ELEVENTH CONGRESS.—THIRD SESSION. PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. (continued 4)

Extract of a letter from Mr. Marshall, Secretary of State, to Mr. King, dated

September 20, 1800.

"The right to confiscate vessels bound to a blockaded port, has been unreasonably extended to cases not coming within the rule, as heretofore adopted.

"On this principle, it might well be questioned, whether this rule can be applied to a place not completely invested by land as well as by sea. If we examine the reasoning on which it is founded, the right to intercept and confiscate supplies, designed for a blockaded town, it will be difficult to resist the conviction that its extension to towns, invested by sea only, is an unjustifiable encroachment on the right of neutrals. But it is not of this departure from principle—a departure which has received some sanction from practice—that we mean to complain. It is, that ports, not effectually blockaded by a force capable of completely investing them, have yet been declared in a state of blockade, and vessels attempting to enter therein have been seized, and, on that account, confiscated."

I have shown, from the correspondence, that the blockade of May, 1806, was the only one included in the demand of the Executive. I have shown that it is not only a violation of our neutral rights, but of the principles contended for by men of all political parties under every administration of this country; and I cannot but express my regret that the gentleman from New York should consider that, under the law of the last session, this blockade ought not to have been included in the demand of the Executive on Great Britain; that he should declare in the hearing of the British agent that demands had been made by the Executive of the United States which it would be extremely convenient for us if Great Britain would allow, but which she never could yield. The gentleman from New York has entered into an argument to show that the Berlin and Milan decrees are not repealed. We have just heard of the arrival of a French Minister; he has left France at a time to bring us certain information on this question. I have no wish to enter on this interesting question, with a bandage round my eyes. Whether France has complied with her engagements; whether France has failed in her engagements, cannot be a subject of ingenious speculation many days longer. Whatever may be the information received, I shall endeavor to adhere to what I deem the real interests of my country, and, so far as I am able, to maintain its rights against the unprincipled aggressions of every foreign nation.

I will now make a few observations on the bill before the House. It contains but a single section, and exempts from forfeiture goods owned wholly by citizens of the United States, which shall have departed from a British port prior to the second day of February, 1811. When the report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject of modifications of the non-intercourse system was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, it appeared to be the unanimous sentiment of the committee, that goods which had left a British port, before the President's proclamation reached the port, ought to be exempt from the penalty of the non-intercourse law, although they might not arrive until after the 2d day of February. It was considered not inconsistent with an honest compliance with our engagements with France, and seemed to be required by that general principle of policy which is adhered to in all free countries, of allowing sufficient notice to its citizens of the commencement of penalties and forfeitures. The bill for enforcing the non-intercourse system was reported with that limited provision. After the bill was printed various statements were received by the committee, all tending to show that the orders of our merchants were sent out in September and October; that, from the change in the actual state of commercial capital in this country, goods were at present purchased with cash, and not only became the property of our citizens under the orders of merchants sent before the President's proclamation issued, but were at the risk of the purchasers; that these goods were actually paid for before the President's proclamation issued; that they could not be brought in before the second day of February. The committee having previously decided that time ought to be allowed for the President's proclamation to reach a British port, and taking into view the great injury our own citizens would sustain from a rigorous construction of the law, determined to extend the time to the ultimate period at which a citizen could put his property on board without infringing the laws of his country. It is not supposed that the construction put upon the law is strictly within its letter—it is, however, perfectly within its object. It was designed to operate on the nation refusing to modify or withdraw its edicts. To give it a construction which would either confiscate property bona fide American, or lock it up in British ports, would be to destroy our own resources, and produce no effect on Great Britain. Under the sixth section of the law, it is not made unlawful to put on board British manufactures with the intent to import them, until the expiration of the three months after the proclamation; its being unlawful after that period depended on Great Britain's following the example of France and revoking her edicts; according, therefore, as the citizen was more or less sanguine, his interest might be more or less involved by supposing that Great Britain would withdraw. Orders sent previous to the issuing of the President's proclamation violated no existing law. Those sent afterwards cannot be considered as given in violation of law, inasmuch as the commencement of the law depended on a contingency, viz: the modification or withdrawal of the British orders. There is another circumstance which operated on the committee: The law of the last session was not considered by the committee as a plain rule of action which every citizen could clearly comprehend, and so arrange his affairs as to avoid its penalties. The fourth section of the act of last session revives certain sections of another act, on the happening of a certain event, three months after that event shall have been proclaimed by the President. This reviving section does not declare that on and after three months from the date of the President's proclamation there shall be non-intercourse, but that particular sections of a former non-intercourse law shall be revived. Each of the revived sections contain the words "20th of May next," and it has been made a question whether these words are revived as part of the sections. It is not supposed by me that such is a proper construction of the law. It is only stated for the purpose of showing that the law was not in that clear, decided form in which penal statutes ought to be enacted. In the construction given to the law, more regard was paid to its objects and principles than to its strict letter. And if, for the purpose of affording relief in cases peculiarly hard and operating on our own citizens exclusively, we have placed on the law a construction not warranted by its letter, I hope we shall be justified by the purity of the motives under which we have acted.

Mr. Emott explained.

Mr. Sturges said be was happy that he felt himself so situated that he could avoid that course of discussion upon the present occasion, so much reprobated by the honorable gentleman (Mr. Eppes) from Virginia. He said he should not undertake to enter into a discussion of our foreign relations, nor say much upon our restrictive system; that his friend from New York (Mr. Emott) had already done that fully and ably.

He said he was at present inclined to support the amendment proposed by the honorable gentleman, (Mr. Rhea, of Tennessee,) and if the words should be stricken out as proposed by that gentleman, (as one good turn deserved another,) he hoped he would be disposed to support a proposition, which he (Mr. S.) would then submit to the committee. If the committee should agree to strike out, Mr. S. would then propose to insert in lieu thereof, after the words "be it enacted" the following words, (which he read to the committee,) viz: "That an act entitled an act concerning the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes, passed May 1, 1810, be and the same is hereby repealed."

Mr. S. said he was inclined to favor the amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee on another ground. He was not willing to imply by any vote of his a recognition of the efficacy of the non-intercourse law, so called, which could not, in his opinion, upon any principle, have any operative force, until the 20th of May next. He flattered himself, if gentlemen would be so good as to attend to him, that he should be able to demonstrate to their satisfaction the truth of this position; and that the chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations, exercising his usual candor, would himself be satisfied. The law, passed March 1, 1809, contained a number of sections which went to prevent importations from Great Britain and France, and their dependencies. This law (containing a clause limiting its duration) was to expire at the end of the next session of Congress. The then next session of Congress ended the last of June, 1809. The law of March, 1809, therefore, then expired. The law of May 1st, 1810, enacted that certain sections of that of March, 1809, should be revived upon certain contingencies. Those sections, thus revived, are the 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 18th. Mr. S. then recurred to those sections, and read the third, which is as follows:

[The section was here read.]

Mr. S. said it was unnecessary to read the other sections to which he had referred, as the phraseology, as to the time when they were to take effect, was the same as in the section which he had read. He said it would not answer the purpose of gentlemen who held a different opinion from him, to argue in such a case as the present, from the intention of the Legislature. He said it was a principle, in construing penal statutes, to construe them strictly. But he said it was not necessary for him, in support of his position, to resort to this rule of construction. The words of these sections are explicit, and the meaning plain. They are revived in the law of May, 1810. They must be considered as revived in todidem verbis—as the whole of the sections are revived generally, it is not competent to say that one part of the section is revived, and not the other part. If they had been transcribed verbatim, and incorporated in the law of May, 1810, there could have been no question; and there can be no difference as to this point between that case, and reviving them without excepting any part. Mr. S. therefore concluded, that as the expressions in the sections referred to were, that they were to take effect the 20th of May next; and the law reviving them passed the 1st of May, 1810; that they cannot have any efficacy until the 20th of May, 1811. And he said the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Eppes,) in attending to this point, had implied his doubts upon it by saying, that as there might be doubts among lawyers, though among unlearned men there could be none, the Committee of Foreign Relations, in reporting the bill now under consideration, were disposed to give a liberal construction to the meaning of the Legislature. But, said Mr. S., this cannot help the matter. No new law, in the nature of an explanatory law, can give efficacy to the former one, if that law would otherwise have no force. If, then, he was correct in his ideas upon the subject, and he thought every lawyer in the House must be of his opinion, Mr. S. asked, what is the consequence? He said that, from the 2d of February, any seizures which have been or shall be made by your custom-house officers, cannot be considered as legal. Your Federal courts cannot condemn property so seized; and in case they are made, your State courts will sustain actions of trover and trespass in favor of the owners thereof against such officers.

