TWELFTH CONGRESS.—FIRST SESSION. PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.[13] (continued 3)

At the opening of the session of Congress, in December, 1809, after the disavowal of Erskine's arrangement, when our relations with England assumed a more unfavorable aspect than at the close of the summer session, the Committee on Foreign Relations, with a desire to preserve our neutrality, presented to the House a measure usually termed Macon's bill, No. 1; a measure which it is now known was approved by the Administration, and had the sanction even of a higher authority, (if such there be.) This measure was calculated in its operation to present serious difficulties to those nations by whom the rights of our neutral flag were disregarded; and, at the same time, it left open to the enterprise of our citizens those channels of trade, not included within the scope of the orders and decrees of the belligerents, as they then stood; a commerce as extensive and valuable as we can expect to enjoy in times of general peace. It was, however, opposed, and successfully, too, by war speeches. It fell, and by its fall the Administration were driven from their ground, and the hopes of maintaining much longer the neutrality of the United States also fell with it. This unfortunate event was succeeded by the act of May, 1810. By this act, the belligerents were invited, in a new form, to withdraw their orders and decrees; promising, on our part, in case either of them should accept the invitation thus given to both, to put in force the non-importation sections of the non-intercourse law against the party persevering in their orders or decrees for three months after their adversary had accepted the invitation thus given. The law of May, 1810, was enacted with a hope that the terms thereby offered to the belligerents, respectively, would induce the one or the other to accept them, and withdraw their orders or decrees. And an expectation was also entertained, that if one of the parties could be induced to relinquish their orders or decrees, the other party would follow the example; and, if this just expectation should be met by a perseverance of either of the parties in their orders or decrees, after their adversary had accepted the invitation thus given, it would test the sincerity of the various and repeated declarations made by them, respectively, that their orders and decrees, affecting our commerce, were reluctantly issued in their own just defence.

Those also who preferred war to the preservation of our neutrality, and by whom Macon's bill was rejected, would be relieved from the embarrassment of going to war with two of the most powerful nations in the world, or of selecting which of the two should be made our enemy, at a time when we had just cause of war against both. The fixed and determined hostility of one of the parties towards the United States would be (as it certainly now is) most clearly proved; and thereby our measures of hostility rendered the more necessary, and more likely to receive the unanimous approbation of the American people.

My opinion, therefore, is, that it was wise to preserve our neutrality as long as possible, making an appeal to force the last reluctant resort; and, inasmuch as the majority of Congress, in 1809, resolved to change the peaceful character of this country, the intervening period has been employed in a last effort to avert the calamities of war; the result of which has relieved this Government from any liability to the charge of partiality to either of the belligerents, by compelling one of them, by their own act, to present themselves as the object of our just hostility.

Mr. Stanford said, as the resolution before the House contemplated an additional army, and from the avowal of its friends, involved in it the question of peace or war, he felt the desire to assign the reasons of his vote upon so important a subject. He was the more disposed to do so as he should probably find himself in a very small minority upon the question. He was not flattered, he said, with using arguments which would convince others; but for himself he felt their force strong enough to fix his mind against the measure. If he were to vote, he said, for the proposed army, he should vote inconsistently with all his former opinions and principles upon the subject, and he never could think of acting a part inconsistent with himself, and that more especially when all his experience had gone to confirm his first impressions, his honest prejudices against standing armies. Such establishments had always proved the bane of free Governments, and he could not see how we were to get along with them, and remain, as he believed we were, the freest and happiest people upon earth.

But, sir, we are told war is to be declared in certain events, and that the army proposed is to invade and take the Canadas. We are then to pass out of the limits of the United States and wage a war of the foreign offensive kind! If such was the contemplated use of this army when raised, he was still the more opposed to the measure. He was against the war itself, and the policy of it, and could by no means yield his vote to bring it about. That there were sufficient cause of war, he was ready to acknowledge, and he was not disposed in any the least degree to palliate the offences of Great Britain, or that of any of the other belligerents, committed on the persons and property of our citizens. All of them had deserved war at our hands, but we had at no time since the commencement of our present Government seen it our interest or policy to give into it, in the open and declared form, nor that of any other form, except that of a quasi character which happened under Mr. Adams's administration. The question never had been whether we had or had not cause of war, but whether the true interest of the United States did not, under all circumstances, call aloud upon us to cherish peace, and to avoid war and its evils as the last of the alternatives before us; and this, said Mr. S., he would be able to show was the Republican doctrine, as well in the old minority times as since that minority grew into a majority.

The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Grundy) had made a direct appeal to the Republican party, and endeavored to rally and unite them in this, to them at least, new doctrine of war. If the appeal of the gentleman had any reference to him, he would beg leave to deny some of his positions. He had himself had some small share to act in the political scenes of '98-9, and he was glad to find from the gentleman's declaration that he had joined in the "clamor" of the day, to pull down the then Federal Administration for the unjustifiable war which they had gone into with France. Mr. S. said he knew he had joined in it most heartily. He believed he then acted right in all he did to supersede that Administration, and he still believed he was right. The best interests of the country forbade the war, and so the people determined, when ultimately they came to decide the question. That party thus ousted by the public voice, the present Republican majority was brought in upon their own professions of better principles, the love of peace and economy. But now, forgetting our old professions under a French crisis, we had raised the cry of war under a British one, and nothing short of it was to save our honor. Mr. S. declared if there was any difference in the causes of war then and now, he thought it turned most decidedly in favor of the former period, since the more intolerable outrage in the case of the Chesapeake had been at length atoned for. What were the facts? French decrees existed at that time against your rightful commerce—he spoke of the arrêttes or decrees of the French directory—these had the same practical effect on our maritime neutral rights that the British orders have now. French cruisers waylaid the mouths of your harbors, and captured your vessels; and the first successful act of the United States after the quasi-war commenced, was, the taking of one of these cruisers in the mouth of one of our harbors.

But, said Mr. S., the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun,) tells us it is a principle of honor in a nation, as in an individual, to resist a first insult. If such doctrine is to be admitted, when should we have had a moment's peace? From one or the other belligerents of Europe, since their late wars commenced, we have never been without just complaints against them for some violation of our neutral rights, and of course must have taken an early share in their wars. The truth is, we cannot liken, nor will the similitude hold good between an individual's honor, or his sensibility to it, and that of a nation's. A single impressment or capture may be well admitted to form a ground of reprisal and war; but we should have been a ruined country long ere now, if, under the existing circumstances of the world, and belligerent Europe, we had yielded to this quickness of sensibility, and had gone to war for a first and single instance of aggression from either of the belligerents. The same gentleman argues that every thing now calls upon us to make a stand; that there was no danger to our liberties in a standing army of twenty or thirty thousand men, and that all admitted there was justifiable cause of war, and he believed it had now become necessary. This was declaiming, Mr. S. said, very handsomely upon the subject of war, he would agree; and he very well recollected we had heard the same doctrines precisely, and he thought he might be permitted to say, a strain of declamation, at least equally handsome, upon the same subject, and from the same State, in 1798-'9.[17] Mr. S. contended as the then doctrines of war, (and it must be admitted the causes of it were also alike in their character,) it was fair to expect that in due time public opinion would come to be the same in both cases.

But, Mr. S. said, he could not perceive how the present, of all others, had become the necessary and accepted time for war with Great Britain. The attack on the Chesapeake frigate had been lately atoned for, to the satisfaction of our Government; and, he trusted, had not been so done as to aggravate the crisis of affairs between the two countries. If calculated to do so, our Government could not have received it. The impressment of our seamen was a just complaint against the British Government; but it commenced under the Administration of General Washington, and no one would say he was less sensible to national honor and independence than ourselves. Under all the circumstances of that cause of complaint, he did not think it a cause sufficient for him to depart from the neutral ground he had assumed; nor was the annoyance of our commerce less vexatious in his time than since. In like manner, under Mr. Adams's Administration, the same complaints existed, though in that of the latter, not, perhaps, to the same degree; and, under the eight years of Mr. Jefferson's Administration, the same state of things continued, certainly with an increased degree of violence, to which was also added the more aggravating insult upon the Chesapeake. Mr Jefferson had never been suspected of partiality for Great Britain, and then, indeed, the accepted time had come for a war with that Government; all parties were united, and pledged themselves to support him in the war. The pulse of the nation beat high for it. But he felt, because he knew, that peace was the best interest of his country, and forbore to call Congress together. He had always admired the man; but, upon that occasion, he felt more than a sentiment of admiration toward him. When, at length, wrongs had thus accumulated, and called for some system of counteraction and resistance till negotiation could be farther tried, the embargo was resorted to in preference to war; and, when that was done away, a system of non-intercourse was substituted, and to that again succeeded the present alternative law of the same kind; the non-importation system which has grown out of this with Great Britain has not been tried one whole year yet. If gentlemen will have it that this is the accepted time for war, how has it happened that we have not had it before? Our Councils may be presumed to have been as sensible to aggression, and as patriotic to redress it, as we now are.

