Chapter LXXXII: Introduction (81)

True it was, that an alarm which had produced a combination, had lately taken place amongst the merchants of this and some other seaports. What effect it would have, and how successful they would eventually be, in spreading this alarm amongst the people at large, he could not tell; but there were circumstances accompanying their petition, which, in his opinion, much diminished the weight they otherwise might have had. They had, undoubtedly, a right to petition upon every public measure, where they thought themselves interested, and their petitions would deserve equal regard, with those of their fellow-citizens throughout the United States. But on this occasion, in order to create an alarm, in order to induce the people to join them, in order to force the House to pass the laws relative to the Treaty, they had formed a dangerous combination, and affected to cease insuring vessels, purchasing produce, and transacting any business. A gentleman from New York (Mr. WILLIAMS) had been so much alarmed himself, that he had predicted a fall in the price of every kind of produce, and seems, indeed, to have supposed, that the clamors of a few individuals here would either put an end to, or satisfy the wants of those nations which depended on us for supplies of provisions. Yet, it had so happened, and it was a complete proof that the whole was only an alarm, that whilst they were debating, the price of flour, which was of very dull sale two weeks ago, had risen in equal proportion with the supposed fears of the purchasers.

He could not help considering the cry of war, the threats of a dissolution of Government, and the present alarm, as designed for the same purpose, that of making an impression on the fears of this House. It was through the fear of being involved in a war, that the negotiation with Great Britain had originated; under the impression of fear, the Treaty had been negotiated and signed; a fear of the same danger, that of war, had promoted its ratification; and now, every imaginary mischief which could alarm our fears, was conjured up, in order to deprive us of that discretion, which this House thought they had a right to exercise, and in order to force us to carry the Treaty into effect.

_The Son of the Marquis Lafayette._

Mr. LIVINGSTON, Chairman of the committee for carrying into effect a resolution respecting the son of the Marquis LAFAYETTE, reported that he had arrived in this country; that he had received the patronage of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; that he was in New Jersey for education, and to show that he had no occasion for pecuniary assistance, the committee subjoin a well-written, affecting letter to the Chairman of the committee, in answer to one from him, expressive of his gratitude for the kind attention shown to him by the Legislature of the United States, by the PRESIDENT, and to every person to whom he was made known; that he had no wants; that he was as happy as he could be; that if he should in future have occasion for assistance, he would apply to Congress, who had been so kind and attentive to his welfare.[77]

THURSDAY, April 28.

_Execution of British Treaty._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union; when, the resolution for carrying the British Treaty into effect being under consideration----

Mr. PRESTON rose and spoke as follows: Mr. Chairman, I voted for the question yesterday, for the first time since this discussion began. I was then prepared to give my opinion, but, since the House has thought proper to devote another day to this important subject, I will take the liberty to offer my sentiments, and claim the indulgence of the committee for this purpose. I make this claim for their indulgence with the more confidence, as I have heretofore occupied but little of the time of the House on any occasion, and as I mean to be short on the present--not intending to take that comprehensive view of the subject which many gentlemen have done who have preceded me. With this apology I will proceed, conceiving, however that no apology is necessary on this or any other occasion where our duty impels us to come forward. But I must confess it has been painful to me to hear the recriminations that have taken place on this occasion. I had hoped, on a subject so important, on which it is said the peace and happiness of this our common country rests--whose welfare must be equally dear to all--that temperance and calmness would have marked our deliberations; that all our efforts would have been made to enlighten the minds and convince the judgments of each other, instead of lessening one another in our estimation, and that of our constituents, by dishonorable imputations, and which, I trust, every member would spurn. As to myself, Mr. Chairman, I stand here regardless of any imputations that ill-nature may cast upon me in this House, or abuse which may be conferred without doors. I shall not be deterred from pronouncing that opinion which my best reflections have enabled me to form.

Sir, in considering this subject, I had hoped every information possessed by any of the departments of Government would have been freely afforded us; and I cannot but lament that the PRESIDENT, by a too strict adherence to what he has supposed to be his constitutional duty, refused the request of this House for certain papers, which request seemed to me not only proper, but innocent--proper, because they might have afforded information that would reconcile many of the objections entertained of the Treaty, and finally produce its adoption; it was innocent, because, if there was no unfair procedure respecting this business, why not publish the transaction to the world--at all events to the Representatives of the people, who, it is acknowledged by all, were not only to act on the Treaty in some way, but were intrusted with the management of some of the dearest rights of their fellow-countrymen? If, then, the people confide in us such important concerns, might not the Executive have reposed some degree of confidence, and complied with a request so decorously and respectfully made? But he has told us his duty forbids it. We are then reduced to the necessity to judge of the thing from the face of it, without the wished-for information. And I must confess it has always presented such a hideous and deformed aspect to my mind, that I have ever disliked it--which, together with the unfriendly sentiments of my constituents to it, has produced my prejudices. But I had determined, as the PRESIDENT and Senate had ratified it, and many approved it, to keep my mind open for every information the subject was capable of. As, then, none has been offered to operate a change of my opinion, and as the most likely source is shut against us, my prejudices, instead of being lessened, have become firmly fixed in the opposition.