Mr. Wright.—Mr. Chairman: The gentleman from New York (Mr. Emott) labored yesterday for three hours on his proposed amendment to the bill under consideration, and exercised all his ingenuity to seduce us into a violation of the faith of the nation, pledged in the act entitled "An act concerning the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France and their dependencies, and for other purposes." By this act the nation pledged itself to Great Britain and to France, "that if either of them should so revoke or modify their edicts that they should cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, that the President should, by proclamation, declare the same; and that, three months after the date of said proclamation, no goods, wares, or merchandise, the growth, produce, or manufacture of the other nation, her colonies or dependencies, should be imported into the United States." The Government, strictly preserving her neutral character, at the same moment presented to both nations the same proposition, and by the solemnity of that act, in the face of the world, pledged the faith of the nation to the faithful performance of the condition above stated, on their part to be performed, in the event of either Great Britain or France so revoking or modifying their edicts that they should cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States.

France, on the 5th of August, 1810, did so revoke her edicts that they should cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, after the second day of November; and, although the fact has been established by the letter of the Duke of Cadore, of the 5th of August, to General Armstrong, our Minister at Paris, and by him communicated to the President of the United States; and, although the President did, by his proclamation, bearing date the second of November, in obedience to the said act of Congress, declare "that the edicts of France violating the neutral commerce of the United States had been so revoked or modified, that, from and after the second day of November, they would cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States;" whereby, after the expiration of three months from the date of said proclamation, by virtue of the act aforesaid, "no goods, wares, or merchandise, the growth, produce, or manufacture of Great Britain, her colonies or dependencies, should be imported into the United States, unless she, before the expiration of that time, revoked her edicts." Yet, sir, this gentleman, to the bill on the table contemplating a faithful execution of the non-intercourse law against Great Britain, has proposed an amendment that "no vessel or merchandise shall be liable to seizure or forfeiture, on account of any infraction, or presumed infraction, of the provisions of the act to which this act is a supplement;" thereby substantially to repeal the non-intercourse act, although France has revoked her decrees, and Britain has refused to revoke her Orders in Council, and by the last information from our Minister in London, every spark of hope of their being revoked had been extinguished.

That gentleman, a representative of the American people, has proposed this direct breach of public faith, and as a pretext to the unprincipled act, has had the temerity to declare "that the President had no authority to issue his proclamation; that the assurances of France to our Government were deceptive; that the Berlin and Milan decrees were not revoked; and that the non-intercourse act is not in force;" and thus has arraigned the President for issuing his proclamation.

By the constitution, the Departments of the Government are distinctly marked, and the President authorized, as the legitimate organ, to discharge every function of the Executive. Besides, the non-intercourse act has expressly authorized and directed him, by proclamation, to declare the fact of the revocation or modification of the edicts which the belligerents were by that act invited to revoke.

As well might that gentleman question the legitimacy of a treaty after it had been ratified and declared by proclamation, or an act of Congress after it had passed the usual forms and been duly published. Sir, this act of the President, as to every fact stated, implies absolute verity, and, like any other record, can be tried only by itself.

Had the gentleman contented himself with the discharge of his legislative duties, and indulged the President in the exercise of his Executive functions, we should have been relieved from a long speech, calculated only to inculpate the President and expose the gentleman's devotion to Great Britain. How, I ask, could the President act a different part, from the evidence in the case? The Duke of Cadore, the French Minister of Foreign Relations at Paris, in writing, informed General Armstrong, the American Minister at that Court, on the fifth of August, "that he was authorized to declare to him, that the decrees of Berlin and Milan are revoked, and that after the first of November, they will cease to have effect; it being understood that, in consequence of this declaration, the English shall revoke their Orders in Council, and renounce the new principles of blockade which they have wished to establish, or, that the United States, conformably to the act you have just communicated, shall cause their rights to be respected by the English." General Armstrong immediately communicated it to the President, who, being thus in possession of the information, was not only authorized, but bound to issue this proclamation.

I would ask, if this diplomatic evidence, the established mode of communication between nations, is not to be received and respected, if national confidence is not destroyed, and an end put to all diplomatic intercourse? Was not the President, in good faith, bound to believe the fact, and, believing it, bound to act as he did?

Sir, if Great Britain had made the like communication through Lord Wellesley to Mr. Pinkney, and he to the President, who had, thereupon, issued his proclamation, what would have been the conduct and language of this gentleman and those who think with him in political opinion? They would, I have no doubt, been prepared to eulogize the President, and publicly approve the act. In this assertion I am not left to conjecture, but will prove it by the most unequivocal evidence, if the gentlemen are consistent with themselves. You will recollect that, by the act of the first of March, eighteen hundred and nine, interdicting the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their colonies and dependencies, after a certain period, unless they should so revoke or modify their edicts that they should cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, the President in the case of either power, so revoking or modifying their edicts, was authorized by proclamation to declare the same, whereby the interdictions were, as to the power so revoking, to be suspended, and in force only against the other; and I hope you never will forget the deep game that was played by Great Britain on that occasion, and the diplomatic trick that was practised on our Administration by Mr. Erskine's memorable treaty. The President then placed full faith in the act of the British Plenipotentiary, and, on the signing of that treaty which revoked the Orders in Council, immediately issued his proclamation, and thereby dissolved the commercial injunction, whereby Great Britain was supplied with the necessaries of her existence. Then the President acted promptly, as in the case of France; then he acted on the information of the British Minister as he did in the case of France on the information of the French Minister. Then the treaty revoking the Orders in Council was rejected by the British Government; but now, in the case of France, the revocation of her decrees is confirmed and carried into full effect. But the proclamation in the case of France is denounced by the gentleman from New York as neither formal, substantial, nor by authority, although by comparing it with the proclamation in the case of Great Britain, which I hold in my hand, it will be found formally and substantially a copy of it, varied only as to the Government to whose proceedings it relates. When I assure you that the President's proclamation in the case of Great Britain met with the approbation of the gentleman from New York and his political friends, you will feel surprised at their partiality; but, when you examine the resolution of the House of Representatives approbating the conduct of the President in that case, you will feel no doubt of the fact.

Sir, this gentleman has told us that the non-intercourse act is not in force, and that the American people will not submit to its execution, notwithstanding the revocation of the French decrees, the continuation of the British Orders in Council, and the President's proclamation. Whence does this gentleman derive the power of declaring an act of Congress not in force, declared by the President's proclamation to be in force? Or in what section of the Union does the gentleman presume to say the American people will not submit to the law? That that gentleman's speech was intended to sow sedition among the people, and to encourage insubordination to this law, is too obvious.

Sir, the decrees of France, now they are revoked, seem to be more obnoxious to that gentleman than the British Orders in Council, now in full force. He denounces the Emperor for the Rambouillet decree, issued the twenty-third of March, eighteen hundred and ten; which subjected the ships of America to condemnation entering the ports of France, which the Emperor declares was an act of retaliation; because Congress had by their act of March, eighteen hundred and nine, subjected the vessels of France to condemnation entering the ports of the United States, yet that gentleman, when speaking of the British blockading order of eighteen hundred and six, issued without even a pretext, which by proclamation without investment subjected our ships to condemnation entering the ports of France, says, "with respect to their Orders in Council I have nothing to say as to their justice or their policy." He is prepared to condemn France for her act of retaliation, but he is not prepared even to speak of Great Britain's new paper blockading system, much less to declare it unjust or impolitic; although Sir William Scott, in 1 Robinson's Rep. page 96, expressly declares, "that no vessel was liable to condemnation for entering a port alleged to be blockaded, unless it was invested by such a naval force as to make the entry therein hazardous."

Sir, I am no apologist for France—nor do I know how any American, particularly a member of Congress, can be the apologist for either, after France and England have both expressly admitted, that their Orders in Council and decrees were direct violations of the law of nations, and adopted from necessity, as a measure of retaliation against each other, and have each charged the other with the first aggressions on our neutral rights. On examining that subject, I find that England, by her Orders in Council of May, eighteen hundred and six, by proclamation had placed France in a state of blockade; that France in eighteen hundred and seven had placed the British isles in a like manner in a state of blockade; that England, by her Orders in Council of the eleventh of November, eighteen hundred and seven, laid a toll on neutral vessels, and made them pass through her ports; France, by her decree of the seventeenth of December, eighteen hundred and seven, declared the vessels submitting to that order denationalized, and lawful prize; so that by their new principle of blockade, and their unprincipled retaliations, the commerce of the United States was cut up by the roots. The American Government, anxious to preserve the remnant of the property of the American merchants, that had escaped the rapacity of the tyrant of the ocean, on the twenty-second of December, eighteen hundred and seven, passes the embargo law, which the seditious clamors of certain arch traitors in the Eastern States, the violation of the law by treason and cupidity, induced Congress on the first of March, eighteen hundred and nine, to repeal, and to pass the present non-intercourse law, continued, under which France has revoked her decrees of Berlin and Milan, and now expects us to fulfil the conditions which we voluntarily imposed on ourselves, in the event of either revoking their decrees.