But, Mr. Speaker, said Mr. S., opposed as he was to the idea of the United States becoming one of the belligerent nations—to the linking our destinies with those of the European Powers; to the taking any share in their present conflicts, if his country once determined upon it, he would not then hesitate to vote any force, or other means to bring it to as speedy and as happy an issue as possible: until then he should preserve his own consistency; and contribute in no way to bring about that state of things which, he believed, would prove most ruinous to his country.

Mr. King.—Mr. Speaker, I should not have troubled this House with any remarks of mine, had it not been for the observations which have just fallen from my colleague from North Carolina. I shall not attempt, sir, to follow that gentleman in the history which he has given of the progress of party in this country, but shall content myself with stating, that, in our sentiments, we entirely differ; his is the doctrine of submission; yes, sir, the most abject submission; mine, I trust, is not. I am in favor of the resolution now on your table. I am aware, sir, of the many important considerations which will naturally suggest themselves to the mind of every real friend of his country, when he views the consequences which may result from the adoption of the measure now contemplated. When, sir, the habits of a nation, ingrafted, as it were, in its very nature, are about to be departed from; when the destinies of the country are about to be launched on an untried ocean, and when the doubt is about to be solved, whether our Republican Government is alike calculated to support us through the trials and difficulties of war, and guide us in safety down the gentle current of peace, I am aware, sir, that we should pause and ponder well the subject; that we should divest ourselves of those warm feelings which most generally take possession of our minds on viewing the unjust prostration of the rights of our country. Sir, that interest which I feel, in common with others, on the decision of a question of such magnitude and importance, will, I trust, induce this House to bear with me a moment, while, in a few words, I explain the motives by which I am actuated in giving my decided approbation to the resolution now under consideration. If, sir, I were merely to turn my attention to the local situation of that portion of the country which I have the honor particularly to represent; its extensive and exposed seacoasts, combined with its present commercial advantages; I should, without hesitation, give my vote to the proposed measure. But, sir, as in my individual capacity, I feel at all times willing to make not only pecuniary sacrifices, but to expose my person in vindicating the rights and interests of my country, in my Representative capacity, I will undertake to say, that my constituents will do no less. Sir, the demon Avarice, which benumbs every warm emotion of the soul, has not yet gained the ascendency in the South: the love of country animates every breast, and burns with inextinguishable ardor. Sir, they feel in common, I trust, with a great majority of every portion of this Union, the degradation of our country, in submitting for a moment longer to the dishonorable terms proposed directly or indirectly by the British Government. Mr. Speaker, I hold it to be correct, that, in discussing a subject of such importance, a view of the various matters necessarily connected with it, will not be considered irrelevant: but, sir, I will not weary the patience of this House with a detail of injuries, unparalleled in the history of former times, wantonly inflicted on a nation which manifested to the whole world her sincere desire to support the neutral stand which had been taken at the earliest period of her Government, and most tenaciously adhered to. We have carefully avoided, Mr. Speaker, any participation in that system of politics which has convulsed and distracted the European world. We have restricted ourselves in the full enjoyment of our rights, lest by strictly enforcing them, we might produce a collision with any nation, however little her conduct might be guided by the principles of equity. Sir, we have borne with injury, until, in the language of your committee, forbearance has ceased to be a virtue. We have remonstrated, we have appealed to the justice, to the interest, of the two great contending powers of Europe; every effort proved abortive; our calls for justice were drowned in the declaration that their measures were merely retaliatory, and not intended to interfere with neutral rights; thus, sir, the matter rested, when specific propositions were submitted to each. Yes, sir, by an act which has placed the impartiality of our country beyond the reach of suspicion, we demanded of each the revocation of her obnoxious edicts as the only means of preserving our friendship. We all know what has been the consequence: France has met our advances, has embraced our propositions. Great Britain not only refuses a repeal on her part, but, while she affects to lament the effects produced on neutral rights, takes the most effectual methods to render them perpetual. Sir, blindness and ignorance itself can no longer be deceived by British policy.

We have been told, sir, that this will be a war for the support of the carrying trade; let me here remark, and I wish to be distinctly understood, as avowing my determination never to give a vote, so long as I have the honor of a seat on this floor, which will involve this country in a war, for the recovery or support of this extraneous species of commerce. I believe I shall not be incorrect when I assert, that nine-tenths of this country never did and never will derive the smallest benefit from it. But, sir, the right to carry in our own ships the produce of our own country to any quarter, not thereby violating the laws of nations, or contravening legitimate municipal regulations, is one which I never will yield; for, sir, in doing so, we paralyze the industry of our citizens; we give a fatal blow to the best interests of our country. Yes, sir, we yield the principle, we invite to further encroachments. Our country, sir, is agricultural, but so intimately blended with commerce, that the one cannot long exist unaided by the other. Sir, I will not yield an inch of ground, when, by so doing, I destroy an essential right of my country—or sap the foundation of that independence cemented by the blood of our fathers. We were told by a gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Randolph,) a few days since, that we have sufficient cause for war. I ask you, then, sir, why do we hesitate? Shall we always yield? Shall we always shrink from the contest? The adoption of this resolution is the touchstone—by it we rise or fall. We have been asked, Mr. Speaker, why not lay upon your table a proposition to go to war? It is there, sir; it is contained in this resolution; the moment we give it our sanction we declare our fixed resolve to render effective the force contemplated to be raised. Yes, sir, unless Great Britain manifests a disposition speedily to do us justice—by her acts, sir, not by her words. The gentleman from Virginia calls upon the Representatives of the seacoasts, of the slaveholding States, and asks if they are willing to say to England "we intend to go to war with you." Does the gentleman mean to excite our fears for the loss of our property? As one of the many on this floor who stand in the situation mentioned by that gentleman, I step forth to declare for myself and my constituents, that, when loss of national honor is placed in the scale, and attempted to be balanced by pecuniary interest, we will, without hesitation, kick the beam. But, sir, we are now contending for the restoration of our rights, the deprivation of which strikes at the very foundations of our prosperity. Sir, to us, it matters little whether our cities tumble into ruin by desertion for want of employment, by poverty produced by British wrongs and aggression, or, in vindicating the cause of our country, fall by a quicker process. Sir, I have no fear of invasion, and, therefore, have no fears arising from the black population, which strikes with so much horror on the sensitive mind of the gentleman from Virginia. For my country, Mr. Speaker, I lament its existence; I view it as the bane, the curse of the land, and most sincerely, sir, do I wish that a second Moses could take them by the hand, and lead them in safety to a distant land, where their cries would never more strike on the ear of sympathy.

We have been told, sir, that this will be a war of aggrandizement, a war of conquest. I am as little disposed to extend the territory as any other individual of this House. I know that dissimilar interests must and will prevail from a too great extension of our dominion. But, sir, we will not here enter into a discussion, whether an accession of country would or would not conduce to the interests of the Government. Sir, this will be a war forced upon us; we cannot, under existing circumstances, avoid it. To wound our enemy in the most vulnerable part should only be considered. Sir, I trust, if our differences with Great Britain are not speedily adjusted, (of which, indeed, I have no expectation,) we shall take Canada. Yes, sir, by force; by valor; not by seduction, as the gentleman from Virginia expresses it. I have no reliance on their friendship—I hope it will not be calculated on. Sir, I am not deterred from the firm purposes of my mind, by the predictions of the gentleman from Virginia. I have no fears, sir, that the people of our country will desert their Government while asserting the rights of the country; and I must believe, that gentleman's assertion to the contrary notwithstanding, that Virginia will not be the last to afford supplies.