But we are told the British committed no infraction of the Treaty of 1783, by withholding the posts; for we, having thrown legal impediments in the way of the recovery of their debts, became the first infractors thereof, whereby they were left free to comply or not. Let us, for a moment, inquire into this fact. By the 4th article of that Treaty, creditors on either side were to meet with no legal impediment to the recovery of their debts. By the 7th article of the same Treaty, His Majesty was, with all convenient speed, to withdraw his armies and garrisons from every post and place. Now, sir, on comparing these articles, can it be presumed by any one that the latter stipulation was to remain unexecuted until the creditors recovered their debts? Was it to remain as a pledge for the performance of the other? No one can entertain the idea for a moment. Suppose the creditors had gone on in the collection of their debts without interruption, would it be said that the stipulations of the 7th article would be suspended until all the creditors were wholly satisfied? It is absurd, particularly when we reflect that the commissioners who negotiated that Treaty must have contemplated the recovery of those debts by lawsuits; therefore, if the latter clause was intended to coerce the former, we would certainly not have had the insertion of the words "with all convenient speed," which implies an early compliance. If the opposite construction was just, I would venture to say, the British Government would never have agreed to surrender the posts, but in consequence of such concessions as it now gets; for it would have the advantages of the fur trade, and the faith of this country pledged for the payment of the debts, which were accumulating by interest. This was a pleasing situation; but what was the situation of the British debtors? Deprived of their negroes, which were to be returned by the Treaty; deprived of the advantages of the trade with the Indians, whereby they might be enabling themselves to discharge those debts; harassed and worn down with taxation, to support the Indian wars excited by their creditors. In this situation of things, was it not natural for them to look around for security or indemnity against these evils; and would any thing more naturally present itself, than withholding the payment of the money to the very cause of these evils? None, sir; and I cannot conceive it so dishonorable as some gentlemen pretend to view it.

But, sir, I will endeavor to show that the laws which were enacted by States for prohibiting the recovery of the British debts, were not an infraction of the Treaty of 1783. By the little book, which the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. HILLHOUSE) says is so precious, and which he hopes will be preserved for some time to come, we find that Mr. JEFFERSON has, in consequence of complaints from the British Minister, respecting the impediments to the recovery of British debts, inquired into the facts, in those States where the complaints originated; the result of these inquiries was, that though there were State laws prohibiting, yet a number of gentlemen, of the first abilities and great integrity,--generally professional characters, and who have been engaged in proceedings of this kind,--certify, that wherever attempts were made to recover these debts, they have met with no more obstruction than other creditors. Besides, those gentlemen were generally of opinion that, on the final ratification of the Treaty of 1783, it repealed all laws at variance with it. If, then, it had such a powerful attribute as to repeal former laws, it follows as a consequence, that subsequent laws opposing it were mere nullities. These opinions were cited the other day by a gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. SEDGWICK,) and relied on. I hope they will have their due weight on the application now to be made of them. So that, on the whole, it does appear to me the British creditor had nothing more to struggle with than other creditors had, except the well-founded prejudices imbibed by our countrymen against that nation, which, though the laws might in some measure correct, they could never eradicate. That these prejudices have produced irregularities in many instances and delay of collections, I have no doubt; but from the nature of things it is well known no foresight or protection could guard against it. Indeed, they might have been expected, for can it be supposed that men would stand calmly and see their families reduced to penury and want by an unrelenting British creditor, who had aided to impair the very means of his debtor to pay, and whose Government was by their acts daily increasing the evils, by exciting the Indians to war against us, whereby our citizens were borne down with burdens to defend themselves? I say, would not such reflections, with ruin before our eyes, produce a degree of irritation in the most calm amongst us? I owe none of these debts, I never did, and I never will, if I can help it. I spurn the idea of involving my country in a debt of an incalculable amount, when millions of them never received any benefit thereby. It is wrong, it is unjust. I again repeat, that it does appear to me, on an impartial view of this subject, that the United States are not chargeable with the first infraction of the Treaty of 1783, and that therefore, we are not bound now to enter into a compact which appears to me to be warranted neither by the principles of reciprocity nor justice.