Sir, while Great Britain finds such able advocates on this floor, she will find no necessity to redress our wrongs, but will wait the issue of our proceedings in Congress, to see if our remedial laws are not repealed, or our citizens excited to oppose their execution. But we ought not to be surprised at this, when we take a retrospective view of their conduct, their united and uniform opposition to the Administration for many years. They have reprobated every measure—Mr. Erskine's British treaty only excepted—and, as soon as that was rejected by the British Government, as being made contrary to instructions, our Administration was charged with making it, knowing that Mr. Erskine had no authority, and with seducing him to make it contrary to instructions. Afterwards, when Mr. F. J. Jackson, of Copenhagen memory, was sent over as a Minister, while his hands were yet stained with the innocent blood of the inhabitants of Copenhagen, and insulted the administration with the charge of making the treaty with Mr. Erskine, knowing that he had no authority to make it, and after the peremptory asseveration "that Government had no such knowledge, that with such knowledge no such arrangement would have been made," and "that no such insinuation could be admitted," he replied, "that he made no insinuation, without being able to substantiate a fact, and in that I must continue;" thereby persevering in the charge of falsehood in the Administration for which he was dismissed. Again our Government was expressly charged with knowing that Mr. Erskine had no authority, and with dismissing Mr. Jackson without any just cause; that his charge was true, and that in this the Government acted under the influence of France. In order to make such an impression on the public mind, Mr. Jackson is treated with uncommon attention. When he arrives at Baltimore he is surrounded by tories, royalists, Burrites, and British agents, and treated with great politeness—when he arrives in Philadelphia, he is overwhelmed by the civilities of refugees, tories, Burrites, and United States' Bank directors—when he arrives at New York, he is received with open arms by a set of beings of the same description, who invite him to a public dinner, and to test their attachment to the British Government treat him to "God save the King"—when he reaches Boston, there is great parade indeed; he is welcomed to the city by tories, traitors, disorganizers, and embargo-breakers, and Fanueil Hall, once the Council Chamber of the patriots of the Revolution, is prostituted to the disgraceful purpose of a public dinner to this disgraced Minister, and there we see a distinguished Senator of the United States testing his loyalty by the toast of "Britain's fast anchored isle, the world's last hope." After this hasty review of the past, we ought not to be surprised at any measures that may be taken against the Administration, when Great Britain is in the question.

Saturday, February 23.

Commercial Intercourse.

Mr. Milnor said: Mr. Chairman, when I take a view of the course which has been pursued in relation to this subject, during the present session, I confess I feel greatly surprised that we should be called upon to adopt the present measure. It will be recollected, sir, that, at a very early period, the honorable chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported a bill supplemental to the act of the 1st of May last. Although the gentleman did make one or two feeble attempts to call it up for consideration, yet it was manifest that there was a general indisposition to act upon it at that time. This, in the opinion of myself and many others, arose from a doubt in the good faith of the Emperor of the French. It was true that he had, through the Duke of Cadore, declared that the Berlin and Milan decrees were revoked on the 5th of August and that they should cease to have effect after the first of November; and it was also true that the President of the United States had, by his proclamation of the 2d of November, declared, not simply that this promise had been given, but that the decrees were revoked, and had ceased to operate. Notwithstanding this declaration of the President, the previous conduct of the French Emperor inspired an almost universal doubt of his good faith, and the curious character of the declaration made by Cadore, was calculated to increase it. The decrees of Berlin and Milan were revoked; that is, dead on the 5th of August, and ceased to have effect; that is, to live on the first of November; thus this creature had the wonderful faculty of being dead and alive at the same time; of ceasing to have effect, and acting with full vigor at the same instant. While all was doubt and hesitation, despatches were received from Mr. Russell, our Chargé d'Affaires at Paris, which made it apparent that the decrees which were to cease to have effect on the first of November, were, in the month of December, still in existence, and in full and practical operation. It is now evident that the President was duped by the French Emperor, and led to issue a proclamation on the faith of his promise, declaring a fact which did not exist. So convinced were the House that this was the true state of the case, that the honorable chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations himself moved to recommit the bill he had previously introduced, and it was done. What, then, I would ask, sir, has since occurred to alter the face of affairs, to induce this new attempt to fasten on the restrictive system against our intercourse with Great Britain? Is there any thing in the last communication from the President, calculated to produce such an effect? On the contrary, it furnishes the most conclusive evidence of the treachery of Bonaparte, and ought to serve as a beacon to warn us against trusting him further. It is true that there is a letter from Mr. Pinkney to Lord Wellesley, dated December 10th, in which the former labors to prove, that Cadore's note to Armstrong is an absolute repeal of the French decrees, without any conditions precedent, and that therefore the British Government ought to be satisfied of its validity, and take immediate measures for revoking their orders and blockades, agreeably to their promise. But, it unfortunately happened that, on the same day on which our Minister at London was performing his duty, in transmitting his able but theoretical argument to the British Ministry, our Minister at Paris was also performing his duty in remonstrating against the practical operation of those very decrees, which were to have ceased to have effect on the first of November. [Here Mr. M. read the letter of Mr. Russell to the Duke of Cadore, dated December 10th, remonstrating against the seizure of the brig New Orleans Packet, it being the only case, as declared by Mr. Russell, to which the decrees could be applied subsequent to the first of November.]

I recollect, sir, when Mr. Russell's correspondence was communicated to this House, an apology was set up for the French Emperor. It was alleged that the President's proclamation had not arrived in France at the time of the seizure of the New Orleans Packet, and that Bonaparte, having received no evidence of the intention of the American Government to fulfil their engagement, had used the precautionary measure of seizing the vessel, until he should receive some evidence of our good faith; and we were exultingly told that the President's proclamation would put all to rights, by satisfying his doubting Majesty of our sincerity, and would induce him to release all property seized subsequent to the first of November, and once more to put an end to those nine-lived decrees. How has this prediction been verified? The President's proclamation was communicated to the French Government on the 12th of December, two days after Mr. Russell's remonstrance; and yet, for any thing we know, that remonstrance remains unanswered, and the New Orleans Packet remains under seizure to this very day. It is true that, after waiting thirteen days, His Majesty condescended to direct the partial suspension of the decrees, thereby giving the most positive proof not only of their existence, but of their active operation. On the 25th of December, the Dukes of Massa and of Gaete, by the direction of their master, severally wrote a letter to the officers connected with their respective departments, directing them to suspend the operation of those very decrees, so far as respected the condemnation of vessels and cargoes seized after the first of November; not only those then in custody, but such as should thereafter be seized. I will read a part of those letters for the purpose of refreshing the memories of gentlemen on the subject. The Duke of Massa writes to the President of the Council of Prizes as follows: "In consequence of this engagement entered into by the Government of the United States, to cause their rights to be respected, His Majesty orders that all the causes that may be pending in the Council of Prizes, of captures of American vessels, made after the first of November, and those that may in future be brought before it, shall not be judged according to the principles of the decrees of Berlin and Milan, but that they shall remain suspended; the vessels captured or seized to remain only in a state of sequestration, and the rights of the proprietors being reserved for them until the 2d February next, the period at which, the United States having fulfilled the engagement to cause their rights to be respected, the said captures shall be declared null by the Council—and the American vessels restored, together with their cargoes, to the proprietors." The letter of the Duke of Gaete is of a similar import. I will read a single paragraph, which is as follows: "His Majesty having seen in these two pieces" (the President's proclamation and Gallatin's circular to the collectors) "the enunciation of the measures which the Americans purpose taking on the second of February next, to cause their rights to be respected, has ordered me to inform you that the Berlin and Milan decrees must not be applied to any American vessels that have entered our ports since the first of November, or may enter in future; and that those which have been sequestered, as being in contravention of these decrees, must be the object of a special report."

Here, sir, we find these two officers, by direction of their master, explicitly recognizing the existence of the Berlin and Milan decrees, and suspending their operation not as to sequestration, but only as to condemnation. Not only those which had arrived after the first of November, but those which should thereafter arrive, were to be held in a state of sequestration, and to be subject to a special report. With this plain statement before their eyes, will gentlemen assert, can they possibly believe, that the decrees were revoked and ceased to have effect on the first of November? They surely cannot. If, then, the declaration of the fifth of August is proved to be false, and the assurance that the decrees should cease to have effect after the first of November was mere delusion, what becomes of the act of the first of May, and of the President's proclamation? Sir, they are mere dead letters, having no binding force or operation. The practical operation of the act of the first of May was to depend upon the performance of certain conditions on the part of one or the other of the belligerents, and the President's proclamation was intended as a mere notification of such performance. Admitting, then, that a faithful performance of the pledge of the fifth of August, on the part of France, would have had a binding force on us to carry our part of the agreement into effect, can any man under the existing circumstances believe we are so bound? Can a violation of a solemn pledge confer an obligation which was only intended to be created on the complete fulfilment of that pledge? Surely not. Sir, the law of the first of May, professed, on the face of it, to be impartial towards the two nations who have violated our rights. It promised that, if either would so revoke or modify her edicts as that they should cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, in that case certain restrictive measures should be revived against the other. Have either complied? France did, indeed, make a declaration that her edicts were revoked, and should cease to have effect on a certain day. That day has long since passed, and, for any thing we know, those edicts are in full operation. Nay, we have positive proof of their active existence, nearly two months after they were to have ceased; for, on the 25th of December, their operation as to the condemnation of American property was suspended, while their power to sequester was absolutely recognized and continued. With such glaring, such positive proof before our eyes, of the perfidy of France, we are about to act as though we believed she had performed her promise with the utmost good faith. Nay, more, sir; if she had, indeed, complied with her engagement, she could require nothing more of us than the act of the 1st of May last; that was the full amount of our engagement, the utmost limit of our bond. Upon, and in consequence of that, was the Emperor's promise founded. Yet we are not satisfied with that; persisting, in the face of the most positive and conclusive testimony to the contrary, to affect to believe that he has performed his promise, we are going beyond our contract; and, lest some doubts should arise of the Emperor's want of faith, lest our courts should decide, as they must decide, that the decrees being still in force, the act of the first of May is a mere dead letter, we are about to volunteer our services, and, by the section of the bill now under consideration, to revive those sections of the old non-intercourse law which were intended in a certain event to have been revived by the act of the first of May; to revive them against Great Britain, and that without exacting any conditions on the part of France. And must this sacrifice be made in order to bolster up the President's proclamation so prematurely issued? Must the best interests of the nation be put to hazard to save him the mortification of acknowledging his error and retracing his steps? Here, I fear, lies the true motive for our present procedure.