Mr. Boyd.—Mr. Speaker, I should not have risen, on the present occasion, had not the honorable Committee of Foreign Relations requested all those that did not intend to vote for such ulterior measures as they might hereafter find necessary to bring forward, would not vote for the present resolutions, as they were a part of a system that might eventuate in war, &c. From those observations, I feel myself, and those that I in part have the honor to represent, called on to say how far I will go, and how far I will not go. Sir, when we talk about war, we ought to know for what we are going to wage it, and to see that the means are commensurate to the end. Let it not be thought by this that I have any apology to make for Great Britain, or her manifold wrongs. I have none. I say, perish the heart, the head and the tongue, that will attempt her justification or apology? No, sir, they are a nation of pirates, and have committed many wrongs on us; and it becomes us to look for our remedy, and how it is to be obtained. We are told that these resolutions are a part of a war measure. I do not receive them as such, but as preparatory to what may happen or become necessary. But, for argument sake, suppose it so, and that we are to have war—your army raised, and ready to march to the Canadas; with how many are you going to take them? In my opinion, not less than fifty thousand men will be required. Suppose the English should be driven out of Spain and Portugal, (which may by this time be the case, or it may soon be so,) what number of troops can she send to reinforce her possessions and meet you? But, say some gentlemen, American blood has been spilt, and we must avenge it. How is that to be done? For gallons will you spill torrents; or am I to understand that we shall have war without bloodshed? Sir, let those that think so turn their attention to the Revolutionary war—the Sugarhouse in New York, the Prevost, the Prison-ship, the Wallabout, Fort Washington, White Plains, Princeton, Trenton, Monmouth, Brandywine, Guildford, and many other places. New Jersey has had her full share of the fighting—other States the benefit; and if we have war again, we shall have our share of fighting—others the loaves and fishes. But, sir, I will not complain: we obtained our liberty, and I am willing to support it in the best possible manner. But here another question arises. You go to war for the right to export our surplus produce—tobacco, cotton, flour, with many other articles. Let me ask, what will be your export while that war continues? Will you have any? I think not. But I will suppose that you could export without interruption; would the whole of the exportable produce pay for the war during the continuance of it? No, it would not. Sir, it would take less money from the Government to pay for it, and make a fire of it. Nearly thirty years have elapsed since the Revolutionary war, and that war not half paid for. Is not the war-worn soldier calling on us every day with his demands? You are about to drain your Treasury, borrow money, enlarge your pension list, build additional hospitals, increase our national debt, not to be extinguished or paid off, but to be a lasting burden on the people. But, say the honorable committee, our honor requires it. It is well; I honor the spirit and magnanimity of the committee, and have no doubt of their courage and zeal for our country's rights. But, sir, you must take young men for action—old men for counsel. It is an easy matter to go to law or war, but it is a hard matter to get out of it. The gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Wright,) in defending the character of the soldier, has given us a quotation, viz:

I will give him another, from the same authority, viz:

But, apart from this, let us suppose war, and admit that it will be successful, so far as proposed—the British driven from the Canadas and Halifax, and their trade intercepted for years to an extensive amount—what then has she to hope or fear from us? Nothing. Will she then respect our rights? No. But I will suppose that we force her to a treaty of amity and commerce, acknowledging our rights to the utmost of our wishes; how long will she keep it? Not an hour longer than suits her convenience or interest. There is no trust to be put in her compacts. Witness Erskine's arrangement. I say, keep on your restrictions; keep the country in peace, if possible, under all your privations, and they are many. Has not our country increased in wealth and population, in a superior degree to any country on earth? Are we not at this moment in the enjoyment of peace and plenty at home—every man under his own vine and fig-tree, and none to make him afraid—with complete protection for person and property? Yes. But our merchants must be protected—they have a right to our protection, say some—it is the merchant that gives life and spring to agriculture. I deny it. It is the planter—the cultivator—that is the foundation on which every other branch of our associated population depends; and it is the surplus of his productions that makes the merchant, and his profits that make the banks. You have made many laws for their protection; they have disobeyed them all, and will disobey them. Have they not told you, continually, to let them alone; that they knew their own business best? Sir, before I would engage in a war, to which I could not see a prospect of a favorable issue, I would let them alone. Sir, the President is made, by the constitution, the treaty-making power; he is also to give us the state of the Union. He is the Executive. He has given us the state of the Union, and made his requisitions; and if I give him what he asks, I give him enough; and that I am willing to give, and more, when he shall require it. But I am not to be forced further yet. It appears to me that the honorable committee has a mind to Gideonize us—rejecting the fearful and faint-hearted. Will they prove us by the waters, and reject all such as will not lap as the dog lappeth? For, sir, they have told us that all that did not intend to vote for such ulterior measures as they might have occasion hereafter to bring forward, ought not to vote for the resolutions. Now, sir, it remains for me to tell them and the House, that I will not leave the ranks of my country. I will vote for the resolutions, and consider myself at liberty to vote hereafter as the nature of the case may require, and my conscience shall direct. I have no more to say at this time.

Monday, December 16.

Foreign Relations.

The House then resumed the consideration of the unfinished business, being the report of the Committee of Foreign Relations.

Mr. Randolph said that he could not express his deep sense of the politeness of the House, except by the regret he felt at the very poor return which they were about to receive for their indulgence. He lamented that it was not in his power to thank, in the name of all the old Republicans of 1798 and 1799, his worthy friend from North Carolina, (Mr. Stanford,) for the sound, sensible, pertinent, and constitutional speech, which he had delivered the other day against this resolution. But he feared, if a writ were to issue against that old party—as had been facetiously said, in another body, of our valiant Army—it would be impossible for a constable with a search warrant to find it. There must be a return of non est inventus. Death, resignation, and desertion had thinned their ranks. They had disappeared. New men and new doctrines had succeeded. He was astonished at the frailty of some memories; or rather, at their aptness to remember to forget every thing but what subserved their present purposes.

The nation had been brought into its present alarming and unprecedented situation by means in nowise unaccountable—by steps as direct and successive as Hogarth's celebrated series of prints, "The Rake's Progress," beginning at the gaming table and ending in a jail, or in bedlam. Our difficulties began to show themselves in 1805 and 1806, when a wise man from the East (Bidwell) was sent to govern the American House of Commons, in quality of manager. With what degree of fidelity he had discharged this duty, we might judge from that which he had since displayed in far inferior trusts. We had commenced our system somewhat on the plan of Catharine of Russia, when she lent her nominal aid to the coalition; we had dealt even more profusely than she in manifestoes; we began, under the instigation of mercantile cupidity, to contend by proclamations and resolutions for the empire of the ocean. But, instead of confining ourselves as she had done to this bloodless warfare, we must copy the wise example of her successors, and after our battle of Friedland, he supposed, we also should have our peace of Tilsit. He gave the little minority praise for having kept the Administration in check, under the salutary restraint of a rigorous examination of their acts—although the Administration had run away with the credit of wishing to take a strong attitude, and had thrown the blame of thwarting their measures on the opposition. That opposition had been composed of all sects and persuasions; but he now perceived that the greater part of them (the Federalists) had gone over to the Court party, for a very obvious reason—because they foresee at the end of the journey, Mr. Speaker, that your defeat will secure their triumph. I wish the gentlemen on my left (the majority) joy of their new travelling companions.

The gentleman from Maryland had expressed surprise at Mr. Randolph's manner of speaking of our origin from an English stock. Could that gentleman repose his head upon his pillow without returning thanks to God that he was descended from English parentage? Whence but from that origin came all the blessings of life, so far as political privileges are concerned? To what is it owing that we are at this moment deliberating under the forms of a free representative government? Suppose we had been colonies of any other European nation—compare our condition with that of the Spanish, Portuguese, or French settlements in America? To what was our superiority owing? To our Anglo-Saxon race. Suppose we had descended from those nations—from the last, especially, which stood self-condemned, on her own confession, as incapable of free government, hugging her chains, glorying in her shame, priding herself in the slave's last poor distinction, the splendor of her tyrant master? Had we sprung from the loins of Frenchmen, (he shuddered at the thought!) where would have been that proud spirit of resistance to Ministerial encroachment on our rights and liberties, which achieved our independence? We should have submitted to the tea tax, the stamp act, and the whole train of Grenville and North ministerial oppression. That which we lifted our hands against in determined scorn, would have been deemed an indulgence. Look at the province of New Spain, or Mexico, as it is, not with strict propriety, called. With a physical force greatly superior to ours in 1776, she had not dared to burst the chains of Spanish despotism, divided, weakened, almost extinct as was the Spanish monarchy. Mr. R. adverted to historical documents to show that America ought to be proud of her Anglo-Saxon descent. We were vastly particular about the breed of our horses, cattle, and sheep, but careless of the breed of human nature. And yet to our Anglo-Saxon origin we owed our resistance to British tyranny. Who were the members of our first Congress? From Massachusetts, Samuel Adams, (and t'other Adams too,) Robert Treat Paine, not Tom. From Connecticut, Roger Sherman, a man of the most profound political wisdom. From New York, James Duane, John Jay. From New Jersey, William Livingston. From Pennsylvania, Thomas Mifflin. From Delaware, Cæsar Rodney, Thomas McKean. From Maryland, William Paca. From Virginia, Peyton Randolph, George Washington, Patrick Henry, Richard Bland, Edmund Pendleton. From South Carolina, Henry Middleton, John Rutledge, Christopher Gadsden, Edward Rutledge. In what school had these illustrious men formed those noble principles of civil liberty asserted by their eloquence and maintained by their arms? Among the grievances stated in their remonstrance to the King, a "standing army" met us at the threshold. It was curious to see in that list of wrongs, so many that had since been self-inflicted by us.