But I undertake to say, and with some confidence too, that Great Britain committed the first infraction of that Treaty, by withholding the posts, and also carrying away the negroes, which she had expressly stipulated to give up; and, to my astonishment, it is now contended that the taking away the negroes was not a violation of the Treaty, as they came into their possession by the rights of war, and being deemed property were vested in the captors. Admit, for a moment, they were that kind of property, and they became as much the property of their captors as any they had possessed themselves of in the same way, what then? Certainly, that it followed of course, they had a right to dispose of them in any way they chose, either to emancipate them, retain them in slavery for their own use, or return them to their original owners. Which of these alternatives have they elected to do? [Here he read the following sentence from the Treaty of 1783.] "And His Britannic Majesty shall, with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction or carrying away any negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies," &c., &c. Now, sir, was not the carrying away the negroes a violation of this article? All America once thought so. No other construction ever entered the head of man till this Treaty appeared; owners so construed it, and in virtue thereof made demands. Congress, and even "_Camillus_," once thought so, and so they declared it in the most solemn manner. And so it would be construed by all descriptions of people, from the schoolboy to the Senator, to use the expression of the gentleman from New York, (Mr. COOPER,) had our minds remained in the same state they were in a dozen years ago. Sir, if there be modern constructions of the constitution, I will venture to say there is the same of Treaties. But another clause of the same article justifies my construction, to wit: the leaving in all fortifications the American artillery that may be therein. Gentlemen will hardly say this means fortifications garrisoned by American soldiery; this would be absurd, for it is pretty well known that American artillery guarded itself better than British Treaties did. Was not this artillery, which had fallen into the hands of the enemy, a vested property, till the chances of war or the Treaty had made a disposal thereof? Unquestionably it was. Were not the archives, records, deeds, &c., which had also fallen into the hands of the enemy, their property? There can be no doubt of it. Yet we find these things stipulated to be given up.

If, then, they chose to yield one species of property, might they not another? But, it is said, the negroes were not our property at the time of signing the Treaty; so neither did the archives, records, &c., belong to the States--they were the property of the enemy; but certainly the British Minister had as much right to stipulate for the return of the one as for the other, and he has in as explicit terms. This must have been the understanding of the commissioners who negotiated that Treaty, although one of them has been traced to his slumbers, the evening before the sealing the Treaty, for a different construction. So that, in this instance, the British have certainly committed the first infraction, by carrying off the negroes. And is it not extraordinary that, notwithstanding this, no claim is made for them, and yet we are bound to pay the British debts, when the very means of doing it are taken from the debtor by the creditor? Sir, this is a serious oppression, and though not of a very great magnitude, will nevertheless be felt in an interesting manner, and if submitted to will be so under much disquietude.

But the rejection of the Treaty is tremendously alarming, indeed. War, and war's alarms, are echoed on all sides. We shall be attacked on one side by savage barbarity; up the Mediterranean by Algerine cruelty; our commerce prostrated, and our cities laid under contribution by the British. In short, the dogs of war let loose on us, and America, once happy America, will become the scene of bloodshed and desolation. Great God! What man is there here that can be wicked enough to involve his country in such incalculable miseries? Who has firmness enough to meet so foul a deed? Particularly when we reflect on the dreadful act we are about to do, that will produce such scenes of horror and devastation! namely, refuse to accept a bargain derogatory to our national honor! This, sir, is to produce the dreadful catastrophe. But the measure of woe is not yet filled. There will be disunion; and American citizens will become American enemies, imbruing their hands in each other's blood. Civil wars will rend our happy country. Heavens! What a shock to suffering humanity here will be! And all about some commercial regulations and political differences with a foreign nation, who, I believe, in principle, is our inveterate enemy.

Mr. Chairman, I am one who, though I have but little confidence in the British Government, yet I cannot believe that she, or any other nation on earth, is so arrogant, and lost to every principle of humanity, as to go into such dreadful excesses, because we will not enter into a contract that will suit her interest. I fear war as much as any man, when a pretext is given; but can it be seriously said a rejection of this Treaty is a cause of war? I cannot believe that such can possibly be the event.

As to disunion, it is idle to talk of it; for I do believe if, instead of a minority of this House, every man in it were to return home full of spleen and disappointment, and were to use every exertion, every artifice in their power, to bring about a disunion, they would fail in so traitorous an attempt. The people, sir, would scoff them, would turn them out of office, and place therein more deserving characters.

As then, Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe that war or disunion will be the result of a rejection of the Treaty, and as I think it is one from which we ought to withhold our assent, I must give it my negative. And if, in this, time shall prove me wrong, I shall lament the error with the greatest sincerity, but I shall have the pleasing consolation to know it was an error of the head, and not of the heart.

When Mr. PRESTON had taken his seat--

Mr. AMES rose, and addressed the Chair as follows:

Mr. Chairman: I entertain the hope, perhaps a rash one, that my strength will hold me out to speak a few minutes.

In my judgment, a right decision will depend more on the temper and manner with which we may prevail on ourselves to contemplate the subject, than upon the development of any profound political principles, or any remarkable skill in the application of them. If we should succeed to neutralize our inclinations, we should find less difficulty than we have to apprehend in surmounting all our objections.