This restrictive system is now to be revived against England, the French decrees being in full force and operation against us at the same time. Is this an honest neutrality? Is it equal and exact justice to those two nations? Is it not rewarding the perfidy of the one at the expense of the other, and at the expense of ourselves? Let us be cautious how we proceed in this course. If France choose, in consequence of our non-intercourse law of 1809, which was equal in its operation as to both nations, to take it so much in dudgeon as to confiscate the whole of the American property within her power, even that which had sought the rights of hospitality in her ports, how much more may Great Britain feel herself justified in retaliating on this most partial and unjust measure which we are about to adopt against her, by confiscating the millions of our property now within her power. And if we have been silent under the former, and have apparently acquiesced in it, what shall we, what can we, say, in case the latter event should take place? But, sir, the apologists of France tell us that His Majesty, the Emperor, has pledged his royal word that the decrees shall cease to operate as it respects us; and that, though he has thought proper to postpone the measure from the first of November to the second of February, he has only done so in order to ascertain whether we mean to go on to fulfil our engagements with good faith; that he is only holding our property seized since the first of November as security for our performance; and that, when he finds we are determined to resist the illegal orders and blockades of Great Britain, he will give up the property of our citizens. How insulting, this, to American feelings, to be told that a total violation of faith on the part of this man is excusable, because he chooses to suspect our faith. But, sir, do these people really believe the property of our citizens will be given up after the second of February, and in consequence of the measure we are now about to adopt? When did that voracious monster ever disgorge the plunder he had once received into his insatiable maw? Of the millions upon millions of which he has, at different times, and under various pretexts, plundered our unsuspecting citizens, where is the instance of a single dollar returning to its rightful owner? No, sir, let it once get within his iron grasp, and it is lost forever. The present measure is evidently intended as a propitiatory sacrifice to conciliate Napoleon—to induce him to become our friend, and to cease to rob and plunder our defenceless citizens. Is it calculated to produce this effect? Short-sighted as we confessedly are, sir, I should suppose we can scarcely be such silly politicians as to expect such an effect from such a measure. A brief view of the course which has been pursued, and is pursuing, by the Emperor of France, must produce a conviction in every unprejudiced mind, that he is not to be diverted from his purpose by a toy like this. Sir, it must be evident to every mind that his ambition soars to universal conquest. To this point all his measures tend—every other consideration is made to yield. For the accomplishment of this object, almost every nation on the Continent of Europe has been insulted, plundered, and subdued. To this end the external commerce of the continent has been annihilated, the agricultural and manufacturing interests have been depressed, and millions of his own subjects, and those of nations under his influence, impoverished and ruined. But there is one impediment to his gigantic project. Britain, proud, haughty Britain, stands in the way, and puts a stop to his career. Isolated, as she happily is, and the proud mistress of the ocean, she presents an impenetrable barrier to his ambitious views. But Britain must be humbled, she must be subdued. Her power on the ocean must be destroyed; and, to effect this, she must be attacked through her commerce and manufactures. For this purpose, what he is pleased to call his great continental system has been devised and rigorously enforced. Finding that all his restrictions and confiscations, aided by all his civil and military power, could not prevent the introduction of British merchandise upon the continent, he has resorted to a plan which promises to be more effectual. Regardless of the rights and interests of his subjects, he does not inquire whose the property may be; if it is of British origin it is committed to the flames. Such is his plan; such are the efforts and sacrifices he is making to insure its accomplishment. And yet, Mr. Chairman, it would seem as if we had the consummate folly to believe that we can appease this merciless tyrant by so weak, so silly, so futile a measure as this one now under consideration. We seem to have the madness to believe that this man, after the immense sacrifices he has made for the attainment of his object, would yield that object in our favor, and in order to be upon friendly terms with us would forego all other considerations. And from what premises is such a conclusion drawn? Is it from his past treatment of us? Let us, Mr. Chairman, take a brief review of his past conduct towards us, in order to see what we may expect in future. It is some years since he ordered our ships and cargoes to be burned upon the ocean, and many were burnt. He has, at various terms, and under different pretexts, seized and confiscated the property of our citizens on the ocean, and in his ports, and in the ports of his vassals. No longer ago than last spring, he told us that we were without just political views, without honor, without energy; and that, after refusing to fight for honor, we might find it necessary to fight for interest. This insulting declaration, which was dated on the 14th of February, was followed on the 23d of March by the Rambouillet decree, which confiscated all American vessels and cargoes which had arrived from the 20th of May, 1809, or should thereafter arrive in any port of France, her allies, or those occupied by her arms. Thus was from twenty to thirty millions of the property of our unsuspecting and confiding citizens, who had sought the rights of hospitality in his ports, sacrificed without a pretext, or with a pretext which added to the injury. Finding, after this gross violation of every principle which ought to govern honest and honorable nations, that our merchants, taught by sad experience that there was no safety within the range of his power, would venture there no more, he found it necessary to throw out another lure to entice the unwary within his reach. His tone is now suddenly changed. Instead of the haughty and insulting tyrant, he assumes the shape of a fond and doating lover. "His Majesty loves the Americans. Their prosperity and their commerce are within the scope of his policy. He is pleased in aggrandizing the United States." Yes, truly, His Majesty loves the Americans! If not for our persons, yet for our property, he has given the most ample and convincing proofs of his love. These sugared words, displaying so much of the milk of human kindness, seem to have perfectly reconciled us to his loving Majesty, and to have quite obliterated the remembrance of his harsh and unkind language so lately used towards us. And not only so, but it seems to have fully compensated us for all his robberies; and we forbear to touch that string, lest he might be somewhat ruffled, and once more induced to vent his anger on us. But lest his bare professions of love should not have the desired effect of inducing the Americans once more to place their property within his power, he directed his Minister to declare that the Berlin and Milan decrees were revoked, and should cease to have effect after the first of November. Our Administration, confiding in his assurances, in the face of all his previous conduct, published the proclamation of the second of November, and thereby assisted in deceiving our too credulous citizens. But few, however, ventured to place trust in him; and those who did, have met with a fate which every man of reflection ought to have anticipated. If, sir, such has been the course of that man's conduct towards us, (and that it has, I appeal to all the documents which have been laid before us,) I would ask why are we called upon to pass the section now under consideration? To me, it is matter of mystery and astonishment.

Monday, February 25.

Commercial Intercourse.

The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business of Saturday last, to wit, the bill supplementary to the act entitled "An act concerning the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes," and the amendments reported thereto by the Committee of the whole House. The said amendments were read at the clerk's table.

Mr. Quincy.—Mr. Speaker: The amendments contained in the sections under consideration, contemplate the continuance and enforcement of the non-intercourse law. This proposition presents a great, an elevated and essential topic of discussion, due to the occasion, and claimed by this people, which comprehends within the sphere and analogies of just argument, the chief of those questions, the decision of which, at this day, involves the peace, the happiness, and honor of this nation. Whatever has a tendency to show, that if the system of non-intercourse exist, it ought not to be continued; or, that if it do not exist, it ought not to be revived; whatever has a tendency to prove, that we are under no obligation to persist in it, nor under any obligation to abandon it, is now within the fair range of debate.