It had been asked, why was the country unprepared for defence? Was he expected to answer this question? The Administration and their overwhelming majorities must answer it. They had wantoned in the plenitude of their power. Who could say them nay? Was it Mr. Randolph's fault that the gentleman from South Carolina had never, in the course of his extensive experience, heard of a proposition to arm the whole body of the militia? which had been damned with a faint appropriation of two hundred thousand dollars, when millions were lavished upon miserable oyster boats. The Clerk of the Senate could not forbear a sneer when he read the title of the bill, at the recollection of the means to enforce it. Mr. R. had proposed himself an annual million until the work should be accomplished. He would forever stand up for the militia. It was not in the scoffs of the epaulette gentry, who, for any service they have seen, are the rawest militia, to degrade them in his eyes. Who were they? Ourselves—the country. Arm them and you are safe, beyond the possibility of danger. Yearly did the standing army sweep off the money, while the militia received empty praise. He would rather see the thing reversed. But there will forever be a Court and Country party. The standing army is the devoted creature of the Court. It must forever be so. Can we wonder that it should be cherished by its master? He spoke of a mercenary soldier in terms of the strongest abhorrence. He would ever uphold the militia; and he detested standing armies, as the profligate instruments of despotism, as the bloodhounds of hell. They would support any and every existing Government. In all history he remembered only one instance of their deserting their Government and taking part with the people; and that was when the Duke of Orleans had bribed the army of the last of the Bourbon Kings. A mercenary soldier was disgusting to our senses; was odious and detestable to the eye of reason, republicanism and religion. Yet, that "mere machine of murder," rude as it is, was the manufacturer of all the Cæsars, and Cromwells, and Bonapartes, of the earth; consecrated by a people's curse, not loud but deep, to the infernal gods. As from the filth of the kennel and common sewer, spread the pestilence that carried havoc through a great city, so from this squalid, outcast, homeless wretch sprung the scourge of military despotism. And yet we are told that there was no danger from an army of 30,000 or 40,000 men. With 5,000 Cæsar had passed the Rubicon. With 22,000 he fought the battle of Pharsalia, which rendered him master of the world. To come to later times—what number had Bonaparte, when, deserting his companions in arms, he returned a solitary fugitive from Egypt, to overturn that Government, which if it had possessed one particle of energy, if it had been possible for the civil authority to cope with military power, would have cashiered him for having ruined one of the best-appointed fleets and armies that ever sailed from a European port? Well might the father of political wisdom (Lord Chatham) say to the Parliament of England, "entrench yourselves in parchment to the teeth, the sword will find a passage to the vitals of the constitution." As good a Republican as ever sat on that floor, (Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun,) had dissolved his political friendship with the Earl of Sunderland, when he found him supporting an army; and the event justified his sagacity. Cromwell, the affected patron of liberty, always encouraged the army. We know the consequence. It was a fundamental principle of free Government that a Legislature which would preserve its liberty must avoid that canker, a standing army. Are we to forget, as chimerical, our notions of this institution, which we imbibed from our very cradles, which are imprinted on our Bills of Rights and Constitutions, which we avowed under the reign of John Adams? Are they to be scourged out of us by the birch of the unfledged political pedagogues of the day? If he were the enemy of this Government, could he reconcile it to his principles, he would follow the example set him in another quarter, and say to the majority, go to your inevitable destruction! He likened the people under this joint operation of the two parties, Ministerial and Federal, to the poor client between two lawyers, or the cloth between the tailor's shears.

He was glad to hear from his venerable friend that this was not to be a party war. When the last additional force bill was raised, to which this was about to be superadded, it was an indispensable preliminary to an appointment, to sign, or to promise to sign, the thirty-nine articles of the creed of the reigning political church. But now the political millennium was at hand—already had John Adams and Citizen Genet laid down, like the lion and the lamb, in the same fold. And if they were not joined by their fellow-laborer in Newgate, it was his keeper's fault, not that of his inclination. Citizen Genet, now an American patriot of the first order, who extols "our Washington;" the champion of the laws of nations; the vindicator of American rights against foreign (and, of course, French) aggression! He was glad to hear that it was not to be a war for the protection of manufactures. To domestic manufactures, in the true sense of the term, he had always been, and ever should be, a friend; he had taken a pride in clothing himself in them until it was attempted to be made a political test. He abhorred tests of all sorts, political and religious, and never would submit to them. He was sick of this cant of patriotism, which extended to a man's victuals, drink, and clothes. He had, from a sort of obstinacy that belonged to him, laid aside the external use of these manufactures; but he was their firm friend, and of the manufacturers also. They were no new things to him; no Merino hobby of the day; he had known them from his infancy. He had been almost tempted to believe, from the similarity of character and avocations, that Hector had a Virginian wife; that Lucretia herself—for she had displayed the spirit of a Virginian matron—was a Virginian lady. Where were they found? Spinning among their handmaids! What was the occupation of a Virginian wife—her highest ambition? To attend to her domestic and household cares; to dispense medicine and food to the sick; to minister to the comfort of her family, her servants, and her poor neighbors, where she had any. At the sight of such a woman his heart bowed down, and did her reverence. Compare with such a being your gad-about card-players. Mr. Randolph said that if the Empress Queen had presented herself decked in the spoils of a ravaged world, at the late exhibition, in contrast with our American matrons, bearing the triumphs of their own ingenuity and industry, we should have looked upon her, and all her splendor, with scorn and contempt in our hearts, although, from politeness to the sex, as gentlemen, we should have suppressed the sentiment.

He could not conclude without noticing the parallel attempted to be drawn by the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr, Calhoun—not quite indeed after the manner of Plutarch—between himself and an illustrious statesman, (Lord Chatham.) The gentleman had been pleased to say, that at the mention of his name, Mr. Randolph's heart had seemed to smite him. It had indeed smitten him: from a sensation which he trusted that gentleman might never feel: against which he seemed well secured. It was a consciousness of his own unworthiness to sustain the high duties imposed upon him by his country, which the recollection of that great man's name had, at the moment, called up. He felt humbled in the contemplation of his worth. Would to God! he possessed some portion of his powers; that he could borrow his eagle-eye, his withering look, the unrivalled majesty of his manner, the magic of his voice, at once the music and the thunder of the spheres, to rouse the House to a sense of their country's danger. In one respect, however, he might boast that he possessed some qualities in common with that immortal statesman. He might assert as lofty a spirit, as unyielding an adherence to the deliberate convictions of his own understanding, as Lord Chatham himself; who, because he set his face against corruption, and had the art of making every coward scoundrel in the nation his foe—concentrating upon himself the "rays of royal indignation, which might illumine but could not consume him;" who, because with intuitive glance he penetrated, resolved and combined every interest of his country, and each design of her enemies, and reached his object "by the flashes of his mind, which, like those of his eye, might be felt but could not be followed," was by the plodding, purblind, groping politicians of the day, attempted to be held up as an empty declaimer, a theatrical gesticulator. Gentlemen must not expect him to quit the anchorage of his own judgment in order to pursue the ignes fatui that wander about Goose Creek.[19] Mr. Speaker, my heart is full—the recollection of that matchless orator and statesman has filled me with unspeakable feelings. To excite them there was no need of the cruel and insulting comparison which the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun) had attempted to draw between that gigantic statesman and the pigmy who now addresses you.

The question was now taken on concurring with the Committee of the Whole in their agreement to the second resolution, which is in the following words:

"That an additional force of —— thousand regular troops ought to be immediately raised, to serve for three years; and that a bounty in lands ought to be given to encourage enlistment."

And carried as follows:

Yeas.—Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson, Stevenson Archer, Daniel Avery, Ezekiel Bacon, John Baker, David Bard, Josiah Bartlett, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, Harmanus Bleecker, Thomas Blount, Adam Boyd, James Breckenridge, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William Butler, John C. Calhoun, Langdon Cheves, James Cochran, John Clopton, Thomas B. Cooke, Lewis Condit, William Crawford, Roger Davis, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, Samuel Dinsmoor, Elias Earle, James Emott, William Findlay, James Fisk, Asa Fitch, Meshack Franklin, Thomas Gholson, Thomas R. Gold, Charles Goldsborough, Peterson Goodwyn, Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy, Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, John A. Harper, Aylett Hawes, Jacob Hufty, John M. Hyneman, Richard M. Johnson, Joseph Kent, Philip B. Key, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Joseph Lefever, Peter Little, Robert Le Roy Livingston, William Lowndes, Aaron Lyle, Nathaniel Macon, George C. Maxwell, Thomas Moore, Archibald McBryde, William McCoy, Samuel McKee, Alexander McKim, Arunah Metcalf, James Milnor, Samuel L. Mitchill, James Morgan, Jeremiah Morrow, Hugh Nelson, Anthony New, Thomas Newbold, Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, William Paulding, jr., Israel Pickens, William Piper, Benjamin Pond, Peter B. Porter, Josiah Quincy, William Reed, Henry M. Ridgely, Samuel Ringgold, John Rhea, John Roane, Jonathan Roberts, William Rodman, Ebenezer Sage, Thomas Sammons, Ebenezer Seaver, John Sevier, Adam Seybert, Samuel Shaw, John Smilie, George Smith, John Smith, Silas Stow, William Strong, George Sullivan, Peter Tallman, Uri Tracy, George M. Troup, Charles Turner, jr., Pierre Van Cortlandt, jr., Robert Whitehall, David R. Williams, William Widgery, Thomas Wilson, Robert Wright, and Richard Wynn—110.