The suggestion, a few days ago, that the House manifested symptoms of heat and irritation, was made and retorted as if the charge ought to create surprise, and would convey reproach. Let us be more just to ourselves, and to the occasion. Let us not affect to deny the existence and the intrusion of some portion of prejudice and feeling into the debate, when, from the very structure of our nature, we ought to anticipate the circumstance as a probability, and when we are admonished by the evidence of our senses that it is a fact.

How can we make professions for ourselves, and offer exhortations to the House, that no influence should be felt but that of duty, and no guide respected but that of the understanding, while the peal to rally every passion of man is continually ringing in our ears.

Our understandings have been addressed, it is true, and with ability and effect; but, I demand, has any corner of the heart been left unexplored? It has been ransacked to find auxiliary arguments, and when that attempt failed, to awaken the sensibilities that would require none. Every prejudice and feeling have been summoned to listen to some particular style of address; and yet we seem to believe, and to consider a doubt as an affront, that we are strangers to any influence but that of unbiased reason.

It would be strange that a subject which has roused in turn all the passions of the country, should be discussed without the interference of any of our own. We are men, and, therefore, not exempt from those passions; as citizens and Representatives, we feel the interest that must excite them. The hazard of great interests cannot fail to agitate strong passions: we are not disinterested, it is impossible we should be dispassionate. The warmth of such feelings may becloud the judgment, and, for a time, pervert the understanding; but the public sensibility and our own, has sharpened the spirit of inquiry, and given an animation to the debate. The public attention has been quickened to mark the progress of the discussion, and its judgment, often hasty and erroneous on first impressions, has become solid and enlightened at last. Our result will, I hope, on that account, be the safer and more mature, as well as more accordant with that of the nation. The only constant agents in political affairs are the passions of men--shall we complain of our nature? Shall we say that man ought to have been made otherwise? It is right already, because He, from whom we derive our nature, ordained it so; and because thus made, and thus acting, the cause of truth and the public good is the more surely promoted.

But an attempt has been made to produce an influence of a nature more stubborn and more unfriendly to truth. It is very unfairly pretended that the constitutional right of this House is at stake, and to be asserted and preserved only by a vote in the negative. We hear it said that this is a struggle for liberty, a manly resistance against the design to nullify this assembly, and to make it a cypher in the Government. That the PRESIDENT and Senate, the numerous meetings in the cities, and the influence of the general alarm of the country, are the agents and instruments of a scheme of coercion and terror, to force the Treaty down our throats, though we loathe it, and in spite of the clearest convictions of duty and conscience.

It is necessary to pause here and inquire, whether suggestions of this kind be not unfair in their very texture and fabric, and pernicious in all their influences? They oppose an obstacle in the path of inquiry, not simply discouraging, but absolutely insurmountable. They will not yield to argument; for, as they were not reasoned up, they cannot be reasoned down. They are higher than a Chinese wall in truth's way, and built of materials that are indestructible. While this remains, it is in vain to argue; it is in vain to say to this mountain, be thou cast into the sea. For, I ask of the men of knowledge of the world, whether they would not hold him for a blockhead that should hope to prevail in an argument whose scope and object it is to mortify the self-love of the expected proselyte? I ask, further, when such attempts have been made, have they not failed of success? The indignant heart repels a conviction that is believed to debase it.

The self-love of an individual is not warmer in its sense, or more constant in its action, than what is called in French, _l'esprit de corps_, or the self-love of an assembly; that jealous affection which a body of men is always found to bear towards its own prerogatives and power. I will not condemn this passion. Why should we urge an unmeaning censure, or yield to groundless fears that truth and duty will be abandoned, because men in a public assembly are still men, and feel that spirit of corps which is one of the laws of their nature? Still less should we despond or complain, if we reflect that this very spirit is a guardian instinct that watches over the life of this assembly. It cherishes the principle of self-preservation; and, without its existence, and its existence with all the strength we see it possess, the privileges of the Representatives of the people, and immediately the liberties of the people, would not be guarded, as they are, with a vigilance that never sleeps, and an unrelaxing constancy and courage.

If the consequences, most unfairly attributed to the vote in the affirmative, were not chimerical, and worse, for they are deceptive, I should think it a reproach to be found even moderate in my zeal to assert the constitutional powers of this assembly; and, whenever they shall be in real danger, the present occasion affords proof that there will be no want of advocates and champions.

Indeed, so prompt are these feelings, and when once roused, so difficult to pacify, that, if we could prove the alarm was groundless, the prejudice against the appropriations may remain on the mind, and it may even pass for an act of prudence and duty to negative a measure which was lately believed by ourselves, and may hereafter be misconceived by others, to encroach upon the powers of the House. Principles that bear a remote affinity with usurpation on those powers will be rejected, not merely as errors, but as wrongs. Our sensibilities will shrink from a post where it is possible they may be wounded, and be inflamed by the slightest suspicion of an assault.