After long delay, and much coy demeanor, the Administration of this country have condescended to develop their policy. Though they have not spoken to our mortal ears, with their fleshly tongues, yet they have whispered their purposes through the constituted organs of this House. And these are the features of the policy which they recommend: it is proposed to grant particular and individual relief from anticipated oppressions of the commercial restrictive system. It is proposed to perpetuate that system, indefinitely, and leave our citizens, still longer, subject to its embarrassments, its uncertainty and its terrors. The chairman of our Committee of Foreign Relations, (Mr. Eppes,) at the time he introduced these amendments to the House, exhibited the true character of this policy, when he told us that it was "modelled upon the principle not to turn over to the Judiciary the decision of the existence of the non-intercourse law, but to make it the subject of legislative declaration." In other words, it is found that the majority of this House have too much policy to deny, and too much principle to assert, that the fact, on which, and on which alone, the President of the United States was authorized to issue his proclamation of the second of November last, has occurred. A scheme has, therefore, been devised, by which, without any embarrassment on this intricate point, the continuance and enforcement of non-intercourse may be insured, and toils, acceptable to France, woven by the hands of our own Administration, spread over almost the only remaining avenue of our commercial hope.

The proposition, contained in these amendments, has relation to the most momentous and most elevated of our legislative obligations. We are not, now, about to discuss the policy by which a princely pirate may be persuaded to relinquish his plunder; nor yet the expectation entertained of relaxation, in her belligerent system, of a haughty, and perhaps jealous rival; nor yet the faith which we owe to a treacherous tyrant; nor yet the fond, but frail hopes of favors from a British regency, melting into our arms, in the honeymoon of power. The obligations which claim our observance are of a nature much more tender and imperious; the obligations which, as Representatives, we owe to our constituents; the allegiance by which we are bound to the American people; the obedience which is due to that solemn faith, by which we are pledged to protect their peace, their prosperity, and their honor. All these high considerations are materially connected with this policy.

It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to dilate on the general nature and effects of this commercial restrictive system. It is no longer a matter of speculation. We have no need to resort for illustration of its nature to the twilight lustre of history, nor yet to the vibrating brightness of human intellect. We have experience of its effects. They are above, around, and beneath us. They paralyze the enterprise of your cities. They sicken the industry of your fields. They deprive the laborer and the mechanic of his employment. They subtract from the husbandman and planter the just reward for that product which he has moistened with the sweat of his brow. They crush individuals, in the ruins of their most flattering hopes, and shake the deep-rooted fabric of general prosperity.

It will, however, be necessary to say a word on the general nature of this system. Not so much for the purpose of elucidating, as to clear the way, and give distinctness to the course of my argument. It will also be useful to deprive the advocates of this system of those colors and popular lures, to which they resort, on a subject in no way connected with the objects with which they associate it.

My argument proceeds upon the assumption of the irrelevancy of four topics, usually adduced in support of the system contained in the law of May, 1810, and of March, 1809; commonly called the non-intercourse system. I take for granted that it is not advantageous; in other words, that it is injurious; that it is not fiscal in its nature; nor protective of manufactures; nor competent to coerce either belligerent. That it is injurious is certain, not only because it is deprecated by that part of the community which it directly affects, but because no man advocates it as a permanent system, and every one declares his desire to be rid of it. Fiscal it cannot be, because it prohibits commerce, and consequently revenue; and by the high price and great demand for foreign articles, which it produces, encourages smuggling. Protective of manufactures it cannot be, because it is indiscriminate in its provisions and uncertain in its duration; and this uncertainty depends, not on our legislative discretion, but on the caprice of foreign powers; our enemies, or rivals. No commercial system, which is indiscriminate in its restrictions, can be generally protective to manufactures. It may give a forced vivacity to a few particular manufactures. But in all countries, some, and in this almost all manufactures, depend, either for instruments or subjects, on foreign supply. But, if this were not the case, a system, whose continuance depended upon the will or the ever variant policy of foreign nations, can never offer such an inducement to the capitalist, as will encourage him to make extensive investments, in establishments resting on such precarious foundations. As to the incompetency of this system to coerce either belligerent, I take that for granted, because no man, as far as I recollect, ever pretended it; at least no man ever did show, by any analysis, or detailed examination of its relative effects on us, and either belligerent, that it would necessarily coerce either out of that policy which it was proposed to counteract. Embargo had its friends. There were those who had a confidence in its success. But who was ever the friend of non-intercourse? Who ever pretended to believe in its efficacy? The embargo had a known origin, and the features of its character were distinct. But "where, and what was this execrable shape—if shape it may be called, which shape has none?" We all know that the non-intercourse was not the product of any prospective intelligence. It was the result of the casual concurrence of chaotic opinions. It was agreed upon, because the majority could agree upon nothing else. They who introduced it, abjured it. They who advocated it, did not wish, and scarcely knew its use. And now that it is said to be extended over us, no man, in this nation, who values his reputation, will take his Bible oath that it is in effectual and legal operation. There is an old riddle on a coffin, which I presume we all learned when we were boys, that is as perfect a representation of the origin, progress, and present state of this thing, called non-intercourse, as is possible to be conceived.

True it is, that if this non-intercourse shall ever be, in reality, extended over us, the similitude will fail, in a material point. The poor tenant of the coffin is ignorant of his state. But the poor people of the United States will be, literally, buried alive in non-intercourse; and realize the grave closing on themselves and their hopes with a full and cruel consciousness of all the horrors of their condition.

For these reasons, I put all such common-place topics out of the field of debate. This, then, is the state of my argument; that as this non-intercourse system is not fiscal, nor protective of manufactures, nor competent to coerce, and is injurious, it ought to be abandoned, unless we are bound to persist in it, by imperious obligations. My object will be to show that no such obligations exist; that the present is a favorable opportunity, not to be suffered to escape, totally to relinquish it; that it is time to manage our own commercial concerns, according to our own interest; and no longer put them into the keeping of those who hate or those who envy their prosperity; that we are the constituted shepherds, and ought no more to transfer our custody to the wolves.

It is agreed, on all sides, that it is desirable to abandon this commercial restrictive system. But the advocates of the measure now proposed, say that we cannot abandon it, because our faith is plighted. Yes, sir, our faith is plighted; and that, too, to that scrupulous gentleman, Napoleon; a gentleman so distinguished for his own regard of faith; for his kindness and mercies towards us; for angelic whiteness of moral character; for overweening affection for the American people and their prosperity. Truly, sir, it is not to be questioned, but that our faith should be a perfect work towards this paragon of purity. On account of our faith, plighted to him, it is proposed to continue this non-intercourse.

But, Mr. Speaker, we may be allowed, I presume, to inquire whether any such faith be plighted. I trust we are yet freemen. We are not yet so far sunk in servility, that we are forbidden to examine into the grounds of our national obligations. Under a belief that this is permitted, I shall enter upon the task, and inquire whence they arise and what is their nature.

Whence they arise is agreed. Our obligations result, if any exist, under the act of May the first, 1810, called "An act concerning the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes." It remains, therefore, to inquire into the character of this act, and the obligations arising under its provisions.

Before, however, I proceed, I would premise, that whether I shall obtain, I am doubtful, but I am sure that the nature of my argument deserves, the favor and prepossession for its success, of every member in the House. My object is to show, that the obligation which we owe to the people of the United States, is a free and unrestricted commerce. The object of those who advocate these measures is to show that the obligation we owe to Napoleon Bonaparte, is a commerce restricted and enslaved. Now, as much as our allegiance is due more to the people of the United States than it is to Napoleon Bonaparte, just so much ought my argument to be received by the American Congress, with more favor and prepossession than the argument of those who advocate these measures. It is my intention to make my course of reasoning as precise and distinct as possible. Because I invite scrutiny, I contend for my country according to my conscientious conceptions of its best interests. If there be fallacy, detect it. My invitation is given to generous disputants. As to your stump orators, who utter low invective and mistake it for wit, and gross personality, and pass it off for argument, I descend not to their level; nor recognize their power to injure; nor even to offend.

Whatever obligations are incumbent upon this nation, in consequence of the act of the first of May, 1810, they result from the following section: "And be it further enacted, That in case either Great Britain or France shall, before the third day of March next, so revoke or modify her edicts as that they shall cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, which fact the President of the United States shall declare by proclamation, and if the other nation shall not, within three months thereafter, so revoke or modify her edicts, in like manner, then the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eighteenth sections of the act, entitled 'An act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes,' shall, from and after the expiration of three months from the date of the proclamation aforesaid, be revived and have full force and effect, so far as relates to the dominions, colonies, and dependencies of the nation thus refusing or neglecting to revoke or modify her edicts in manner aforesaid. And the restrictions imposed by this act shall, from the date of such proclamation, cease and be discontinued in relation to the nation revoking or modifying her decrees, in the manner aforesaid."