Nays.—Abijah Bigelow, Elijah Brigham, Epaphroditus Champion, Martin Chittenden, John Davenport, jr., William Ely, Edwin Gray, Richard Jackson, jr., Lyman Law, Joseph Lewis, jr., Jonathan O. Mosely, Joseph Pearson, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Elisha R. Potter, John Randolph, Daniel Sheffey, Richard Stanford, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Laban Wheaton, and Leonard White—22.

The question was then taken on the third resolution, in the following words:

"That it is expedient to authorize the President, under proper regulations, to accept the service of any number of volunteers, not exceeding fifty thousand; to be organized, trained, and held in readiness to act on such service as the exigencies of the Government may require."

And carried: yeas 113—nays 16.

The question was next taken on the fourth resolution, in the following words:

"That the President be authorized to order out from time to time such detachments of the militia, as in his opinion the public service may require."

And carried: yeas 120—nays 8.

The question was then taken on the fifth resolution, in the words following:

"That all the vessels not now in service belonging to the Navy, and worthy of repair, be immediately fitted up and put in commission."

And carried: yeas 111—nays 15.

The question was put from the Chair on the sixth resolution, in these words:

"6. That it is expedient to permit our merchant vessels, owned exclusively by resident citizens, and commanded and navigated solely by citizens, to arm under proper regulations, to be prescribed by law, in self-defence, against all unlawful proceedings towards them on the high seas."

When the resolution was, on motion, ordered to lie on the table.

The three first resolutions, for filling up the present establishment, for raising an additional number of regulars, and authorizing the acceptance of volunteers' services, were referred to the committee who reported them, with instructions to bring in bills in pursuance thereof.

Tuesday, December 17.

Mississippi Territory—Ordinance of 1787.

Mr. Poindexter, from the committee to whom the said report was committed, reported the same with an amendment; which was read, and referred to the Committee of the Whole on Monday next. The report is as follows:

The committee, to whom was referred the memorial of the Legislative Council and House of Representatives of the Mississippi Territory, and the petition of sundry citizens thereof, praying to be admitted into the Union of the United States on an equal footing with the original States; and also the petition of the inhabitants of West Florida, setting forth their desire to be annexed to said Territory, for reasons therein contained, have had these subjects under consideration, and beg leave to submit the following report:

That there has existed in the Mississippi Territory a temporary government, founded on the ordinance for the government of the Territory Northwest of the river Ohio, since the eleventh day of April, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight. That, although this ordinance has undergone some modifications, extending, in a limited degree, the rights and privileges of the citizens, it still contains provisions incompatible with political liberty, and unfavorable to a due and impartial administration of justice, in the redress of private wrongs and injuries. The Chief Executive Magistrate is charged with the execution of the laws; is commander-in-chief of the militia; has the sole power of appointment to offices, civil and military, within the Territory, and the removal of these officers at pleasure; is vested with an unqualified veto on all bills passed by the other co-ordinate branches of the Legislature; and is, moreover, clothed with the odious and arbitrary authority to prorogue and dissolve the General Assembly whenever, in his opinion, it shall be expedient. These high and regal prerogatives, constituting some of the most obvious characteristics which distinguish an absolute monarchy from the constitution of a free State, are confided to the discretionary exercise of a Governor, who is neither chosen by, nor responsible to, the people. He is often a total stranger to the local interests and circumstances of the country over which he possesses such unlimited control, and is accountable only for malconduct or corruption in office to the President of the United States. The only security which exists against the frequent and wanton abuse of these powers is to be found in the mild and conciliatory disposition uniformly manifested by the General Government towards its territories. But experience has shown that, in all colonial governments, officers situated at a remote distance from the tribunal to which they are responsible, too frequently "feel power and forget right;" and, by eluding the vigilance of rigid investigation, are enabled to practise acts of oppression with impunity.

The above summary of Executive powers, so opposite in their nature to those principles which form the basis of the Federal Constitution, and which are transfused through the constitution of the several States, is sufficient to show that the people are deprived of all participation in the choice of those who administer the laws, and that public functionaries are rendered independent of the community whose interests are confided to their management and discretion. These restrictions on the rights of the people can be justified only by the most evident necessity, resulting from peculiar and unavoidable circumstances. Your committee, therefore, consider it an act both of strict justice and sound policy to advance the respective territories of the United States to the grade of a separate commonwealth, whenever they shall contain the number of inhabitants necessary to entitle them, under the ratio established by law, to a Representative in the Congress of the United States. On the subject of population, there exists no difficulty, whether the territory be taken in connection with West Florida or with its present limits. From the official returns of the census, taken during the summer of the past year, it appears that there were, in the Mississippi Territory, the number of forty thousand three hundred and fifty-two souls. This enumeration, it is alleged, fell considerably short of the actual population of the Territory at that time; and, without casting the most remote censure on the officers who were employed in that service, such a suggestion is strongly supported by the vast extent of country over which the settlements are dispersed. It also appears to your committee that the progressive emigration from the old States to this section of the Union, added to the length of time which it will require to form a constitution, and put the same in operation, afford satisfactory pledges that, anterior to the final admission of the Territory to the rights of State sovereignty, the number of its inhabitants will amount to at least sixty thousand, whereby they will possess the unqualified right, in conformity with articles of cession and agreement between the United States and Georgia, to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States.

Your committee cannot forbear to express their decided opinion, that, where no constitutional difficulty occurs, the formation of new States on the southern extremity of the United States ought not to be delayed.

Under these impressions, your committee submit the following resolution:

Resolved, That it is expedient to admit all that tract of country, bounded north by a line drawn due east from the river Yazoo, where it unites with the Mississippi, to the river Chatahouchy, and down said river to the thirty-first degree of latitude; thence, along said degree of latitude, to a point opposite the river Perdido; thence to the confluence of said last mentioned river, with the Gulf of Mexico; and thence, in a direct line through the middle of the Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain, to the junction of the Iberville with the river Mississippi, and up said river to the above-mentioned river Yazoo, into the Union of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States.

Wednesday, December 18.

Mr. Rhea presented petitions from Louisiana Territory, in favor of the second grade of Government.—Referred.

Battle on the Wabash.

Mr. Ormsby moved the following resolution:

Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire whether any, and if any, what provision ought to be made by law for paying the officers and soldiers of the militia who served under Governor Harrison, in the late expedition against the Indians on the Wabash, to compensate them for the loss of horses, and for the relief of the widows and orphans of those who fell in the action of the seventh November last; and that they have leave to report by bill or otherwise.

The said resolution was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. McKee moved the following resolution:

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be laid before this House such information as may be in the possession of the Government, and proper to be communicated, on the following points:

1. Any evidence tending to show whether any and what agency the subjects, either public or private, of any foreign power, may have had in exciting the Indians on the Western frontier to hostility against the United States;

2. The evidence of hostility towards the United States, on the part of the Shawanee Prophet and his adherents, anterior to the commencement of the late campaign against them, under the command of Governor Harrison;

3. The orders and authority vested in Governor Harrison by the United States, under which the late expedition against the Indians was carried on; and such other information relating to the subject, as, in the opinion of the President, may be proper to be communicated to this House.

The resolution was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

Thursday, December 19.

Battle of Tippecanoe.

A Message was received from the President of the United States, transmitting two letters received from Governor Harrison, of the Indiana Territory, reporting the particulars of the issue of the expedition under his command on the Wabash. The Message and letters were read, and referred to Mr. McKee, Mr. Sevier, Mr. Breckenridge, Mr. Morrow, Mr. Alston, Mr. Lefevre, and Mr. Maxwell, to consider and report thereon to the House.

Foreign Relations.

The House resumed the consideration of the sixth resolution, reported by the Committee of Foreign Relations, in the following words:

"6. That it is expedient to permit our merchant vessels, owned exclusively by resident citizens, to arm, under proper regulations, to be prescribed by law, in self-defence, against all unlawful proceedings towards them on the high seas."

