Chapter XVI: Front Matter (16)

Mr. VENABLE supported the amendment. He did not think any of the objections made against it had much weight in them. He thought the mode of expressing our sense of the indignity shown to this country by the Speech in question, was judiciously chosen by the gentleman from Connecticut. It was most consistent with dignity. It was not wise in them to take notice of every harsh expression which might be used against this country in any foreign nation; for, if such were our conduct, foreign nations would have good ground of complaint against us, and on that floor the account would be settled. Nor did he think it very becoming or dignified in gentlemen in that House so to express themselves as to excite frequent risibility; nor was it very honorable to that Assembly. [Alluding to the gentleman from Massachusetts.]

Mr. SITGREAVES had no doubt of the Speech of Barras being an official paper, and that its object was to divide the people from the Government. If he proved this, he trusted the language of the report would be preserved. It would be allowed that Barras was the mouth of the Directory, and that the sentiments which he speaks, are not his own, but what were beforehand agreed upon. It was doubtless, therefore, a solemn official act. With respect to the observation of the gentleman from Virginia, that what he said respecting our Government was not applicable to the Executive, but to the people at large, he believed he was wholly mistaken, as the word Government, in the French language, constantly meant Executive, as was abundantly clear from the way in which it was used in Mr. Adet's notes. [He quoted a number of passages to prove his assertion.] It was generally used for the Executive in contradistinction to Congress, or any other of the constituted authorities. If it were clearly intended to convey an insult upon our Executive, (and there could be no doubt of it,) even the mover of the amendment could not think it unbecoming in that House to express themselves in the words of the Address.

Mr. GALLATIN said, whatever might be the insult intended by the Speech of the Executive Directory, he thought it best to notice it in general terms as it was the sentiment which was objectionable and not the Government of France. But as so much had been said about Government and people, he would say, that an insult offered to the people could not be less offensive than one offered to the Government. He supposed they alluded to the British Treaty, which was as much the instrument of Congress as of the Executive, and of the people as either, since they very generally petitioned in favor of it. He then took notice of the perversions which the gentleman from South Carolina had put upon the words of Barras, and denied that there was the least ground for them, and said that the _Gazette of the United States_ might as well be called a Government paper of this country, as the _Redacteur_, that of France. If, said Mr. G., it be our intention to declare war at once, then there might be some propriety in taking hold of every word which would bear to be construed into an insult, but if we wished for peace, it was unwise to do so. Besides, he said, this Speech was not communicated in an official manner, nor could it be so communicated. It was sent by Mr. Pinckney in a newspaper, from which the copy sent to them was translated, but the translation was not even authenticated, as usual. He did not dispute the fact, but it was a thing which they were not bound to notice; indeed, an error with respect to a name appeared on the face of the paper; and being delivered to Mr. Monroe, who was no longer Minister, it could not be officially communicated. He therefore thought it was not worth their notice.

Mr. OTIS thought it right to pay respect to what was recommended by the PRESIDENT. The question was whether they should notice the insult generally, or in reference to the Directory. He was in favor of the first; but as this was the only opportunity given in the Address of expressing their opinion of the conduct of the French Government, he wished the Address to stand as reported.

Mr. O. remarked upon Barras' Speech. He did not know what was meant by granting peace. When parties were at war, one granted the other peace; or sometimes a stronger power suffered a weaker to be at peace. He supposed the French meant it in the latter sense towards this country. On condition that we respect her sovereignty! What was meant here? If it was sovereignty over their own nation, we had nothing to do with it; if it was any other, it must be the sovereignty they had over us. He concluded by remarking, that if there were any members in that House upon whom any imputation could rest of their being unduly attached to the French cause, he thought it a good opportunity to come forward and convince the world that the charges were unjust.