Divested of technical expression, this is the abstract form of this section. It provides that a new commercial condition shall result, on the occurrence of a specified fact; which fact the President shall declare. On this state of the subject I observe that nothing in the act indicates whether the object of the United States, in providing for this eventual commercial condition, was its own benefit, convenience, or pleasure; or whether it was in the nature of a proffer to foreign nations. It will, however, be agreed on all sides, that the object was either the one or the other. If the object were our own benefit, convenience, or pleasure, it will not be pretended that we are under any obligation to continue the system. For that which was adopted, solely for either of these ends, may, whenever our views concerning them vary, be abandoned; it being the concern of no other. But it is said that the act was, in truth, a proffer to the two belligerents, of commerce to the obsequious nation, prohibition of commerce to the contumacious nation. If this were the case, I shall agree, for the sake of argument, that it ought to be fulfilled to the full extent of the terms. But inasmuch as there is, in the terms of the act, no indication of such a proffer, it follows that its nature must arise from the circumstances of the case; and that the whole of the obligation, whatever it is, grows out of an honorable understanding, and nothing else. As such, I admit, it should be honorably fulfilled. The nature of this proffer is that of a proposition upon terms. Now what I say is, and it is the foundation of my argument, that whoever claims an honorable compliance with such a proposition, must be able to show, on his part, an honorable acceptance and fulfilment of the terms. The terms our act proposed were—an act to be done; an effect to be produced. The act to be done was, the revocation or modification of the edicts. The effect to be produced was that this revocation or modification should be such as that these edicts should "cease to violate our neutral commerce." Now the questions which result are, has the act been done? If done, has it been so done as to amount to an honorable fulfilment or acceptance of our terms? The examination of these two points will explain the real situation of these United States, and the actual state of their obligations.

In considering the question whether the fact of revocation, or modification, has occurred, it is unfortunate that it does involve, at least in popular estimation, the propriety of the proclamation, issued on the second of November last, by the President of the United States. I regret, as much as any one, that such is the state of things, that the question, whether a foreign despot has done a particular act, seems necessarily to be connected with the question concerning the prudence and perspicacity with which our own Chief Magistrate has done another act. I say in popular estimation these subjects seem so connected. I do not think that, in the estimation of wise and reflecting men, they are necessarily thus connected. For the fact might not have occurred precisely in the form contemplated by the act of May, 1810, and yet the President of the United States, in issuing his proclamation, might be either justifiable or excusable. It might be justifiable. A power intrusted to a politician to be used on the occurrence of a particular event, for the purpose of obtaining a particular end, he may sometimes be justifiable in using, in a case which may not be precisely that originally contemplated. It may be effectually, though not formally, the same. It may be equally efficient in attaining the end. In such a case a politician never will, and perhaps ought not to hesitate at taking the responsibility, which arises from doing the act in a case not coming within the verbal scope of his authority. Thus, in the present instance. The President of the United States might have deemed the terms, in the letter of the Duke of Cadore, such as gave a reasonable expectation of acceptance on the part of Great Britain. He has taken the responsibility. He has been deceived. Neither Great Britain accepts the terms, nor France performs her engagements. The proclamation might thus have been wise, though unfortunate in its result. And as to excuse, will it be said that there is nothing of the sort in this case? Why, sir, our Administration saw the Great Napoleon, according to his own confession, over head and ears in love with the American people. At such a sight as this, was it to be expected of flesh and blood that they should hesitate to plunge into a sea of bliss, and indulge in joy with such an amorous Cyprian?

But, whether the fact has occurred, on which alone this proclamation could have legally issued, is a material inquiry and cannot be evaded, let it reach where or whom it will. For with this is connected the essential condition of this country; on this depends the multiplied rights of our fellow-citizens, whose property has been or may be seized or confiscated under this law: and hence result our obligations, if any, as is pretended, exist. It is important here to observe, that, according to the terms of the act of May 1, 1810, the law of March 1, 1809, revives on the occurrence of the fact required, and not on the proclamation issued. If the fact had not occurred, the proclamation is a dead letter, and no subsequent performance of the required fact, by either belligerent, can retroact so as to give validity to the previous proclamation. The course required by the act of the 1st of May, 1810, unquestionably is, that the fact required to be done should be precedent, in point of time, to the right accruing to issue the proclamation; and of consequence that, by no construction, can any subsequent performance of the fact required operate backward to support a proclamation issued previous to the occurrence of that fact? Whenever this fact is really done, a new proclamation is required to comply with the provisions of the act, and to give efficacy to them.

I am the more particular in referring to this necessary construction, resulting from the terms of the act of the first of May last, because it is very obvious that a different opinion did until very lately, and probably does now, prevail on this floor. We all recollect what a state of depression the conduct of Bonaparte in seizing our vessels, subsequent to the first of November, produced, as soon as it was known in this House, and what a sudden joy was lighted up in it, when the news of the arrival of a French Minister was communicated. Great hopes were entertained and expressed, that he would bring some formal revocation of his edicts, or disavowal of the seizures which might retroact and support the proclamation. It was confidently expected that some explanation, at least of these outrages, would be contained in his portmanteau; that under his powder-puff, or in his snuff box, some dust would be found to throw into the eyes of the American people, which might so far blind the sense, as to induce them to acquiesce in the enforcement of the non-intercourse, without any very scrupulous scrutiny into the performance of the conditions by Bonaparte. But, alas! sir, the Minister is as parsimonious as his master is voracious. He has not condescended to extend one particle, not one pinch of comfort to the Administration. From anything in the Messages of our President, it would not be so much as known that such a blessed vision, as was this new Envoy, had saluted his eyes. His communications preserve an ominous silence on the topic. Administration, after all their hopes, have been compelled to resort to the old specific, and have caused to be tipped upon our tables a cart-load of sand, grit, and sawdust, from our metaphysical mechanic, who seesaws at St. James', as they pull the wire here in Washington. Yes, sir, a letter written on the tenth day of December last, by our Minister in London, is seriously introduced to prove, by abstract reasoning, that the Berlin and Milan decrees had ceased to exist on the first of the preceding November, of whose existence, as late as the 25th of last December, we have, as far as the nature of things permit, ocular, auricular, and tangible demonstration. And the people of this country are invited to believe the logic of Mr. Pinkney in the face of the fact of a continued seizure of all the vessels which came within the grasp of the French custom-house, from the first of November, down to the date of our last accounts; and, in defiance of the declaration of our Chargé d'Affaires, made on the 10th of December, that "it will not be pretended that the decrees have in fact been revoked," and in utter discredit of the allegation of the Duke of Massa, made on the 25th of the same month, which, in effect, declares the Berlin and Milan decrees exist, by declaring "that they shall remain suspended." After such evidence as this, the question whether a revocation or modification of the edicts of France has so occurred "as that they cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States," does no longer depend upon the subtleties of syllogistic skill, nor is to be disproved by any power of logical illation. It is an affair of sense and feeling. And our citizens, whose property has been, since the first of November, uniformly seized, and of which they are avowedly to be deprived three months, and which is then only to be returned to them on the condition of good behavior, may as soon be made to believe, by the teaching of philosophy, that their rights are not violated, as a wretch, writhing under the lash of the executioner, might be made by a course of reasoning to believe, that the natural state of his flesh was not violated, and that his shoulders, out of which blood was flowing at every stroke, were in the quiet enjoyment of cuticular ease.

Whether the revocation expressed in the letter of the Duke of Cadore, was absolute or conditional, or whether the conditions were precedent or subsequent, in the present state of our evidence, it seems scarcely important to inquire. Yet the construction of that celebrated passage, in his letter of the 5th of August, has been, as I have ever seen, given so much in the manner of lawyers, and so little in that of statesmen, that it deserves a short elucidation; how much the words "it being understood that," in their particular position are worth; and whether they have the effect of a condition precedent, or of a condition subsequent. A statesman will look at the terms contained in that letter in a different aspect, not for the purpose of ascertaining how much a court of law might be able to make of them, as to discern in what position of language the writer intended to intrench himself, and to penetrate his real policy, notwithstanding the veil in which he chose to envelope it. He will consider the letter in connection with the general course of French policy, and the particular circumstances which produced it. By these lights, it is scarcely possible to mistake the character and true construction of these expressions. Upon recurring to the Berlin and Milan decrees, it will be found that they contain a solemn pledge, that "they shall continue to be rigorously in force, as long as that (the English) Government does not return to the principle of the law of nations." Their determination to support this pledge, the French Government has uniformly and undeviatingly declared. They have told us constantly that they require a previous revocation on the part of Great Britain, as the condition of their rescinding those edicts. The question who should first revoke their edicts had come to be, notoriously, a sort of point of honor between the two belligerents. Perfectly acquainted with this state of things, we have been perpetually negotiating between the one and the other, and contending with each that it was his duty previously to revoke. At length the French Government, either tired with our solicitations, or more probably, seeing their own advantage in our anxiety to get rid of these decrees, which yet, as an essential part of its continental system of total commercial exclusion it never intended to abandon, devised this scheme of policy, which has been the source of so much contest, and has puzzled all the metaphysicians in England and the United States. Cadore is directed to say to Mr. Armstrong: "In this new state of things I am authorized to declare to you, sir, that the decrees of Berlin and Milan are revoked, and that after the first of November they will cease to have effect; it being understood that, in consequence of this declaration, the English shall revoke their Orders in Council, and renounce the new principles of blockade which they have wished to establish; or that the United States, conformably to the act you have just communicated, shall cause their rights to be respected by the English." In this curious gallimaufry of time present and time future, of doing and refraining to do, of declaration and understanding, of English duties and American duties, it is easy to trace the design, and see its adaptation to the past and present policy of the French Emperor. The time present was used, because the act of the United States required that previously to the proclamation the edicts "shall be" revoked. And this is the mighty mystery of time present being used, in expressing an act intended to be done in time future. For if, as the order of time, and the state of intention indicated, time future had been used, and the letter of Cadore had said the decrees shall be revoked on the first of November next, then the proclamation could not be issued, because the President would be obliged to wait to have evidence that the act had been effectually done. Now as the French Emperor never intended that it should be effectuated, and yet meant to have all the advantage of an effectual deed without performing it, this notable scheme was invented. And, by French finesse, and American acquiescence, a thing is considered as effectually done, if the declaration that it is done be made in language of time present, notwithstanding the time of performance is in the same breath declared to be in time future. Having thus secured the concurrence of the American administration, the next part of the scheme was so to arrange the expression that either the British Government should not accede, or if it did accede, that it should secure to France the point of honor—a previous revocation by the British; and if they did not accede, that there should be a color for seizures and sequestrations, and thus still further to bind the Americans over to their good behavior. All this is attained by this well-devised expression "it being understood that, in consequence of this declaration, the English shall revoke."

