that this measure has saved you from their nefa FEBRUARY, 1809. rious doings. Let your merchants out, and, no matter where they go, the whole system is at an end. The merchants will trade to England. Let it be recollected that Mr. Erskine, in one of his letters to Mr. Madison, stated that the object of the duty on cotton was to prevent the manufactures of France from rivalling the manufactures of Great Britain. Do you expect then, that Great Britain will let the cotton go free? No, sir. How is it with another article-tobacco? I talk about these articles, sir, because they are the product of my constituents, by the culture of which they live. Of this article Great Britain consumes about one-seventh of our whole export; France two-fifths. Upon this two-fifths of our whole export, a tax of three dollars per hundred weight is imposed, almost equal to its whole current value in this country. Sir, I was opposed to the 50 per cent. additional duty bill; but when that duty on imports is compared with the duty which Great Britain lays on our exports, which we have not the power to tax at all, the duty sinks to nothing. We are contending for our existence as a nation. It has been said, a thousand times said, in this House, that tribute ought to be put out of the question. Sir, suppose this tax had been laid on the tonnage of our vessels, instead of the product of the soil, should we have been told not to repeat the word tribute so often? You might as well ask the people of this country to rescind the Declaration of Independence, as to ask them to permit their property to be taxed as a foreign Government pleases. Whenever gentlemen talk about taxes, and can coolly see a foreign nation tax this community more than the General and State Governments united, I scarcely know how to express my wonder at their apathy. The taxes laid by Great Britain on the soil amount to more than the taxes laid in this nation by corporations, towns, State and General Governments, all put together. If your merchants go out under this bill, in my opinion they will evade it in the way in which Great Britain has evaded the French law; and there is no way to keep out of war, and at the same time avoid paying tribute, if the embargo be thus repealed. I had rather have British custom-house officers here at once, and be done with it. Reverse this thing for a moment. Suppose that the United States and Spain were at war, and the United States were to say that Great Britain should carry nothing to or from the Spanish colonies without coming here and paying an enormous tax on it-we should be thought mad. But this is just a parallel case with our present situation. You are compelled to carry all your produce to Great Britain; and, if you do not there sell it, to purchase a license to export it. Nothing can be more true than what has been several times said, that if we go to war with France, we need not pay any tribute. But, sir, were we to go to war with France, thus to avoid that duty, it would be the basest submission, and you had better go and pay it at once. A thousand contradictory things have been conjured up in the course of this debate. At one time you are told that Great Britain does not value Canada or you. At another moment, in the fertility of gentlemen's imaginations, cotton and tobacco spring up there, like mushroons, in a night. If you then talk about taking it, you are told that you will catch a tartar. Let foreign nations respect our rights and we will not concern ourselves with them. If we yield now, they will trample us to death. Upon this subject, too, it is said by some gentlemen, "let commerce take care of itself." If this be proper, why are the same gentlemen the most strenuous supporters of a navy? If commerce is to protect itself, what is a navy to be sent out for? The commercial part of the nation ought to consider itself as linked with every other part. If commercial men have grown rich from the product of the soil and the labor of the agriculturist, is it fair and honorable for these men to want to destroy that which has given them wealth-I mean the agriculture of the country? Surely not; but it unfortunately happens that it is nevertheless true that the heaviest of these foreign taxes are imposed upon that part of the nation which the gentleman from Connecticut told us the other day has not the greatest portion of physical force. The amount of trade or commerce carried on would be the same, tax or no tax, but the price of the produce of the country would be less, and especially that part of it which can be carried but to one market. H. OF R. who can better tell what they were than myself, yet I saw enough of them, and felt a little, too, though not as highly honored as some others, who were thrown into jail under the law. The highest honor decreed to me was to have the rogues' march played under my windows. Now I have heard of no personal injury or insult to any members of Congress in the present "hard times." To the hardship of former times many worthy characters, and the records of those days, will bear testimony. I will here state a fact which did not occur to me till I saw it in another place, in one of the most luminous speeches I ever heard or read. When the attack on the Chesapeake was made, every one applauded the measure (the proclamation) adopted by the President. I came to this place, sir, at the subsequent session a little too full of a vindictive spirit, and others perhaps partook of the same feeling. This feeling continued for some time; and