While these prepossessions remain, all argument is useless; it may be heard with the ceremony of attention, and lavish its own resources, and the patience it wearies, to no manner of purpose. The ears may be open, but the mind will remain locked up, and every pass to the understanding guarded.

Unless, therefore, this jealous and repulsive fear for the rights of the House can be allayed, I will not ask a hearing.

I cannot press this topic too far--I cannot address myself with too much emphasis to the magnanimity and candor of those who sit here, to suspect their own feelings, and while they do, to examine the grounds of their alarm. I repeat it, we must conquer our persuasion, that this body has an interest in one side of the question more than the other, before we attempt to surmount our objections. On most subjects, and solemn ones too, perhaps in the most solemn of all, we form our creed more from inclination than evidence.

Let me expostulate with gentlemen to admit, if it be only by way of supposition and for a moment, that it is barely possible they have yielded too suddenly to their alarms for the powers of this House; that the addresses which have been made with such variety of forms, and with so great dexterity in some of them, to all that is prejudice and passion in the heart, are either the effects or the instruments of artifice and deception, and then let them see the subject once more in its singleness and simplicity.

It will be impossible, on taking a fair review of the subject, to justify the passionate appeals that have been made to us to struggle for our liberties and rights, and the solemn exhortation to reject the proposition, said to be concealed in that on your table, to surrender them for ever. In spite of this mock solemnity, I demand, if the House will not concur in the measure to execute the Treaty, what other course shall we take? How many ways of proceeding lie open before us?

In the nature of things there are but three--we are either to make the Treaty--to observe it--or break it. It would be absurd to say we will do neither. If I may repeat a phrase, already so much abused, we are under coercion to do one of them, and we have no power, by the exercise of our discretion, to prevent the consequences of a choice.

By refusing to act, we choose. The Treaty will be broken, and fall to the ground. Where is the fitness, then, of replying to those who urge upon this House the topics of duty and policy, that they attempt to force the Treaty down, and to compel this assembly to renounce its discretion, and to degrade itself to the rank of a blind and passive instrument in the hands of the Treaty-making power? In case we reject the appropriation, we do not secure any greater liberty of action, we gain no safer shelter than before, from the consequences of the decision. Indeed, they are not to be evaded. It is neither just nor manly to complain that the Treaty-making power has produced this coercion to act. It is not the art or the despotism of that power, it is the nature of things that compels. Shall we, dreading to become the blind instruments of power, yield ourselves the blinder dupes of mere sounds of imposture? Yet that word, that empty word, coercion, has given scope to an eloquence that, one would imagine, could not be tired, and did not choose to be quieted.

Let us examine still more in detail the alternatives that are before us, and we shall scarcely fail to see, in still stronger lights, the futility of our apprehensions for the power and liberty of the House.

If, as some have suggested, the thing called a Treaty is incomplete, if it has no binding force or obligation, the first question is, Will this House complete the instrument, and by concurring, impart to it that force which it wants?

The doctrine has been avowed, that the Treaty, though formally ratified by the Executive power of both nations, though published as a law for our own, by the PRESIDENT's Proclamation, is still a mere proposition submitted to this assembly no way distinguishable in point of authority or obligation from a motion for leave to bring in a bill, or any other original act of ordinary legislation. This doctrine, so novel in our country, yet so dear to many, precisely for the reason that, in the contention of power, victory is always dear, is obviously repugnant to the very terms, as well as the fair interpretation of our own resolutions, (Mr. BLOUNT's.) We declare that the Treaty-making power is exclusively vested in the PRESIDENT and Senate, and not in this House. Need I say that we fly in the face of that resolution when we pretend that the acts of that power are not valid until we have concurred in them? It would be nonsense, or worse, to use the language of the most glaring contradiction and to claim a share in a power which we, at the same time, disclaim as exclusively vested in other departments.

What can be more strange than to say, that the compacts of the PRESIDENT and Senate with foreign nations are Treaties, without our agency, and yet those compacts want all power and obligation until they are sanctioned by our concurrence? It is not my design in this place, if at all, to go into the discussion of this part of the subject. I will, at least for the present, take it for granted that this monstrous opinion stands in little need of remark, and, if it does, lies almost out of the reach of refutation.

But, say those who hide the absurdity under the cover of ambiguous phrases, have we no discretion? And, if we have, are we not to make use of it in judging of the expediency or inexpediency of the Treaty? Our resolution claims that privilege, and we cannot surrender it without equal inconsistency and breach of duty.