Now, Great Britain either would accede to the terms, or she would not. If she did, and did it as the terms required, in consequence of this declaration, then it must be done previous to the first of November, and then the point of honor was saved to France; so that thus France, by a revocation verbally present, effectually future, would attain an effectual previous revocation from the English. But if, as France expected Great Britain would not trust in such paper security, and therefore not revoke, previously to the first of November, then an apology might be found for France, to justify her in refusing to effectuate that present, future, and absolute, conditional revocation. And if ever the Duke of Cadore shall condescend, which it is probable he never will, to reason with our Government on the subject, he may tell them that they knew that the French Emperor had issued those decrees, upon the pledge that they were to continue until the British abandoned their maritime principles; that he told us, over, and over, and over again, that previous revocation by the British was absolutely required; that for the purpose of putting to trial the sincerity of the British, he had indeed declared that the French decrees "are revoked," on the first day of November ensuing; but then it was on the expressed condition that in consequence of that declaration, not of the revocation, but of that declaration, the British were to revoke, and, if they did not, the "understanding" was not realized; and his rights of enforcing his system remained to him. And I confess I do not well see what answer can be made to such an argument. Let us examine the case in common life. You, Mr. Speaker, have two separate tracts of land, each lying behind the farms of A and B, so that you cannot get to one of the tracts, without going over the farm of A, nor to the other tract without going over the farm of B. For some cause or other, both A and B have a mutual interest that you should enjoy the right of passage to your tract, over the farm of each respectively. A and B get into quarrels and wish to involve you in the dispute. You keep aloof, but are perpetually negotiating with each for your old right of passage-way, and telling each that it is owing to him that the other prohibits your enjoyment of it. At last A says "Come. We will put this B to trial. I on this fifth day of August, declare my prohibitions of passage-way are revoked, and, after the first day of November, my prohibitions shall cease to have effect; but, it is understood that B, in consequence of this declaration, shall also revoke his prohibition of passage-way." If B refuses, does A, under the circumstances of such a declaration, violate any obligation, should he refuse to permit the passage? Might not A urge with great color and force of argument, that this arrangement was the effect of your solicitation and assurance that B would be tempted by such a proffer, and that the revocation of B was required, by the terms, to be the consequence of A's declaration, for the very purpose of indicating that it must be anterior to the fact of A's effectual revocation? But let this be as it will; suppose that you, on the first of November, in consequence of A's assurance, had sent your servants and teams to bring home your products, and A should seize your oxen, and teams and products, and drive your servants, after having stripped them, from his farm, and should tell you, that he should keep this, and all other property of yours, on which he can lay his hands, for three months, and then he should restore it to you, or not, as he saw fit, according to his opinion of your good behavior. I ask, if, in any sense, you could truly say that on the first day of November the prohibitions or edicts of A were so revoked, that they ceased to violate your liberty of passage? Sir, when viewed in relation to common life, the idea is so absurd, that it would be absolutely abusive to ask the question. I refer the decision of so simple a case to the sound sense of the American people, and not to that of "scurvy politicians, who seem to see the things they do not." In a condensed form my argument is this. From a revocation merely verbal, no obligations result. By the terms of our act the revocation must be effectual, "so as the edict shall cease to violate our rights." Now the simple question is, whether a uniform seizure, since the first of November, under those edicts (for none other are pretended) of all their property, and holding it for three months, to see how they will behave, be or be not a violation of the rights of the American people? In relation to the revival by a formal declaration of the non-intercourse system, as is proposed in one of these sections, I offer this argument: Either the fact, on which the President's proclamation could alone have been issued, has occurred or it has not. If it has occurred, then the law of March, 1809, is revived, and this provision, by a declarative law, is unnecessary. If it have not occurred, then there is no obligation to revive it, for alone on the occurrence of the specified fact does our obligation depend. In such case the revival by declaration is a mere gratuity to Napoleon. This is in fact the true character of the law. As to the provisions for relief of our merchants against anticipated seizure, I hold them scarcely deserving consideration. Heaven be praised we have independent tribunals and intelligent juries. Our judges are not corrupt and our yeomanry will not be swayed in their decisions, by the hope of presidential favors, nor be guided by party influence. The harpies of your custom-house dare as soon eat off their own claws, as thrust them, in the present state of the law of March, 1809, into the fatness of their fellow-citizens. The timorous and light-shunning herd of spies and informers have too much instinct to pounce on such a prey.

But, in order to cause any obligation to result under the law of May 1, 1810, it is necessary, not only that the fact required be done, and the effect required produced; but also the terms of that act must be accepted. The proffer we made, if such be the character of that act, was only to revive the non-intercourse law against the contumacious belligerent, after three months had expired from the date of the proclamation. Now it is remarkable, that, so far from accepting the terms of the proposition contained in our act, as the extent of our obligations, Bonaparte expressly tells us that they mean something else; and something, too, that no man in this House will dare to aver they really intend. It is also remarkable that the terms of this celebrated letter from the Duke of Cadore, of the fifth of August, which have been represented as a relaxation in the rigor of the French Emperor's policy, are, in fact, something worse than the original terms of the Milan decree, and that, instead of having obtained a boon from a friend in this boasted letter, our Administration have only caught a gripe from a Tartar. By the terms of the Milan decree, it was to "cease with respect to all nations who compelled the English to respect their flag." By the terms of the letter of Cadore, it was to cease on condition that the United States "cause their rights to be respected." Now, as much as an obligation, of an indefinite extent, is worse than a definite obligation, just so much worse are the terms of the letter of Cadore, than the original terms of the Milan decree. Mr. Speaker, let us not be deceived concerning the policy of the French Emperor. It is stern, unrelenting, and unrelaxing. So far from any deviation from his original system being indicated in this letter of the Duke of Cadore, a strict adherence to it is formally and carefully expressed. Ever since the commencement of "his continental system," as it is called, the policy of Napoleon has uniformly been to oblige the United States to effectual co-operation in that system. As early as the 7th of October, 1807, his minister, Champagny, wrote to General Armstrong, that the interests of all maritime powers were common, to unite in support of their rights against England. After this followed the embargo, which co-operated effectually at the very critical moment, in his great plan of continental commercial restriction. On the 24th of the ensuing November, he resorts to the same language—"in violating the rights of all nations England has united them all by a common interest, and it is for them to have recourse to force against her." He then proceeds to invite the United States to take "with the whole continent the part of guaranteeing itself from her injustice, and in forcing her to a peace."

On the 15th of January, 1808, he is somewhat more pointed and positive, as to our efficient concurrence in his plan of policy. For his Minister, Champagny, then tells us, that "His Majesty has no doubt of a declaration of war against England by the United States," and he then proceeds to take the trouble of declaring war out of our hands, and volunteers his services, gratuitously, to declare it, in our name and behalf. "War exists then, in fact, between England and the United States; and His Majesty considers it as declared from the day on which England published her decrees." And in order to make assurance doubly sure, he sequesters our vessels in his ports, "until a decision may be had on the dispositions to be expressed by the United States," on his proposition of considering themselves "associated in the cause of all the powers," against England. Now in all this there is no deception, and can be no mistake, as to the purpose of his policy. He tells us, as plain as language can speak, that "by causing our rights to be respected," he means war, on his side, against Great Britain. That "our interests are common"—that he considers us already "associates in the war," and that he sequesters our property by way of security for our dispositions. This is his old policy. I pray some gentlemen on the other side of the House to point out in what it differs from the new. The letter of Cadore on the fifth of August tells us, it is expected that we "cause our rights to be respected, in conformity to our act," and the same letter also tells us what he understands to be the meaning of our act. "In short, Congress engages to oppose itself to that one of the belligerent powers which shall refuse to acknowledge the rights of neutrals." In other words, "by causing our rights to be respected," he means war on his side against Great Britain. In perfect conformity with this uniform, undeviating policy, his Minister, Turreau, tells our Government, in his letter of the 28th of November last, that "the modifications to be given to the present absolute exclusion of our products will not depend upon the chance of events, but will be the result of measures, firm and pursued with perseverance, which the two Governments will continue to adopt to withdraw from the monopoly and from the vexations of the common enemy a commerce loyal and necessary to France as well as the United States." And to the end, that no one feature of his policy should be changed, or even appear to be relaxed, his Excellency the Duke of Massa, and his Excellency the Duke of Gaete, in their respective letters of the 25th of December, declare, that the property taken, shall be "only sequestered until the United States have fulfilled their engagements to cause their rights to be respected." Now, Mr. Speaker, is there a man in this House bold enough to maintain, or with capacity enough to point out, any material variation between the policy of France to this country, subsequent to the Cadore letter, of the 5th of August, and its policy anterior to that period? The character of the policy is one and indivisible. Bonaparte had not yielded one inch to our Administration. Now, as he neither performed the act required by the law of May, 1810; nor produced the effect; nor accepted the terms it proposed; whence arise our obligations? How is our faith plighted? In what way are we bound again to launch our country into this dark sea of restriction; surrounded on all sides with perils and penalties?