Mr. LIVINGSTON took notice of what had fallen from the gentleman last up, and showed the folly of adopting an irritating tone; as, if we charged a foreign government with making use of one disrespectful expression, they would have no difficulty in retorting the complaint, as in the course of that debate, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. HARPER) had called the King of Spain the humble vassal of France, and had not been sparing of his epithets to other powers; and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. THATCHER) had termed Barras drunk or mad. He also noticed the constructions put upon the words "granting peace," and "sovereignty," as very extravagant. The Speech, he allowed, was bad enough, but he saw no reason for torturing it in this manner.

Mr. GILES said the gentleman from Massachusetts had called upon persons who might lie under imputation of being friends to France, to come forward, and show the imputation false. He informed that gentleman that he did not feel his reputation hurt by any imputation which he or any other person might throw upon him. He would rather the gentleman would convince them they were wrong, than call them names.

Mr. OTIS explained. He declared he meant only to say that they had been unjustly charged with those imputations, and that such a conduct would show it.

Mr. W. SMITH again urged the propriety of retaining the words in the Address as reported, as the amendment proposed had no reference to the PRESIDENT's Speech, as that referred to an official act; whereas the amendment had no relation to France, but would apply to the people of China, or the people of this country, as well as to those of France. He believed the discussion had been of some use, because it was now on all sides acknowledged that the Speech of Barras was an insult, which was not allowed at the beginning of the debate. He could only say that gentlemen died hard; to use the expression of his friend from Pennsylvania, (Mr. SITGREAVES,) they seem determined to _die in the last ditch_. The objections to the words of the present Address, were like the objections of _Thomas Paine_ to the writings of Moses. He denied that there was any similarity between expressions used in debate in that House, and expressions used by an Executive authority. No notice, he said, ought to be taken of what fell from members in that House, whilst they were allowed to be in order; and if foreign Ministers attended to hear their debates, and heard things which they did not like, they ought not to take exceptions at it, since they came there uninvited, and it was their duty to say what appeared to them right at the time.

The question was put on the amendment, when there appeared 49 votes for it, and 49 against it. The Chairman declared it carried in the affirmative.

WEDNESDAY, May 31.

_Answer to the President's Speech._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the Answer to the PRESIDENT's Speech, Mr. DAYTON's amendment being under consideration.

Mr. HARTLEY was persuaded there was but one wish in the House with respect to peace, notwithstanding insinuations to the contrary; but he could not agree with the proposed amendment, as he wished the negotiation to be left wholly to the PRESIDENT. The treaty entered into with France provided for their being placed on the same footing with other nations, and wished that right to be recognized by negotiation, and he doubted not the PRESIDENT would do it; for as he must see that peace was the desire of all, he would take such steps as would be best calculated to lead to it. He was against encroachments on the Executive, as, if they once begun, there was no knowing where they could stop. He thought there was no danger of war; it would be a disagreeable thing for men who fought in the Revolutionary war, to be obliged to unsheathe their swords against France; but he trusted before they rose, means would be taken for putting the country into a state of defence.

The question was then taken on the Address as amended, and resolved in the affirmative--yeas 62, nays 36, as follows:

YEAS--John Allen, George Baer, jr., Abraham Baldwin, David
Bard, James A. Bayard, Theophilus Bradbury, David Brooks,
John Chapman, Christopher G. Champlin, James Cochran,
Joshua Coit, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, James
Davenport, John Dennis, George Dent, George Ege, Thomas
Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman,
Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Albert Gallatin, Henry Glenn,
Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold, William
B. Grove, John A. Hanna, Robert Goodloe Harper, Carter B.
Harrison, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, David Holmes,
Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera,
Samuel Lyman, James Machir, John Milledge, Daniel Morgan,
John Nicholas, Harrison G. Otis, Elisha R. Potter, John
Read, John Rutledge, jr., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall,
William Shepard, Thompson J. Skinner, Thomas Sinnickson,
Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, Samuel Smith, William
Smith, (of Charleston,) George Thatcher, Richard Thomas,
Mark Thomson, Abram Trigg, John E. Van Allen, Peleg
Wadsworth, and John Williams.