If there be any inconsistency in the case, it lies, not in making appropriations for the Treaty, but in the resolution itself, (Mr. BLOUNT's.) Let us examine it more nearly. A Treaty is a bargain between nations binding in good faith; and what makes a bargain? The assent of the contracting parties. We allow that the Treaty power is not in this House; this House has no share in contracting, and is not a party; of consequence, the PRESIDENT and Senate alone may make a Treaty that is binding in good faith. We claim, however, say the gentlemen, a right to judge of the expediency of Treaties--that is the constitutional province of our discretion. Be it so--what follows? Treaties when adjudged by us to be inexpedient, fall to the ground, and the public faith is not hurt. This, incredible and extravagant as it may seem, is asserted. The amount of it, in plainer language, is this--the PRESIDENT and Senate are to make national bargains, and this House has nothing to do in making them. But bad bargains do not bind this House, and, of inevitable consequence, do not bind the nation. When a national bargain, called a Treaty, is made, its binding force does not depend upon the making, but upon our opinion that it is good. As our opinion on the matter can be known and declared only by ourselves, when sitting in our Legislative capacity, the Treaty, though ratified, and, as we choose to term it, made, is hung up in suspense, till our sense is ascertained. We condemn the bargain, and it falls, though, as we say, our faith does not. We approve a bargain as expedient, and it stands firm, and binds the nation. Yet, even in this latter case, its force is plainly not derived from the ratification by the Treaty-making power, but from our approbation. Who will trace these inferences, and pretend that we may have no share, according to the argument, in the Treaty-making power? These opinions, nevertheless, have been advocated with infinite zeal and perseverance. Is it possible that any man can be hardy enough to avow them, and their ridiculous consequences?

Let me hasten to suppose the Treaty is considered as already made, and then the alternative is fairly presented to the mind, whether we will observe the Treaty, or break it. This, in fact, is the naked question.

If we choose to observe it with good faith, our course is obvious. Whatever is stipulated to be done by the nation, must be complied with. Our agency, if it should be requisite, cannot be properly refused. And I do not see why it is not as obligatory a rule of conduct for the Legislature as for the Courts of Law.

I cannot lose this opportunity to remark, that the coercion, so much dreaded and declaimed against, appears at length to be no more than the authority of principles, the despotism of duty. Gentlemen complain that we are forced to act in this way, we are forced to swallow the Treaty. It is very true, unless we claim the liberty of abuse, the right to act as we ought not. There is but one way open for us, the laws of morality and good faith have fenced up every other. What sort of liberty is that which we presume to exercise against the authority of those laws! It is for tyrants to complain that principles are restraints, and that they have no liberty so long as their despotism has limits.

The consequences of refusing to make provision for the Treaty are not all to be foreseen. By rejecting, vast interests are committed to the sport of the winds, chance becomes the arbiter of events, and it is forbidden to human foresight to count their number, or measure their extent. Before we resolve to leap into this abyss, so dark and so profound, it becomes us to pause and reflect upon such of the dangers as are obvious and inevitable. If this assembly should be wrought into a temper to defy these consequences, it is vain, it is deceptive, to pretend that we can escape them. It is worse than weakness to say, that as to public faith our vote has already settled the question. Another tribunal than our own is already erected. The public opinion, not merely of our own country, but of the enlightened world, will pronounce judgment that we cannot resist, that we dare not even affect to despise.

Well may I urge it to men who know the worth of character, that it is no trivial calamity to have it contested. Refusing to do what the Treaty stipulates shall be done, opens the controversy. Even if we should stand justified at last, a character that is vindicated is something worse than it stood before, unquestioned and unquestionable. Like the plaintiff in an action of slander, we recover a reputation disfigured by invective, and even tarnished by too much handling. In the combat for the honor of the nation, it may receive some wounds, which, though they should heal, will leave some scars. I need not say, for surely the feelings of every bosom have anticipated, that we cannot guard this sense of national honor, this ever-living fire, which alone keeps patriotism warm in the heart, with a sensibility too vigilant and jealous. If, by executing the Treaty, there is no possibility of dishonor, and if by rejecting there is some foundation for doubt and for reproach, it is not for me to measure, it is for your own feelings to estimate the vast distance that divides the one side of the alternative from the other. If, therefore, we should enter on the examination of the question of duty and obligation with some feelings of prepossession, I do not hesitate to say, they are such as we ought to have; it is an after inquiry to determine whether they are such as ought finally to be resisted.

To expatiate on the value of public faith, may pass with some men for declamation; to such men I have nothing to say. To others I will urge, can any circumstance mark upon a people more turpitude and debasement? Can any thing tend more to make men think themselves mean, or degrade to a lower point their estimation of virtue and their standard of action? It would not merely demoralize mankind, it tends to break all the ligaments of society, to dissolve that mysterious charm which attracts individuals to the nation, and to inspire in its stead a repulsive sense of shame and disgust.