the first word I heard in reprobation of the proclamation was after the British Envoy had been here some time. I speak of a fact which is unquestionable. The gentleman from Massachusetts, in the conclusion of his speech, uttered an expression, in which I hope he was mistaken, viz., that "his arguments or impressions might be attributed by some to foreign influence." I hope he is mistaken. Nothing can be so grating to an American as to suppose that his arguments may be at gree of experience; for in the "hard times" it has been attached to me. There is no man to whom foreign partialities have been imputed, that cannot feel the impression the charge makes upon a mind purely American. Every one recollects the time when opposition to every measure of the Administration was attributed to French influence. Though I have felt it, I never believed that those amongst whom I was born and raised would give credit to the charge. I agree with the gentleman from Massachu-tributed to that source. I speak of it from a desetts (Mr. QUINCY) in many points which he took the other day-that we should not fight Great Britain because she takes her own seamen from our ships. If she would take only her own and let ours alone I should be content. Notwithstanding all the distress under which gentlemen appear to labor on the subject of a treaty, I have no doubt that if we were to spend less upon treaties, and regulate our commercial affairs more by law, we should find it to our advantage. With whom should we treat? With France and Great Britain, the two most powerful nations in the world, who pay no respect to treaties longer than it suits their own convenience? I would restrict them by navigation laws as they restrict us. That is a sort of system which you can continue, sir. Without saying that our exports are of more value to them than theirs are to us, admit that they are but equally valuable, and we may retort their own doings upon them. Much has been said about the amendatory embargo law. I have no fear but it will be enforced. It is not to be expected that you will not find smugglers under that as under every other law. I do not believe a word about any State's undertaking to set the law at defiance. I have no such expectation; and I go upon the idea that whatever is for the good of the whole all will obey. Make an experiment under the law. Recollect a case in what are called the hard times, sir, when a great portion of the nation thought the sedition law unconstitutional. The judges decided to the contrary, and the law was enforced. And, talk¡ng of hard times, there are several in this House It has been said, and great pains have been taken to establish the fact, that the embargo bears harder upon the Eastern than upon the Southern country. The reverse appears to me to be the fact. Upon the towns it may bear harder than upon the country; but take the nation at large, and the embargo, if gentlemen persist in charg ing all our evils on the embargo, bears harder on the South than on the East. We lose the capital of the trade, whilst they lose but the profits to be made upon the export and import. Can the profits be equal to the capital? Certainly not. My perseverance in this embargo system may be deemed to be a little fool-hardy; but we are called upon to retire before we are routed. I have no fear of being routed. We cannot retire without disgrace under this non-intercourse bill. Take off the embargo, and we have no alterna[tive but war. Arming merchantmen, issuing letters of marque, &c., all this is fighting. I am not for it if we can avoid it. The country is not ruined as has been said. Our property is safe at home. We have not now to negotiate with France and Great Britain for indemnity for the plunder they would have made but for the embargo. I had rather have my little property in this situation, embargoed at home, than have to depend upon negotiation to procure compensation for it when captured. True it is Great Britain once agreed to pay you for spoliations, and so far acknowledged some such thing as the law of nations; but I doubt whether she will do it again. How did it happen? You agreed to pay her the amount of it and more too. France too agreed to pay for spoliations; but how? You bought Louisiana, and she gave you credit for the amount due to you. She has no Louisiana now to sell you, nor has England. All the property taken from you would be clear loss. The gentleman from Massachusetts told us, some time ago, to take care of his constituents. This is the desire of every man. The gentleman must agree that the articles of tobacco and cotton, without anything else, are equal to the lumber which he talked about. As to his idea of the fertility of the land and riches of the inhabitants of the Southern country, he is wholly mistaken. On the rivers there is some such thing; but in the upper part of the State in which I live, the greatest equality of property exists. These men bear with their present situation, because they see that there is no other alternative than war, and they had rather bear it than go to war. I do not believe that any one of the Southern States has more than three banks, whilst in the Northern States there are from twenty to forty of one kind or other in each State. The letters read by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. TROUP) the other day, had the same effect upon my mind which they appeared to have upon his. I have no doubt that some part of our cotton has been carried away; but it is but a small portion of the