NAYS--Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Samuel J.
Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton,
Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, William
Findlay, John Fowler, William B. Giles, James Gillespie,
Andrew Gregg, Jonathan N. Havens, Walter Jones, Edward
Livingston, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon,
Blair M'Clenachan, Joseph McDowell, Anthony New, Josiah
Parker, Samuel Sitgreaves, William Smith (of Pinckney
District), Richard Sprigg, jr., Richard Stanford, Thomas
Sumter, John Swanwick, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt,
Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.

_Resolved_, That Mr. SPEAKER, attended by the House, do present the said Address; and that Mr. VENABLE, Mr. KITTERA, and Mr. NATHANIEL FREEMAN, Jr., be a committee to wait on the President, to know when and where it will be convenient for him to receive the same.

And then the House adjourned.

SATURDAY, June 3.

A report was received from the Commissioners of the Federal City, which was ordered to be printed.

_Answer to the President's Speech._

Mr. VENABLE, from the committee appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, to know when and where it will be convenient for him to receive the Address of this House, in answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress, reported that the committee had, according to order, waited on the PRESIDENT, who signified to them that it would be convenient to him to receive the said Address, at twelve o'clock this day, at his own house.

Mr. LYON said he yesterday voted against the appointment of a committee to wait upon the PRESIDENT to know when and where he would receive their Address, because he believed the PRESIDENT should always be ready to receive important communications. He wished to make a motion, which was, "that such members as do not choose to attend upon the PRESIDENT to present the Answer to his Speech, shall be excused." He wished to be understood. He thought the motion a reasonable one, because it proposed to leave them at liberty to do as they pleased. And by the rules he saw, he was obliged to attend, except sick, or leave of absence was obtained; now, as he hoped not to be sick, he wished to put himself out of the power of the Sergeant-at-Arms, if he did not attend. He had been told he might stay behind without being noticed; but this was not enough for him, as he was a timid man, and the House had the law on their side, as he recollected something of a reprimand which had been given to Mr. WHITNEY. [The SPEAKER reminded him it was out of order to censure the proceedings of the House on any former occasion.] He said he stood corrected, and proceeded.

He had spoken, he said, to both sides of the House (_as they were called_) on the subject. One side dissuaded him from his motion, and laughed at it; the other side did not wish to join him in it, because it would look like disrespect to the person lately elected, who was not a man of their choice; but he trusted our magnanimous PRESIDENT would, with the enlightened yeomanry of America, despise such a boyish piece of business. This, he said, was no new subject with him, he had long heard the folly of the wise made a matter of wonder in this respect. It was said this was not the time to abolish the custom; but this was the cant used against every kind of reform. No better time could ever arrive, he said, than this, which was the threshold of a new Presidency, at a time when the man elected to the office was beloved and revered by his fellow-citizens; he was as yet unused to vain adulation; he had spent a great part of his life amongst a people whose love of a plainness of manner forbids all pageantry; he would be glad to see the custom done away. Were he acting in his own personal character, he perhaps might conform to the idle usage, but acting as he was for eighty thousand people, every father of a family in his district would condemn him for such an act.

Mr. BLOUNT said he had seconded the motion of the gentleman from Vermont, in order to give him an opportunity of stating his reasons for making it, and not from any desire to rescind the rule.

Mr. DANA observed that the House would not wish to do violence to the gentleman's feelings. It was true some of the most respectable men in the United States had waited upon the PRESIDENT in a similar way, yet, if the gentleman thought it would not comport with his own dignity to do it, he hoped he would be excused.

The motion was put, and carried unanimously.

The SPEAKER informed the House the hour was arrived at which the PRESIDENT had appointed to receive them.

Mr. MACON moved that the House do now adjourn. He should wait upon the PRESIDENT; but it seemed to be understood that members were obliged to go. He thought, however the power of the House might extend to bringing a member into the House, there was no power to carry him out.

The motion was negatived without a division.

The House then withdrew, and waited upon the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES with the following Address:

_To the President of the United States_:

Sir, the interesting detail of those events which have
rendered the convention of Congress, at this time,
indispensable, (communicated in your Speech to both
Houses,) has excited in us the strongest emotions. Whilst
we regret the occasion, we cannot omit to testify our
approbation of the measure, and to pledge ourselves that no
considerations of private inconvenience shall prevent, on
our part, a faithful discharge of the duties to which we
are called.