The true nature of this Cadore policy is alone to be discovered in the character of his master. Napoleon is a universal genius. "He can exchange shapes with Proteus to advantage." He hesitates at no means and commands every skill. He toys with the weak—he tampers with the mean—he browbeats the haughty—with the cunning he is a serpent. For the courageous he has teeth and talons. For the cowering he has hoofs. He found our Administration a pen and ink gentry—parchment politicians; and he has laid, for these ephemeral essences, a paper fly-trap, dipped in French honey. Hercules, finding that he could not reach our Administration with his club, and that they were out of their wits at the sight of his lion's skin, has condescended to meet them in petticoats, and conquer them, spinning at their own distaff.

As to those who, after the evidence now in our hands, deny that the decrees exist, I can no more reason with them than with those who should deny the sun to be in the firmament, at noon-day. The decrees revoked! The formal statute act of a despot revoked by the breath of his servile Minister; uttered on conditions not performed by Great Britain, and claiming terms not intended to be performed by us! The fatness of our commerce secure, when every wind of heaven is burdened with the sighs of our suffering seamen, and the coast of the whole continent heaped with the plunder of our merchants! The den of the tiger safe! Yet the tracks of those who enter it are innumerable, and not a trace is to be seen of a returning footstep! The den of the tiger safe! While the cry of the mangled victims are heard through the adamantine walls of his cave; cries, which despair and anguish utter, and which despotism itself cannot stifle!

No, Mr. Speaker. Let us speak the truth. The act now proposed is required by no obligation. It is wholly gratuitous. Call it then by its proper name. The first fruit of French alliance. A token, a transatlantic submission. Any thing except an act of an American Congress, the Representatives of freemen.

The present is the most favorable moment for the abandonment of these restrictions, unless a settled co-operation with the French continental system be determined. We have tendered the provisions of this act to both belligerents. Both have accepted—both, as principals, or by their agents, have deceived us.

We talk of the edicts of George the Third and Napoleon. Yet those of the President of the United States, under your law, are far more detestable to your merchants. Their edicts plundered the rich. His make those who are poor still poorer. Their decrees attack the extremities. His proclamation fixes upon the vitals, and checks the action of the seat of commercial life.

I know that great hopes are entertained of relief from the proposed law, by the prospect of a British regency. Between a mad monarch and a simpering successor, it is expected the whole system of that nation will be abandoned. Let gentlemen beware, and not calculate too certainly on the fulfilment, by men in power, of professions made out of it. The majority need not go out of our own country, nor beyond their own practice, to be convinced how easily, in such cases, proud promises may eventuate in meagre performance.

The whole bearing of my argument is to this point. It is time to take our own rights into our own keeping. It is time, if we will not protect, to refrain from hampering, by our own acts, the commerce of our country. Put your merchants no longer under the guardianship and caprice of foreign powers. Punish not, at the instigation of foreigners, your own citizens for following their righteous calling. We owe nothing to France. We owe nothing to Great Britain. We owe every thing to the American people. Let us show ourselves really independent; and look to a grateful, a powerful, and then united people, for support against every aggressor.

Mr. Mumford.—The gentleman (Mr. Quincy) from Massachusetts has given us a long talk, that amused the House very much with tropes and figures, and I hope has convinced himself that he is right. I am no advocate of either belligerent, I have not much confidence in the declarations of foreign Governments. I did, however, put some confidence in the Erskine arrangement, but I was deceived; it met my approbation, because I was among those who were determined to settle our disputes with Great Britain in our own way, as an independent nation. And I will now ask the gentleman from Massachusetts whether, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any other higher authority in Great Britain, should write a letter to Sir William Scott, and a circular letter to the Collector of Liverpool, informing them that the Orders in Council did not apply to American vessels from and after the 1st November, he would not deem those letters to be evidence of the fact? If so, why not give the same credence to the letters of the Duke of Massa and the Duc de Gaete? I wish to preserve the faith of the nation. We have been plundered by both belligerents, and have as little confidence in the one as in the other; but without some reliance on the word of constituted authorities there is an end to all negotiations. The gentleman says that we are about to shut up "the only avenue to our commercial hope." These are his own words. Let us now examine this avenue to our commercial hope. I will in the first place ask the indulgence of the House while I read and state some facts from a letter I have just received from Liverpool, dated January 8, of the present year, from one of the most respectable houses there, which states that the importation of cotton from the United States was 320,000 bales in 1810; that there were then 145,000 bales on hand; tobacco imported in the same period, 14,700 hogsheads; and notwithstanding the consumption, the quantity imported kept the market supplied constantly with about the same number of hogsheads throughout the year 1810. Potashes imported 28,946 barrels, on hand 13,000 barrels: rice 39,000 imported, and there remain on hand very large supplies. Those are the principal articles of the produce of our soil unsold on 8th January, 1811, in the port of Liverpool alone, besides the quantities in the other ports of Great Britain; and the same letter observes: "This supply checks any attempt at speculation, and without an export vent is procured, the stock on hand must remain unsalable; if the belligerents return to a sense of justice, the continental markets being in that case reopened, will require large supplies, and cause our market to rise." The prices of upland cotton are stated at 12d. sterling per lb.; tobacco, very prime, 4d. to 7d., middling quality, great quantity on hand, fit only for continental market, at 1½ a 4d.; pot-ashes £43 to £44 per ton—rice 19 to 23 per cwt. Sir, there is no American merchant who can pursue that commerce, attended with the enormous charges and duties imposed on those articles without inevitable ruin; and I call to the recollection of gentlemen the numerous failures in consequence of bills of exchange returned under protest, which had been predicated on shipments to British ports; and yet the gentleman from Massachusetts tells us this is "the only avenue to our commercial hope." Send your vessels to the Brazils, you meet them there intriguing against your commerce; to Buenos Ayres, you find them there; to Cayenne, there also; to Terra Firma, you there find them in conjunction with Miranda intriguing and counteracting your commerce; to Barbadoes, Surinam, Demerara, Trinidad, Martinique, Guadaloupe, Jamaica, &c., and you are met with enormous port charges, and duties amounting to prohibition on the staple articles of the New England States; codfish, beef, pork, butter, lard, cheese, hams, &c. It is true we are admitted every now and then, at the mere will and caprice of a governor, to import into those colonies flour at a duty of one dollar per barrel; rice and lumber in proportion; on condition that you shall not take away any article but rum and molasses, and this is the only avenue to our commercial hope. They are like the locusts of Egypt in relation to our commerce. What has become of your 1,350,000 tons of shipping, valued at fifty dollars per ton, amounting to $67,500,000, one-third of which belongs to Massachusetts? Is the gentleman willing to surrender the carrying trade to Great Britain? Let him turn his attention to the ports of New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Norfolk, Charleston, and New Orleans, and he will find that British ships are now taking the bread out of the mouths of his own constituents. They are enabled to take freight on so much lower terms than American vessels can afford to do it in consequence of the very great difference of duties in Great Britain, between importations in America or in a British ship, that we cannot compete with them unless you will countervail them, and take a decisive stand in defence of your commerce to continental Europe, and carry your produce direct to the consumers, and be no longer subjected to be fleeced by the monopolizers and retailers of the old world. They are not content to have the whole products of your soil deposited on their Island, on which they receive an enormous import, and raise an extra war tax, besides; but they will claim very soon the exclusive right to carry it when and where they please in their own ships. We are thus reduced to a worse situation than in a state of colonization; we have now all the disadvantages of being plundered by their navy, and none of the advantages of receiving its protection, although they have the impudence to charge us four per cent. convoy duty on their gewgaws and manufactures, which convoy they do not give us. Can this be a desirable state of things? And if persevered in, I am convinced the commerce of the United States will descend into the same tomb with the gentleman's story of the coffin.