Mr. Archer.—The sixth resolution of the Committee of Foreign Relations being now on its passage, I must express my sorrow that I am compelled to obtrude my humble observations upon the fatigued patience of the House, and the more exhausted patience of the nation. As I shall vote against the resolution, I feel it to be my indispensable duty to detail to the House the reasons by which my vote shall be actuated. Many honorable members may, perhaps, conceive that it would be more proper for me to reserve my remarks for the bill, when it shall be reported; but, sir, I have ever held it to be my sacred duty to oppose, even in its incipient state, every measure which may be hostile to the rights, or dangerous to the interests of my country, lest, by not seeming to oppose, my conduct should be construed into an encouragement of such a measure.

For what purpose, sir, let me ask, have we adopted the resolution preceding this? Was it for the purpose of destroying the Government? Was it that the members of that Army should sheath their swords in the bowels of the liberties of their country? Who will impute to this body so disgraceful a motive? Are you about to raise a standing army, not for the purpose of making preparations for war, but with a view of intimidating Great Britain to recede from her unjust infractions of our neutral rights? Do not think that she will be intimidated by any preparations which you can make, however formidable they may be. She knows, too well, your conduct heretofore, to believe you are in earnest. She knows that, many years ago, you resolved to resist, but that this honorable determination terminated in an empty resolution. She knows, too well, that you have been, heretofore, prodigal in words, and parsimonious in spirited action. I do not set myself up for a prophet; but, mark me, if it be not true, that Great Britain will not do you justice till you carry the war out of this hall into the heart of her colonial territories.

Under the firmest conviction, then, as I am, that war between the United States and Great Britain—if we have any respect for our honor as a nation—will be an event of inevitable consequence, I have in vain searched for the reasons which would induce us to authorize our merchant vessels to arm against all unlawful molestations on the high seas. As the resolution is, in its nature, general, every man must see, on the contrary, the dangers necessarily attendant upon the adoption of such a measure. You are now on the very verge of war, and you should, therefore, be careful not to multiply your enemies. You may, by passing this resolution, make France your enemy. You may enlist Denmark and other powers of Europe against you. This is an event which would be deeply deprecated; and, that it should happen, is nothing improbable; for your merchants, armed as they will be, in defence of their commerce, may select the nation who is to be your enemy. If they are molested in their commerce, whether lawful or unlawful, they will be disposed to resist. At any rate, they will be the judges of the juncture when their interests may call for the interposition of force, and will exercise that force according to their own whims and caprices. They sail on the ocean clothed with national authority, and for their actions, whether lawful or unlawful, you will be compelled to answer. Sir, I respect the highly honorable occupation of a merchant, but am not disposed to carry that respect so far as to give my sanction to the adoption of a measure which may jeopardize the peace, and endanger the interests of my country. If this resolution were to authorize an arming against Great Britain alone, this argument would have no effect; but as it has a view to a general arming against all nations, this reasoning is conclusive on my mind, and must operate in the same way upon all men who will give the subject a dispassionate consideration. The consequences of such a measure are plain and obvious. Now, let us examine whether there exists any reason sufficiently powerful to outweigh these considerations.

What is the object, and the only one too, as stated by the honorable chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations, (Mr. Porter,) for the adoption of this measure? Your vessels will be armed and prepared for privateering the moment war shall be declared. Why, sir, do you think the merchants will believe that you really intend to go to war? And, if they doubt upon this subject, do you suppose they will be so regardless of their own interests as to expend their capital in fitting out privateers, when no absolute certainty exists that war is your object, or your serious intention? It would, certainly, be an object of no inconsiderable moment to have privateers prepared to harass and disturb the commerce of Great Britain in the event of war. If this be your object, you are taking a very improper course to obtain it. If such be your object, take some decided and energetic step which will convince even the incredulous that you will resort to the sword to obtain justice, and your end will soon be effected. But, do not depress the hopes of the nation by sanctioning this tame, imbecile, and temporizing system.

What is the spirit that breathes in the five resolutions which have been adopted—resolutions which were in entire accordance with my feelings? Is it not a spirit of war? Do they not bear a hostile aspect? Are they not calculated to induce Great Britain to believe that forbearance on our part has terminated, and that we are resolved, unless she speedily extend to us full and ample justice, to decide the contest by the sword? Have you any thing to hope, by operating upon the minds of the rulers of that nation, a conviction that you are boasting no longer? If you do entertain such a hope, I pray you, do not adopt this measure—a measure which will show her the fluctuation of our opinions, and the repugnancy of our plans; a measure which will lull to sleep her fears of war, and convince her not only of your indecision, but of your timidity to unsheath your sword in defence of rights clear and undisputed, and in avenging injuries too glaring for the dignity and honor of a nation to submit to. Are the wishes of this nation to be unattended to? Ought we not to relieve its anxieties? Or, are we to tantalize their hopes with energy in one law and imbecility in another? Are the merchants to be told we will protect their commerce? By what? By granting them a right which nature has already given to them? Is commerce to be protected by abridging the natural rights of the people? Is this measure no abridgment of their rights? Does it not confine the legality of arming to resident citizens alone? Look at the measure as you please, it is a dead letter. Is this the period of all others to be selected to incorporate unmeaning laws in the body of your statute book? Do not satirize, by such an act, the manly sensibility of the people. Do not paralyze the national arm. No; let us do justice to the nation by the adoption of such measures as will renovate the depressed spirits of our constituents; which will prevent them from falling into that destructive and deadly languor which this resolution is calculated to produce.

The question was then taken to concur with the Committee of the whole House on the state of the Union in their agreement to the said sixth resolution, as reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations; and resolved in the affirmative—yeas 97, nays 22.

Saturday, December 21.

Statutes of Limitation.

Mr. Gholson, from the Committee of Claims, who were instructed by a resolution of the House of the 11th ultimo, to inquire into the expediency of repealing or suspending the various acts of limitation, so far as they operate to bar the payment of certain descriptions of claims, made a report thereon.—Referred to the Committee of the Whole on the report of the Committee of Claims on the petition of Rees Nanna and others. The report is as follows:

That they have bestowed on the resolution that full consideration to which it was entitled. They felt, on the one hand, sincere solicitude to devise some just and adequate method of satisfying the claims in question; while, on the other, they were forcibly struck with the unavoidable scenes of speculation and fraud which would ensue the repeal or suspension of any of the acts of limitation, whereby those claims are barred. If the old soldier, his widow, or his orphan, were alone to be benefited by such suspension, your committee would not hesitate to recommend it. Past experience, however, hath evidently shown that similar legislative indulgences have enured almost exclusively to the advantage of the unprincipled speculator, and those who avail themselves of the ignorance and subsist upon the misfortunes of others. We have innumerable examples of the truth of this position, in the consequences that resulted not only from the various suspensions of these acts which have hitherto taken place, but more especially from the adoption of the Funding System. It is deemed unnecessary to enlarge upon the consequences; they are too well known.

Although a communication received from the Treasury at a former session holds out an opinion that there are in the possession of that Department sufficient checks and guards to protect the United States from imposition and fraud in the payment of a certain part of those claims, the committee are differently impressed. They have seen a transcript from the books of the Treasury, published to the world, exhibiting the names of a certain class of claimants; and to suppose that a facility of this kind, thus offered to speculative artifice and management, would not be seized upon and used by the speculator to impose upon Government, is to suppose a thing contrary to all experience. The committee feel themselves by no means able to draw a line of distinction between a just claim liquidated and a just one unliquidated; and to attempt the invidious task of distinction in point of merit, where there can be no difference, and to open the statutes of limitation in order to relieve a part or a few favorite classes of claims, does not comport, in the view of your committee, with any principle of fairness, or with that equal system of distributive justice which ought to be dispensed toward all. When they take a retrospective view of the subject, and find that most of those statutes were first passed in the times and under the patriot counsels of the old Congress, and that the more general one which took effect in 1794 was passed under the Administration of General Washington, who was himself the chief of soldiers as he was the chief of their patrons and friends in every station; but he was equally the friend of his country, and gave that act the sanction of his name, as founded, at least, in a policy of general justice and right, which the Government had been at length obliged to resort to and maintain in self-defence; that every Congress since has invariably adhered to the general policy of those laws; and, after the lapse of so many years, when the difficulty of doing justice has increased with the increase of time, and when a partial repeal would but tend to increase the discontent and dissatisfaction of every class of claimants which should remain unprovided for, the committee cannot, from any view they have been able to take of the subject, recommend the repeal or suspension of any of those statutes. They would, therefore, beg leave to submit the following resolution:

Resolved, That it is not expedient to repeal or suspend any of the acts of limitation, whereby the aforesaid descriptions of claims are barred.[20]

The report was ordered to lie on the table.

Monday, December 23.

Rules and Orders—Previous Question.

