Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 (4 of 16 vol.). United States. Congress
here; and I now declare that if such modification as has been made is to be considered as rescinding the orders, according to the stipulation made with Mr. Erskine, I should consider it a mere mockery. I do, however, consider it in a very different light, and have no doubt that the Government of Great Britain will adopt such modification of their orders as they have stipulated to do. These are my ideas, and on this ground I did and do still believe that we ought to have made a discrimination, because I consider one nation to have complied with the conditions of the non-intercourse act, whilst the other has not varied its position.
Mr. Macon said he was against admitting the armed vessels of either belligerents into our waters. He would place our foreign relations precisely in the state in which the President had left them, saying neither yea or nay on the subject of their armed vessels, leaving it where it had been left by both the parties to the late arrangement. He should have been glad that the same disposition had been manifested towards us by France as by Great Britain; but because there had not he would do nothing towards her to prevent it. Some gentlemen had conceived that an indiscriminate admission would be more advantageous to France than to Great Britain. Mr. M. said he did not agree with gentlemen in this; for Great Britain had Canada and her West India Islands, to which she was in the habit of sending out vessels; whilst France, having no possessions on the American coast, had no occasion for our hospitality.
Mr. M. said he sincerely hoped that we should now act, as we had heretofore done, so as to give to neither of the belligerents cause to charge us with partiality. He was decidedly of opinion that we ought to leave both nations in the same state as they were left by the President's proclamation. He had no doubt that Great Britain would send a Minister to negotiate. But what was left, as to her, for the surrender or repeal of which she had any anxiety? Nothing. As to France, she would have no shipping at sea, so long as the war lasted in Europe, unless an event took place which he hoped would not. You give France a right to enter your waters, said he, and take away any inducement she might have had to rescind her decrees. I believe the passage of the bill will extend the difficulties of the nation. I know it is not a very pleasant thing to be opposed to the evident sentiment of a majority of the House; but it is the bounden duty of those who think as I do to vote, as I shall, against the bill.
Mr. Taylor said it appeared to be desired on all hands that nothing should be done by the House to embarrass the negotiation; and he presumed that the majority, in the different stages of this bill, had been actuated by that wish. If, said Mr. T., I could see the present measure in the light in which its friends appear to view it, I certainly should be in favor of it. But, when it is recollected that your legislative acts have been held out to your fellow-citizens and to foreign nations, promising a perseverance in our restrictive measures against such nation as shall continue to oppress our commerce by her unlawful edicts, I consider our faith as pledged to the nation, that, according to the recession of one belligerent, or perseverance of the other, we were to shape our course.
The gentleman from Virginia aimed a side blow at those who, in the discussion of this subject, had spoken of the ground which we have taken. On the effects supposed to be produced by the non-intercourse, I had a right to say we. The sense of the House was taken distinctly as to a repeal of the embargo, on the first report of the Committee of Foreign Relations. It was then that the principle was decided, and it was that act which was taken hold of across the Atlantic, and made the ground of the instructions which came out by Mr. Oakley to the British Envoy here, and on which the arrangement did take place. Now, though the gentleman seems unwilling that any part of the House should say we, I vindicate the claim which I have to use it. In fact, I would claim for the mover of the original proposition to this House for the interdiction of armed vessels, the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. Macon,) the merit of the late negotiation, if it attach anywhere. But I am not willing to carry on the copartnership. I will not now say we. I, who voted for the motion going to give power to the President of the United States to issue letters of marque and reprisal against that nation which persevered in its edicts after the other had withdrawn them, am not willing, on the passage of this bill, to say we, as by it you admit instead of continuing the exclusion against armed vessels, where, instead of a recession, injuries have rather been added. When gentlemen are asked why they have admitted French vessels, in our present situation in relation to France, after the temper displayed and the votes given at the last session on the subject, theirs must be a feeling in which I would not participate, and therefore I will not say "we."
Mr. Dana observed that, by the Journals of the Senate, it appeared that this bill had been unanimously passed by that body. This unanimous vote of the Senate might be regarded as a consideration to operate very strongly on the minds of members of the House, as respected the propriety of adopting the present bill; it certainly must have weight in favor of a measure, when it was found that men differing widely in political opinions joined in voting for it. I, said Mr. D., have myself very strongly felt the force of this consideration. But you know, sir, that the rules of proceeding and order established in this House do not admit of our urging in debate the conduct of the Senate of the United States as a motive for deciding the opinion of this House. Why is it out of order? Because the excellence of our constitution is, that the Legislature shall consist of two Houses, each of which shall act on its own ideas of propriety. If it is not proper to mention the conduct of the Senate in debate, it is not proper to suffer it to overthrow our opinions. In this view I feel myself bound, with all due deference to the Senate, to examine this subject for myself. I cannot but feel the weight of that vote; but I cannot forget that the bill respecting the writ of habeas corpus was once passed in that House, and rejected unanimously in this, without being permitted to be read a second time.
On examining this bill, sir, I do not find that its various provisions appear to constitute one whole, to conform with any system of policy, or to be consistent with the principles of any man in this country. It is certainly not the course which I would have chosen; it is not consistent with the course marked out at the last session of Congress. I was certainly not in favor of the embargo; I disapproved of that system; and when I saw the non-intercourse system, I considered that as retaining the embargo principle, but not with so much precision. I consider this bill to be receding from a weak position. If the embargo was a decisive measure, it ought to have been taken more completely at the outset than it was. But it failed. The non-intercourse was abandoning one part and retaining another of the system. This bill was abandoning a part of the non-intercourse system and retaining a part. When I look at it, I see nothing in it at which any portion of American citizens can rejoice or be proud of; nothing of a firm, dignified, matured, sound, consistent policy, to be maintained on general principles against all the world. Am I then required to vote for a measure of this kind? If, with my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Quincy) I could suppose that voting for a system which I did not like would destroy it, I should vote for it. For, if I understand him, he dislikes the whole, and therefore will vote for this part of it. The whole would die at the end of this session; but to show his anxiety for its death he must keep it alive till the next session of Congress. I was very much pleased with a great part of his remarks; I approbated his premises, but his conclusions appeared to be directly the reverse of the proper result. But as he is a gentleman of strong powers of mind, he may well be able to draw a conclusion which I cannot.
Gentlemen have alluded to the declarations of the Emperor of France in relation to his decrees. When Bonaparte talks of the freedom of the seas, does he mean the same idea which we attach to these words when we use them? When he talks of the principles of maritime law, does he mean the same as we? On the subject of maritime law, has he not stated things which before were unheard of? Certainly, sir. On the contrary, I have always understood the claims of the United States as a neutral nation to be, not to assert new pretensions, but to assert such claims as they may think reasonable with respect to principle, and such as have been formerly admitted in practice.
With respect to the bill before you, there has been one argument used, and an imposing one certainly, provided that it appeared completely founded in fact. It is said this bill is considered as comporting with the views of the Executive Government of the country; and that the Executive has acted so well in conducting the preliminary arrangement for removing certain obstacles to negotiation, that on the whole we ought to assist his administration. On this subject, sir, I have to observe that we are utterly without official evidence on this point. We have no evidence whatever, of an official nature, that