necessary quantity. As to making cotton in France, as a gentleman from Connecticut attempted to prove from a French author, I have no fear of that. I never had a good opinion of theoretical agriculture; and on hearing that book read, I admire it the less. I have no more fear of cotton being raised in France, especially if they take the author's advice as to the mode of doing it, where they have not spare ground to make tobacco, than I have of its being raised in Canada. And really, sir, as to the Barbary Powers making cotton for the European market, I should as soon expect the Cherokee, with his wallet of corn, to travel from his native soil to Roanoke to sell it. A quotation was made by a gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) the other day, from the language of, perhaps, the most eloquent man in the Virginia Convention, for considering the Federal Constitution. I could name a man not quite so eloquent but quite as great a man, one of whose objections to the Constitution was, that you would be taxed by those who had no fellow-feeling for you. Great and prescient as he was, he never dreamed of Great Britain again attempting to tax us. Has Great Britain any fellow-feeling for you? No, sir; she and France have, and will continue to have, a hatred for you FEBRUARY, 1809. so long as you continue free. We are here struggling with this embargo, getting out of it one way or the other, and told that the laws are set at defiance. The bones of our Revolutionary soldiers are scarcely buried-and are we, their descendants, already threatening the Union with discord; tearing characters to pieces, as though the American character was worth nothing? In the city of New York, but the last year, one of the most solemn processions took place which was ever witnessed in the country, to bury the bleached bones of our patriots. And, gracious God! are they so soon to be forgotten? I hope not, sir; that we shall pursue our course with firmness, and not be turned from it by threats, come from whence they will; that we shall not repeal the embargo by passing this bill. Mr. HOLLAND followed on the same side of the question. He had originally voted against the embargo, because he believed it premature; but he was decidedly of opinion that, when it was imposed, some time would be necessary to try its effects as a coercive measure. He believed that the United States generally sacrificed at least enough of their happiness to the commercial interest; but having taken this ground, he wished to maintain it. And although he was not inclined to favor exclusively external commerce, yet in favor of our indisputable rights on the ocean, he would go to war when efforts of peace failed. He was in favor, therefore, of a further continuance of the embargo, and replied to many arguments against it. He lamented the propensity that existed among gentlemen, because they could not obtain a favorite object in life, to set their faces against everything else. Thus, one gentleman in the other branch of the Legislature, because he had been removed from office some years ago, thought everything had since gone wrong. One in this House might think the same, because he had not been able to obtain an office; another, because he could not move the seat of Government, &c. Mr. H. said he firmly believed, nevertheless, that it was happy for the United States that the one was removed, another disappointed in an office, and that the seat of Government was in its old place. The reasons operating with those gentlemen had no effect on him. He was for pursuing a direct course and adhering to the embargo, until its effect was fully tested. Mr. H. spoke about an hour. Mr. WINN moved to postpone the further consideration of the subject. Negatived. On motion of Mr. TAYLOR, the House adjourned about four o'clock, without taking a question. TUESDAY, February 21. The bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act supplemental to the act, entitled 'An act for the better government of the Navy of the United States," was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole to-morrow. Mr. JEREMIAH MORROW, from the Committee on the Public Lands, to whom was committed, on the twenty-eighth ultimo, a bill sent from the FEBRUARY, 1809. Non-Intercourse. Senate, entitled "An act for the relief of certain Alabama Indians, reported their agreement to the same, with an amendment; which was twice read, and agreed to by the House, Ordered, That the said amendment be engrossed, and, together with the bill, be read the third time to-morrow. An engrossed bill concerning invalid pensioners was read the third time: Whereupon, a motion being made by Mr. HOLMES that the said bil do lie on the table, it was resolved in the affirmative. A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed the bill, entitled "An act for the disposal of certain tracts of land in the Mississippi Territory, claimed under Spanish grants, reported by the Land Commissioners as antedated, and for other purposes," with several amendments; to which they desire the concurrence of this House. The Senate have passed a bill, entitled "An act making provision for the further accommodation of the household of the President of the United States;" also, a bill, entled "An act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes;" to which bills, respectively, they desire the concurrence of this House. NON-INTERCOURSE. Mr. BIBB moved to postpone the further consideration of the unfinished business till to-mor row. A similar bill was before