What is patriotism? Is it a narrow affection for the spot where a man was born? Are the very clods where we tread entitled to this ardent preference because they are greener? No, sir; this is not the character of the virtue, and it soars higher for its object. It is an extended self-love, mingling with all the enjoyments of life, and twisting itself with the minutest filaments of the heart. It is thus we obey the laws of society, because they are the laws of virtue. In their authority we see not the array of force and terror, but the venerable image of our country's honor. Every good citizen makes that honor his own, and cherishes it not only as precious but as sacred. He is willing to risk his life in its defence, and is conscious that he gains protection while he gives it. For what rights of a citizen will be deemed inviolable when a State renounces the principles that constitute their security? Or, if his life should not be invaded, what would its enjoyments be in a country odious to the eyes of strangers and dishonored in his own? Could he look with affection and veneration to such a country as his parent? The sense of having one would die within him; he would blush for his patriotism, if he retained any, and justly, for it would be a vice. He would be a banished man in his native land.

I see no exception to the respect that is paid among nations to the law of good faith. If there are cases in this enlightened period when it is violated, there are none when it is decried. It is the philosophy of politics--the religion of governments. It is observed by barbarians that a whiff of tobacco-smoke or a string of beads gives not merely binding force, but sanctity, to Treaties. Even in Algiers, a truce may be bought for money, but when ratified, even Algiers is too wise or too just to disown and annul its obligation. Thus, we see neither the ignorance of savages, nor the principles of an association for piracy and rapine, permit a nation to despise its engagements. If, sir, there could be a resurrection from the foot of the gallows; if the victims of justice could live again, collect together, and form a society, they would, however loth, soon find themselves obliged to make justice--that justice under which they fell--the fundamental law of their State. They would perceive it was their interest to make others respect, and they would therefore soon pay some respect themselves to the obligations of good faith.

The refusal of the posts (inevitable, if we reject the Treaty) is a measure too decisive in its nature to be neutral in its consequences. From great causes we are to look for great effects. A plain and obvious one will be, the price of the Western lands will fall. Settlers will not choose to fix their habitation on a field of battle. Those who talk so much of the interests of the United States, should calculate how deeply it will be affected by rejecting the Treaty--how vast a tract of wild land will almost cease to be property. This loss, let it be observed, will fall upon a fund expressly devoted to sink the National Debt. What then are we called upon to do? However the form of the vote and the protestations of many may disguise the proceeding, our resolution is in substance (and it deserves to wear the title of a resolution) to prevent the sale of the Western lands and the discharge of the public debt.

Will the tendency to Indian hostilities be contrasted by any one? Experience gives the answer. The frontiers were scourged with war till the negotiation with Britain was far advanced, and then the state of hostility ceased. Perhaps the public agents of both nations are innocent of fomenting the Indian war, and perhaps they are not. We ought not, however, to expect that neighboring nations, highly irritated against each other, will neglect the friendship of the savages. The traders will gain an influence, and will abuse it; and who is ignorant that their passions are easily raised, and hardly restrained from violence. Their situation will oblige them to choose between this country and Great Britain, in case the Treaty should be rejected. They will not be our friends, and at the same time the friends of our enemies.

But am I reduced to the necessity of proving this point? Certainly the very men who charged the Indian war on the detention of the posts will call for no other proof than the recital of their own speeches. It is remembered with what emphasis--with what acrimony--they expatiated on the burden of taxes, and the drain of blood and treasure into the Western country, in consequence of Britain's holding the posts. "Until the posts are restored," they exclaimed, "the Treasury and the frontiers must bleed."

If any, against all these proofs, should maintain that the peace with the Indians will be stable without the posts, to them I will urge another reply. From arguments calculated to produce conviction, I will appeal directly to the hearts of those who hear me, and ask whether it is not already planted there? I resort especially to the convictions of the Western gentlemen, whether, supposing no posts and no Treaty, the settlers will remain in security? Can they take it upon them to say that an Indian peace, under these circumstances, will prove firm. No, sir; it will not be peace, but a sword; it will be no better than a lure to draw victims within the reach of the tomahawk.

On this theme, my emotions are unutterable. If I could find words for them--if my powers bore any proportion to my zeal--I would swell my voice to such a note of remonstrance it should reach every log-house beyond the mountains. I would say to the inhabitants, Wake from your false security! Your cruel dangers--your more cruel apprehensions--are soon to be renewed; the wounds, yet unhealed, are to be torn open again. In the day-time, your path through the woods will be ambushed; the darkness of midnight will glitter with the blaze of your dwellings. You are a father: the blood of your sons shall fatten your corn-field! You are a mother: the war-whoop shall wake the sleep of the cradle!

On this subject you need not suspect any deception on your feelings. It is a spectacle of horror which cannot be overdrawn. If you have nature in your hearts, it will speak a language compared with which all I have said or can say will be poor and frigid.

Will it be whispered that the Treaty has made me a new champion for the protection of the frontiers? It is known that my voice, as well as my vote, have been uniformly given in conformity with the ideas I have expressed. Protection is the right of the frontier: it is our duty to give it.