We have constantly hoped that the nations of Europe, whilst
desolated by foreign wars, or convulsed by intestine
divisions, would have left the United States to enjoy that
peace and tranquillity to which the impartial conduct of
our Government has entitled us; and it is now, with extreme
regret, we find the measures of the French Republic tending
to endanger a situation so desirable and interesting to our
country.

Upon this occasion we feel it our duty to express, in the
most explicit manner, the sensations which the present
crisis has excited, and to assure you of our zealous
co-operation in those measures which may appear necessary
for our security or peace.

Although it is the earnest wish of our hearts that peace
may be maintained with the French Republic, and with all
the world, yet we will never surrender those rights which
belong to us as a nation; and whilst we view with
satisfaction the wisdom, dignity, and moderation, which
have marked the measures of the supreme Executive of our
country, in its attempts to remove, by candid explanations,
the complaints and jealousies of France, we feel the full
force of that indignity which has been offered our country
in the rejection of its Minister. No attempts to wound our
rights as a sovereign State will escape the notice of our
constituents; they will be felt with indignation, and
repelled with that decision which shall convince the world
that we are not a degraded people, that we can never submit
to the demands of a foreign power without examination and
without discussion.

Knowing as we do the confidence reposed by the people of
the United States in their Government, we cannot hesitate
in expressing our indignation at any sentiments tending to
derogate from that confidence. Such sentiments, wherever
entertained, served to evince an imperfect knowledge of the
opinions of our constituents. An attempt to separate the
people of the United States from their Government, is an
attempt to separate them from themselves; and although
foreigners, who know not the genius of our country, may
have conceived the project, and foreign emissaries may
attempt the execution, yet the united efforts of our
fellow-citizens will convince the world of its
impracticability.

Sensibly as we feel the wound which has been inflicted by
the transactions disclosed in your communications, yet we
think with you, that neither the honor nor the interest of
the United States forbid the repetition of advances for
preserving peace. We, therefore, receive with the utmost
satisfaction your information that a fresh attempt at
negotiation will be instituted; and we cherish the hope
that a mutual spirit of conciliation, and a disposition on
the part of France to compensate for any injuries which may
have been committed upon our neutral rights; and, on the
part of the United States, to place France on grounds
similar to those of other countries in their relation and
connection with us, if any inequalities shall be found to
exist, will produce an accommodation compatible with the
engagements, rights, duties and honor of the United States.
Fully, however, impressed with the uncertainty of the
result, we shall prepare to meet with fortitude any
unfavorable events which may occur, and to extricate
ourselves from their consequences with all the skill we
possess, and all the efforts in our power. Believing with
you that the conduct of the Government has been just and
impartial to foreign nations, that the laws for the
preservation of peace have been proper, and that they have
been fairly executed, the Representatives of the people do
not hesitate to declare that they will give their most
cordial support to the execution of principles so
deliberately and uprightly established.

The many interesting subjects which you have recommended to
our consideration, and which are so strongly enforced by
this momentous occasion, will receive every attention which
their importance demands; and we trust that by the decided
and explicit conduct which will govern our deliberations,
every insinuation will be repelled which is derogatory to
the honor and independence of our country.

Permit us, in offering this Address, to express our
satisfaction at your promotion to the first office in the
Government, and our entire confidence that the pre-eminent
talents and patriotism which have placed you in this
distinguished situation, will enable you to discharge its
various duties with satisfaction to yourself and advantage
to our common country.

To which the PRESIDENT returned the following answer:

_Mr. Speaker, and Gentlemen of the House of
Representatives_:

I receive with great satisfaction your candid approbation
of the convention of Congress; and thank you for your
assurances that the interesting subjects recommended to
your consideration shall receive the attention which their
importance demands; and that your co-operation may be
expected in those measures which may appear necessary for
our security or peace.