the Senate, which, he believed, would be more generally satisfactory than the bill now before the House, and which would, probably, soon be received. The question now pending was not lightly to be decided; for it was known what effect a mere decision in Committee of the Whole on a part of a resolution had lately produced, The House would be better prepared to vote on it when they had the whole ground before them. H. OF R. Daniel C. Verplanck, Jesse Wharton, Robert Whitehill, and Marmaduke Williams. NAYS-Evan Alexander, Lemuel J. Alston, Willis Alston, junior, Joseph Barker, John Blake, junior, John Boyle, William A. Burwell, Martin Chittenden, John Culpeper, John Davenport, jun., Daniel M. Durell, James Elliot, William Ely, John W. Eppes, William Findley, Francis Gardner, James M. Garnett, Thomas Gholson, junior, Isaiah L. Green, John Harris, John Heister, William Hoge, Benjamin Howard, Reuben Humphreys, Daniel Ilsley, Richard Jackson, Robert Jenkins, James Kelly, John Lambert, Joseph Lewis, jun., Edward Lloyd, Matthew Lyon, Robert Marion, Josiah Masters, William McCreery, William Milnor, Daniel Montgomery, junior, John Montgomery, Thos. Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Jonathan O. Mosely, Thomas Newbold, Wilson C. Nicholas, Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, Matthias Richards, Samuel Riker, John Russell, James Sloan, Jedediah K. Smith, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, William Stedman, Clement Storer, Lewis B. Sturges, Peter Swart, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, John Thompson, Abram Trigg, James I. Van Alen, Philip Van Cortlandt, Nicholas Van Dyke, Archibald Van Horn, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Isaac Wilbour, David R. Williams, Alexander Wilson, and Nathan Wilson. The House then resumed the consideration of the said bill: Whereupon, a motion made by Mr. BIBB, which was depending yesterday at the time of adjournment, further to amend the bill by striking out the twelfth section thereof, being revived, the said section was again read at the Clerk's table, in the words following, to wit: "SEC. 12. And be it further enacted, That so much of the act 'laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States,' and of the several acts supplementary thereto, as forbids the departure of vessels owned by citizens of the United States, and the exportation of domestic and foreign merchandise to any foreign port or place, other than Great Britain or France, or their colonies, or dependMr. LLOYD objected to this procedure as unwor-encies, or places in the actual possession of either, be, thy of the dignity of the House. This House had no right to know what was doing in the Senate, except, indeed, it was to be guided in its proceedings by what the Senate should choose to do. For one, he said, he would not be led by the nose by the Senate or any other department of the Government. Messrs. LYON, DURELL, BACON, and GARDNER, also opposed postponement; Mr. BIBB advocated it. The question being now taken on the motion for postponement, it was negatived—yeas 38, nays 72, as follows: YEAS-David Bard, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, Thomas Blount, Adam Boyd, Robert Brown, William Butler, Joseph Calhoun, Matthew Clay, John Dawson, Josiah Deane, Joseph Desha, James Fisk, Peterson Goodwyn, William Helms, James Holland, David Holmes, Richard M. Johnson, Thomas Kenan, John Love, Nathaniel MaThomas Newton, John Porter, John Pugh, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, Lemuel Sawyer, Benjamin Say, Samuel Shaw, John Smilie, John Taylor, John M. Troup, con, and the same is hereby, repealed, after the fourth day of March: Provided, That all penalties and forfeitures which shall have been previously incurred by virtue of the said acts as is repealed by this act; or which have been, or may hereafter be, incurred by virtue of the said act, on account of any infraction of so much of the said acts as is not repealed by this act, shall be recovered and distributed in like manner as if the said acts had continued in full force and virtue." Mr. CULPEPER.-Mr. Speaker: As it is my misfortune very frequently to vote in the minority, and I may be equally unfortunate in my vote on the present occasion, I rise to offer to the House some of the reasons which will govern me in the course I expect to pursue on this subject. I voted against the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. MILNOR,) and I expect to vote against the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. BIBB,) with a design to vote for the amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. WILLIAMS) and the second amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MILNOR.) I intend to vote for the bill under consideration, and desire it may be so modified as to prevent, if possible, the ruin and disgrace of my country. FEBRUARY, 1809. we gained by this method of dignified resistance? I am certain if the citizens of the United States were to be consulted, and were to compare the political blessings we enjoyed under the treaty, with this political (what shall I call it ?) curse, to which we have been exposed under the operation of the embargo system-they would not hesitate a minute, but would decide in favor of such a treaty. to cultivate the soil, and their industry was well rewarded; our seamen employed in navigating I do not expect to vote for this bill for its in- the ocean, and our canvass whitened every sea. trinsic merit, for I am not very