Who will accuse me of wandering out of the subject? Who will say that I exaggerate the tendencies of our measures? Will any one answer by a sneer, that all this is idle preaching? Will any one deny that we are bound--and I would hope to good purpose--by the most solemn sanctions of duty for the vote we give? Are despots alone to be reproached for unfeeling indifference to the tears and blood of their subjects? Are Republicans irresponsible? Have the principles on which you ground the reproach upon Cabinets and Kings no practical influence--no binding force? Are they merely themes of idle declamation, introduced to decorate the morality of a newspaper essay, or to furnish pretty topics of harangue from the windows of that State-house? I trust it is neither too presumptuous, nor too late to ask, can you put the dearest interest of society at risk without guilt, and without remorse?

It is vain to offer as an excuse, that public men are not to be reproached for the evils that may happen to ensue from their measures. This is very true, where they are unforeseen or inevitable. Those I have depicted are not unforeseen; they are so far from inevitable, we are going to bring them into being by our vote. We choose the consequences, and become as justly answerable for them as for the measure that we know will produce them.

By rejecting the posts, we light the savage fires--we bind the victims. This day we undertake to render account to the widows and orphans whom our decision will make; to the wretches that will be roasted at the stake; to our country; and I do not deem it too serious to say, to conscience, and to God--we are answerable; and if duty be any thing more than a word of imposture, if conscience be not a bugbear, we are preparing to make ourselves as wretched as our country.

There is no mistake in this case; there can be none. Experience has already been the prophet of events, and the cries of our future victims have already reached us. The Western inhabitants are not a silent and uncomplaining sacrifice. The voice of humanity issues from the shade of their wilderness. It exclaims that while one hand is held up to reject this Treaty, the other grasps a tomahawk. It summons our imagination to the scenes that will open. It is no great effort of the imagination to conceive, that events so near are already begun. I can fancy that I listen to the yells of savage vengeance, and the shrieks of torture. Already they seem to sigh in the west wind; already they mingle with every echo from the mountains.

Are the posts to remain for ever in the possession of Great Britain? Let those who reject them, when the Treaty offers them to our hands, say, if they choose, they are of no importance. If they are, will they take them by force? The argument I am urging would then come to a point. To use force, is war. To talk of Treaty again, is too absurd. Posts and redress must come from voluntary good will, Treaty, or war.

Such a state of things will exist, if we should long avoid war, as will be worse than war. Peace without security, accumulation of injury without redress, or the hope of it, resentment against the aggressor, contempt for ourselves, intestine discord and anarchy. Worse than this need not be apprehended, for if worse could happen, anarchy would bring it. Is this the peace gentlemen undertake, with such fearless confidence, to maintain? Is this the station of American dignity, which the high-spirited champions of our national independence and honor could endure; nay, which they are anxious and almost violent to seize for the country? What is there in the Treaty that could humble us so low? Are they the men to swallow their resentments, who so lately were choking with them? If in the case contemplated by them, it should be peace, I do not hesitate to declare it ought not to be peace.

Let me cheer the mind, weary no doubt and ready to respond on this prospect, by presenting another, which it is yet in our power to realize. Is it possible for a real American to look at the prosperity of this country without some desire for its continuance, without some respect for the measures which, many will say, produced, and all will confess, have preserved it? Will he not feel some dread that a change of system will reverse the scene? The well-grounded fears of our citizens in 1794 were removed by the Treaty, but are not forgotten. Then they deemed war nearly inevitable, and would not this adjustment have been considered at that day as a happy escape from the calamity? The great interest, and the general desire of our people, was, to enjoy the advantages of neutrality. This instrument, however misrepresented, affords America that inestimable security. The causes of our disputes are either cut up by the roots, or referred to a new negotiation, after the end of the European war. This was gaining every thing, because it confirmed our neutrality, by which our citizens are gaining every thing. This alone would justify the engagements of the Government. For, when the fiery vapors of the war lowered in the skirts of our horizon, all our wishes were concentered in this one, that we might escape the desolation of the storm. This Treaty, like a rainbow on the edge of the cloud, marked to our eyes the space where it was raging, and afforded at the same time the sure prognostic of fair weather. If we reject it, the vivid colors will grow pale; it will be a baleful meteor, portending tempest and war.

Let us not hesitate, then, to agree to the appropriation to carry it into faithful execution. Thus we shall save the faith of our nation, secure its peace, and diffuse the spirit of confidence and enterprise that will augment its prosperity. The progress of wealth and improvement is wonderful, and, some will think, too rapid. The field for exertion is fruitful and vast, and, if peace and good government should be preserved, the acquisitions of our citizens are not so pleasing as the proofs of their industry, as the instruments of their future success. The rewards of exertion go to augment its power. Profit is every hour becoming capital. The vast crop of our neutrality is all seed wheat, and is sown again to swell, almost beyond calculation, the future harvest of prosperity: and in this progress, what seems to be fiction, is found to fall short of experience.

FRIDAY, April 29.

_Execution of British Treaty._

Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) declared that he did by no means intend to follow the gentlemen who had conceived it advisable to enter into a discussion of the merits of the Treaty, article by article.