The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business of Saturday. The amendment proposed by Mr. Nelson being again read, as follows:

"That when the previous question is ordered to be taken, upon the main question being put, every member, who has not already spoken, shall have liberty to speak once:"

Mr. Gold said the amendment now offered to the rules of the House, secures to every member the right of speaking at least once on every question before the House. The liberty of speech, and freedom of debate, are sacred by the constitution; and to refuse all debate, to deny us the privilege of speaking at all, on the most important questions of peace and war, is a subversion of the first principles of the constitution. And what is to justify this measure of imposing silence? It is said, the right of debate has been abused. Let gentlemen beware how, for an occasional abuse of a right, they take away—destroy the right itself. What right, in the whole charter of our rights, has not at some time been abused? Man is frail, and why should not, at times of public agitation and concussion of parties, abuses arise? debate become angry and be prolonged? And for this, is the principle to be adopted, that the right shall be forever suppressed and destroyed?—the principle that absolute silence shall be imposed on a minority? Sir, Philip, the tyrant of Macedon, disliked the freedom of speech and debate in Athens: it annoyed him; for this cause, Demosthenes was pursued to the altar, where he expired. The principle contended for by the majority (supposed abuse) will be found to justify the most odious usurpations recorded in history; liberty is abused, and chains are forged to restrain it.

Gentlemen of the majority insist, that the rule will not be abused; that the majority will not execute the rule arbitrarily. The amendment, now offered to the rules, stipulates only for liberty to each member to speak once. Now, sir, if this be denied, and the rule is ever executed, the abuse is inevitable, it is necessarily involved in the very execution of the rule.

Neither the journals of our State Legislatures nor the laws of the Parliament of Great Britain afford examples for thus arbitrarily proceeding. Debate is admitted in the British Parliament on the previous question; our rules exclude it on both the previous and main question. Beside, sir, I need only refer gentlemen to the manual of parliamentary law, from the hand of the third President of the United States, to show that the previous question was confined to subjects of delicacy, which a due regard to the interests of the State or its Government forbade to be agitated. How much, sir, has this question been perverted from its proper province, to silence all debate and force the question, the passage of the law! Such measures are dangerous to freedom, and afford, in evil times, the most fatal examples.

Mr. Smilie said he was a friend to freedom of debate, but that there was a difference between this, and that abuse of it when you cannot get a decision without an exertion of physical strength. This has been our case several times. The rule now proposed to be altered is the old rule, and is only restored. We very well know, that a debate has been often prolonged merely to prevent a decision. We have been kept till ten and twelve o'clock at night, and sometimes till daylight. It is an inconvenience which he at his time of life had seriously felt. There can be no evil from the rule as now established. The responsibility of the majority is such to the people, that, if they should abuse it, as the minority have their privilege, the people will correct it, when the minority shall fairly state it to them. He said the majority were also responsible to the people to transact the public business.

Mr. Stanford, in reply to Mr. Smilie, said he did not think it proper to give this dispensing power to the majority, if they by the constitution did not possess it, as he contended they did not. He said we have heard of a sedition law, and the reign of terror. The bill, when first introduced for that law, went to prevent freedom of speech. This rule, in his opinion, much more deserved the character of a "Gag-law," than the Sedition law did.

Mr. Wright mentioned the great abuses of this privilege of the minority the last winter. He said, if we don't establish a written, decent rule, we must have a common law rule, such as they have in the British House of Commons, to shuffle and put down, when the abuse of this privilege becomes enormous.

Mr. Quincy.—Mr. Speaker, I do not regard this question in the light in which some of its advocates, as well as its opponents, have considered it; as a mere contest for power between the majority and the minority. It is of a higher character. It affects the essential principles of civil liberty, and saps its hopes at its very foundation. I rejoice that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Nelson) has limited his proposition, so as to preclude any mistake concerning the object of it. We are not now advocating an unrestrained privilege of debate. The inquiry is, shall a main question ever be taken in this deliberative body, until every member, who has not already spoken, shall have had an opportunity, if he wishes to avail himself of it, to speak at least once upon the question? The ground taken by those who oppose the proposition, is that of necessity and convenience. These are the very points, which, in a free country, ought most vigilantly to be guarded. For it is here that the spirit of despotism always lies in ambush. Under the cover of necessity, or convenience, it steals upon the liberties of a people, and never fails, sooner or later, to make them its prey.

It is not to be denied, that the subject is in some respects difficult to manage, with any hope of convincing. There is a state of feeling, both within this House and out of it, very unpropitious to an impartial debate. In this House it is argued as a question concerning who shall have the power, a majority, or a minority. And as it is agreed, on all hands, that, in the exercise of the power, abuse may happen, the present majority, like all other majorities, have a prevailing inclination to reserve, in their own hands, the exclusive privilege of abuse. And without doors, the subject is of less difficulty. For, of late years, the popular ear has been so vexed with speech upon speech, wind upon wind, the public patience has been so exhausted, in hunting up the solitary grain of sense, hidden in the bushels of chaff, that it is ready to submit to any limitation of a privilege, which subjects it to so irksome a labor. The people are almost ready to exclaim, "do what you will with the liberty of speech, provided you will save us from that fresh of words, with which we are periodically inundated."

Now, this is the very state of the public mind in which the corruption of essential principles commences. Through apparent necessity, or temporary convenience, or disgust at abuse, the popular sentiment is made to acquiesce in the introduction of doctrines vitally inconsistent with the perpetuity of liberty.

I ask the House to consider what is that principle of civil liberty, which is amalgamated and identified with the very existence of a legislative body. In what does it consist? And what is its character? It consists in the right of deliberation. And its character is, that it belongs not to the body, but the individual members constituting the body. The body has the power to control and to regulate its exercise. But it has not the power to take away that right altogether, by the operation of any general principle. An individual member may render himself unworthy of the privilege. He may be set down; he may be denied the right, because he has abused it. But whenever a legislative body assumes to itself the power of stopping, at its will, all debate, at any stage of deliberation, it assumes a power wholly inconsistent with the essential right of deliberation, and totally destructive of that principle of civil liberty which exists, and is identified with the exercise of that right.

The right of every individual member is, in fact, the right of his constituents. He is but their Representative. It is in their majesty, that he appears. It is their right that he reflects. The right of being heard by their Representative is the inherent and absolute right of the people. Now, it is in the essential character of such a right, that it exists, independent, and in despite of any man, or body of men, whatsoever. It is absurd to say, that any right is independent, which depends upon the will of another. It is absurd to say, that any right is absolute, which is wholly relative to the inclination of another; which lasts only as long as he chooses, and terminates at his nod. Now, whether this power be exercised by one, or many, it matters not. The principle of civil liberty is gone, when the inherent and absolute nature of the right is gone.

Apply this reasoning to the case before us. It is impossible to conceal the fact, that as our rules and orders stand, independent of the proposition now offered as an amendment, it is in the power of a majority to preclude all debate, upon any question, and force every member of the House to vote, upon any proposition, without giving him the opportunity of explaining his own reasons, or stating the interests of his constituents. This is undeniable. Is it not, then, plain and conclusive, that, as our rules and orders now stand, according to recent construction, every member of this House holds his right of speaking, not on the principle of his constituents, whose Representative he is, but upon the will of the majority of this House? For that which another may at any time take away from me, I hold not by my own right, but at his will. Can any thing be more obviously at variance with the spirit of the constitution and the first principles of civil liberty?

Let not any man say this power will not be abused. In the nature of things it must be abused. This is the favorite argument of every despotism, and, of course, will not fail to be urged when it is about to plant itself in the very temple of liberty.

I have chosen to consider this subject in relation to the right of the whole body, and of one of its individual members, rather than to that of a majority and minority. The right to speak is an individual right. Limit it as you please, consistent with a single exercise of that right. But when this is taken away, or, which is precisely the same thing so far as it respects the principle of civil liberty, when it is in the power of one or many, at its sovereign will and pleasure, to take it away, there is no longer any right. We have our tenure of speech as the slave has his—at the will of a master.

But it is said that the Legislature must sometimes "act," and that individuals, by an abuse of this liberty of speech, prevent the whole body from "acting." All I say is, limit the exercise of the right as you please, only do not assume to yourselves the power of taking away the whole right, at your pleasure.

It is in this doctrine, of "the necessity of acting," that lies the whole mystery of that error which we are now combating. Strictly speaking, a Legislative body never "acts." Its province is to deliberate and decide. "Action" is, alone, correctly attributable to the Executive. And it will be found, that all the cases in which this necessity of "action" has been urged, have been cases in which the Legislative body has departed from its appropriate duties of deliberation and decision, and descended to be an instrument, or engine, of the Executive. I hesitate not to say, that this position may be proved by almost every instance in which this necessity of action has been urged. It was an Executive haste to its own purposes, which prevailed upon the Legislative body to deny, to its own members, their privileges.