well pleased with United at home and respected abroad, we held the system; but I have long thought, and I yet the second rank among the commercial nations of think, if the several acts laying an embargo on the earth. But these privileges, though great, all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of were trifling when compared with such as were the United States are never repealed until we are to be procured by a new system, and when in 1804, all pleased with what gentlemen call a substitute Lord Harrowby, the then British Minister, profor the embargo, my country will be ruined under posed to renew that treaty, it was rejected. In the operation of this measure, which so much re- 1806, a partial non-importation act was passed to sembles Fielding's clock-it never can operate as exclude many articles of British manufacture a measure of coercion upon the European Pow- from our ports-this was to compel the British ers; he describes the clock as most exquisitely lion to admit the American eagle to an equal parformed in all its parts, but for the want of con- ticipation in what gentlemen call the great highformity in the several parts to each other it could way of nations. When this plan, so promising in not be put in motion. Just so is your embargo, theory, failed in practice, an embargo was addedthough its advocates represent it as a political ma- this was to compel not only the Government of chine calculated to preserve the honor and in- England, but the enlightened Government of terests of the country, for want of conformity to France to yield to us, in a state of dignified rethe habits of the American people and to the tirement, what they refused to grant us while present situation of the country it cannot be ex- pursuing our usual course of honest industry. ecuted to advantage. And as we differ in politi-Sir, what has been the consequence? What have cal sentiment, and no doubt, honestly differ, I'deem a spirit of conciliation absolutely necessary for the preservation of the country. I feel willing to meet gentlemen who differ from me in sentiment, whenever I discover a disposition in them to do so too. And I think it is time to join and adopt that plan which will be least offensive to any portion of the American people, or their representatives. Under these impressions I expect to vote for this bill, as preferable to your embargo system. If the amendments proposed by the gentlemen from South Carolina and Pennsylvania are adopted, I believe we shall derive some benefit from this system. And should it fail in producing the expected good, it certainly will be productive of less evil than the embargo; it will partially restore our almost ruined commerce. For, however gentlemen may differ from me on this subject of commerce, I consider it a great excitement to industry; a source from which the rich derive most of their opulence, and the poor derive many of the necessaries of life; and gentlemen all acknowledge it to be the source from which we derive the whole of our revenue. To prove these positions, I will call the attention of the House to the commercial prosperity of the nation under the operation of the Treaty of '94, called Jay's Treaty. This treaty has been represented as ruinous and disgraceful. Such were the clamors against it, that I confess I disapproved of it at first; but under its operation we were a happy and a prosperous people. By reference to the several reports of the Secretary of the Treasury, I perceive our customs arising from imposts and tonnage during the four years prior to the adoption of that treaty averaged, $4,224,728, and our customs arising from the same source, the first four years under the operation of the treaty, averaged $9.720,198, and the last four years averaged $12,340,491; and our exports increased in the same proportion-and we increased as fast in individual as national wealth. Yes, sir, under the operation of that treaty, our farmers were induced But we are told, by the committee of exterior relations, we must have abject and degrading submission or war with both England and France, or a continuance and enforcement of the embargo, or present suspension of commerce. And as the first cannot require any discussion, and the pressure of the embargo is so sensibly felt that the country cannot or will not much longer submit to the privations of this system, gentlemen exclaim what is to be done? Has the nation no honor to maintain? Yes, sir, I hope she has; I hope we will still retain some of our national honor, but I trust in God, we never shall make another attempt to maintain our honor by abandoning our rights. I shall perhaps be told we have not abandoned our rights; this system is not an abandonment, but a suspension of our rights. Be it so, Mr. Speaker, for although I conscientiously consider it an abandonment of our rights, I believe the advocates of the measure consider it only as a suspension. God grant that their expectations in this may be realized; but I fear it will happen otherwise. But gentlemen exclaim, how are we to avoid degrading submission? I hope, sir, we shall abandon or modify this system, and resume the navigation of the ocean, and convince the world we do not intend to abandon our rights. I am as anxious to maintain the honor of the nation as any gentlemen on this floor; but I subscribe to the position, that, in an agricultural and commercial Republic, honor and interest are convertible terms. I believe, sir, that our honor is our interest, and our interest is our honor. I am |