It has been asserted, that "if this amendment passes, this will be the only deliberative body in the world which cannot stop debate." On the other hand I assert, that if this amendment does not pass, this will be the only deliberative body in the world, pretending to be free, in which it is in the power of a majority to force a decision, without any deliberation. It is not true that, in the British Parliament, the previous question stops debate and forces decision on the main question without deliberation. The previous question there, if decided in the negative, suppresses debate, by postponing the main question. And until 1807, the practice and rules of this House permitted debate of the main question, after an affirmative decision of a previous question. Whoever undertakes to examine the subject will find it as I have stated.

It is not true, that this power ever was, or ever can be necessary, in a Legislative body. In every case in which the previous question, according to recent construction, has been pressed upon the House, it will be found that there was no National or State necessity for an immediate decision. That is to say, in every instance it will be found, that it was of no sort of public importance whether the main question were taken on this day, on the next, or on a third day. Always the question might have been taken in a reasonable time; and every individual member, who chose to speak, might have had the privilege, if he pleased, of speaking, at least once. As far as I observed, all these pretences of necessity have been easily resolvable into party cunning. The subject was one difficult to maintain. It had popular bearings, which it suited not the pleasure of the majority to have investigated. They pressed the minority to instant decision, by refusing adjournment. And as it happens in all such cases, reaction is equal to action. The minority were put upon their mettle, and they put to trial the mettle of the majority.

It is undoubtedly true, that this power may be sometimes convenient. And this is the whole strength of the argument of those who oppose this proposition. The weak and aged members of the majority have been kept all night from their slumbers, by a hale and sturdy minority; which slumbers they might, by the way, at any moment have enjoyed, if that very majority had yielded the point of adjournment. And is this reason of convenience sufficient, in the estimation of this House, to justify it, in depriving this people, in the person of their Representatives, of the essential right of speaking upon this floor? Is this a justification for such an atrocious and exorbitant grasp at power? Our patriotism, nowadays, can submit to no sacrifices. We are not content with sleeping, if we please, every day in our seats, unless we can sleep also every night of the session in our feather beds. And these feather-bed patriots, as I understand, are all agog for a march into Canada; and, if we believe them, are desirous of nothing so much as showing how those can meet privation and watchfulness in the field, who think of nothing but comfort and sleep upon this floor.

I know there is another argument urged in favor of the assumption of this power by the majority, and that is, the haste and clatter which always attend the end of a session. Let our session be long or short, the event is, in this respect, always nearly the same. What with speeches and postponements, and laying down one piece of business half finished, and taking up another, the latter end of a session is a political chaos. The work of this and the other House, and that of the Palace into the bargain, is in fact sometimes to be washed up, in a night—and the members of all branches are knee-deep and shoulder-deep in the suds. Now, this shows the necessity, not of this unlimited power of the previous question, but of conducting public business with more prospective intelligence. The House is just like all other spendthrifts. It first wastes what is its own, and then seeks how it may make up its deficiency out of the property of other people. We pillage the public liberty, in order to compensate for legislative negligence.

I have often been puzzled to imagine a necessity, which could even apologize for such an assumption of power as the majority, by this new construction of the previous question, are attempting; and, until lately, I did not believe that it could possibly exist. The only case, in which there seemed to me to be an apology for resorting to it, was, the other day, when the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Troup) threatened to call the previous question upon the majority themselves. I admired both his manner and the occasion on which he introduced that idea. And really there was something like a necessity. If I understood the view of that honorable gentleman, it was, that he thought there was not fighting matter to spare in the stomachs of the majority; and he threatened them with the previous question, lest, peradventure, the whole war spirit should ooze away through the mouth. In this there was both discretion and patriotism.

Mr. Brigham said, that although he was forward in life, he was but of yesterday of this House, and that the rules and orders were not familiar with him. But he exceedingly regretted that this House, in their wisdom, ever found it expedient or proper to adopt a rule to deprive a minority, or an individual member of this House, of the freedom of debate, the freedom of speech, a privilege so much boasted of in this land of liberty. He observed that he had his rights in common with the other members of the House, and that he had his duties to perform. He was not ambitious to become a public speaker, nor would he say that he supposed he could speak to the edification or satisfaction of the House. But should he, on great questions, be denied the privilege of speaking? Suppose the question of peace or war should assume the aspect of solemnity, and it should become necessary and important that this House be made acquainted with the circumstances and disposition of the citizens of the several sections of the country—and suppose a member who is not much accustomed to speaking, silently sits until those gentlemen who are in the habit, and are fond of speaking, shall have exhausted themselves in debate—shall he, in that case, be denied the right of speaking—shall he be deprived of his constitutional privileges and his constituents of the right of representation on the floor of this House?

He said that he was bound by the oath of God to support the constitution, and to promote the welfare of his country; but, if his mouth is stopped, how can he execute his trust or perform his vows? For this House by a rule to interdict the freedom of speech, is an assumption of power, and a violation of right. He hoped, that the rule under consideration would be modified, and that the proposed amendment would be adopted. He wished that each individual member might be permitted to exercise his right of speaking to any question before the House, at least once, if he chooses.

Mr. Nelson spoke in favor of the amendment. He said he had no hesitation in declaring, that whenever right and expediency shall come in competition, that he should prefer right. He remarked, that the constitution secured the freedom of speech to the citizen. And are we, he asked, to be deprived of it when we come to this House—when we enter this temple of liberty? The attempt is not to suspend merely, but to destroy this right, and because we have experienced some inconvenience from this exercise. He agreed with the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Quincy,) that if the House would do their duty, and get the business along in the early part of the session, we should never be in the dilemma the House were in, the last session of Congress; and that an inconvenience was a very poor reason for destroying this right of offering our sentiments. He would rather recommend the turning out of doors a member who should become troublesome in speaking too long, than to suffer him to stay in the House and prevent his uttering his sentiments. Even expulsion would not be a greater infringement of his right. The right of the people is the right of their Representatives to speak, deliberate, and decide. As to the plea of necessity, he protested against it as the plea of tyrants.

Mr. Alston, of North Carolina, expressed his astonishment, that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Nelson) had assumed the ground he had. He said, there were two parties in this House; and asked, is it ever known how a question will be decided, until it is taken?

Mr. Bassett said, if a stranger was present, and should hear this debate, he would suppose that the question was now for the first time brought forward for the establishment of the rule, against which so much had been said, when it is well known that it has always been the practice.

Mr. Pitkin said, the amendment now under consideration was proposed in consequence of a decision of the House, at the close of the last session, that when the previous question was decided in the affirmative, there could be no debate on the main question; the amendment, if adopted, allows a member, who has not previously spoken, to speak at least once on the main question, before he is called upon to give his vote upon it.

The principle adopted by the majority, during the last days of the last session, and now supported in the House, is this, that a majority, who may happen to be present, at any time, have it in their power, by means of a previous question, as it is called, to prevent all debate on every question before the House, however important it may be; to seal up the lips of every member, and compel him to vote upon the question without an opportunity of expressing his sentiments upon it, or explaining the reasons of his vote. This, Mr. Speaker, is a principle to which I never have, and to which I never will give my assent. What, sir, let me ask, and where is the rule under which the majority claim to exercise this enormous power—the power of imposing silence upon any member, on this floor?

The rule, under which this power is claimed, is in the following words: "The previous question shall be in this form: Shall the main question be now put?" It shall only be admitted when demanded by five members; and, until it is decided, shall preclude all amendment and further debate of the main question, and that "on a previous question there shall be no debate." By a new construction, which a majority of the House thought proper to give to this rule, at the close of the last session, all debate may be prohibited on any question; for five members alone can demand the previous question, and then, of course, all debate must cease, until a decision be had on that question, and if the previous question be decided in the affirmative, by this new construction of the rule, there can be no debate or amendment of the main question. Thus, sir, unless the amendment now proposed be adopted, if a proposition for a declaration of war against Great Britain, or any other nation, should be laid upon your table to-morrow, it will be in the power of a majority of the House, and that majority may consist of less than forty members, to impose silence upon every member of this House; and we must be compelled to vote on a proposition so interesting to the prosperity, happiness, and perhaps the final destiny of this country, without the poor privilege (if we might choose so to do) of raising our voices against it. But, sir, the opponents of the amendment say, that the construction given to the rule the last session, was in conformity with the universal practice of the House, from the establishment of the Government, except in two or three instances.

I deny, sir, that this has been the practice, and I believe I may venture to assert, without fear of contradiction, that no such power has ever been exercised over the members of this House, since its organization, until the last session. I have, sir, examined the journals, with some attention, and have not been able to find a solitary instance of the kind. On the contrary, many cases are to be found when the previous question has been decided in the affirmative, and that, immediately after the main question has not only been amended but has been debated. And here, sir, permit me to observe, that the rule itself, with respect to the previous question, was adopted the first session of the First Congress, and has ever since remained precisely in the same form; and no construction was ever given to it, so as to prevent debate on the main question, until the last session.