The declaration of the Representatives of this nation, of
their satisfaction at my promotion to the first office in
the Government, and of their confidence in my sincere
endeavors to discharge the various duties of it, with
advantage to our common country, have excited my most
grateful sensibility.

I pray you, gentlemen, to believe, and to communicate such
assurance to our constituents, that no event which I can
foresee to be attainable by any exertions in the discharge
of my duties, can afford me so much cordial satisfaction as
to conduct a negotiation with the French Republic, to a
removal of prejudices, a correction of errors, a
dissipation of umbrages, an accommodation of all
differences, and a restoration of harmony and affection,
to the mutual satisfaction of both nations. And whenever
the legitimate organs of intercourse shall be restored, and
the real sentiments of the two Governments can be candidly
communicated to each other, although strongly impressed
with the necessity of collecting ourselves into a manly
posture of defence, I nevertheless entertain an encouraging
confidence that a mutual spirit of conciliation, a
disposition to compensate injuries, and accommodate each
other in all our relations and connections, will produce an
agreement to a treaty consistent with the engagements,
rights, duties, and honor of both nations.

JOHN ADAMS.

UNITED STATES, June 3, 1797.

MONDAY, June 5.

_Defensive Measures._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and the Speech of the PRESIDENT, at the opening of the session, having been read,

Mr. W. SMITH said, he wished to lay upon the table a number of resolutions, which it appeared, if it should not be found advisable to carry the whole of them into effect, were at least worthy of discussion. He did not, however, at present, pledge himself to support the whole: they were as follow:

"1. _Resolved_, That further provision ought to be made by
law, for fortifying the forts and harbors of the United
States.

"2. _Resolved_, That further provision be made by law, for
completing and manning the frigates United States,
Constitution, and Constellation.

"3. _Resolved_, That provision be made by law, for
procuring by purchase a further naval force, to consist of
---- frigates of ---- guns, and ---- sloops of war of ----
guns.

"4. _Resolved_, That provision be made by law, for
empowering the President to employ the naval force of the
United States, as convoys to protect the trade thereof.

"5. _Resolved_, That provision be made by law, for
regulating the arming of the merchant vessels of the United
States.

"6. _Resolved_, That the existing Military Establishment
ought to be augmented by an addition of one regiment or
corps of artillerists and engineers, and ---- companies of
dragoons.

"7. _Resolved_, That provision be made by law, for
empowering the President to raise a provisional army, to
consist of ---- regiments of infantry, one regiment of
artillery, and one regiment of dragoons, by commissioning
the officers, and by volunteers or enlistments, whenever
the circumstances of the country shall, in his opinion,
render the said army necessary for the protection and
defence of the United States: _Provided_, That neither the
officers nor soldiers shall receive any pay or emoluments
until called into actual service.

"8. _Resolved_, That provision be made by law, to authorize
the President to borrow, on the credit of the United
States, a sum not exceeding ---- dollars, to defray the
expense which may arise in providing for the defence and
security of the United States.

"9. _Resolved_, That provision be made by law, to raise a
revenue adequate to the reimbursement, within ---- years,
of such sum as may be borrowed, as aforesaid.

"10. _Resolved_, That provision be made by law, to
prohibit, for a limited time, the exportation of arms,
ammunition, and military and naval stores."

The resolutions having been read from the chair,

Mr. W. SMITH moved the first of them.

Mr. GILES wished the gentleman would reverse his propositions, and let the one for raising money come first. He did not know whether they were prepared to meet this expense. He did not mean to oppose the present motion; he supposed it would pass. But he thought they were about to be too precipitous in their measures. At a time when all Europe seemed to be tired of war, and about to make peace, we seemed to be disposed to rush into it. He did not believe that much good would be done by this system of fortification. He did not think the United States were more secure now, than before they had a single work of the kind. We have, said he, an extensive sea-coast, and it was not to be expected that an enemy would choose to come to precisely the place where a fortification stands. It was his opinion that the interests of the country would be served, by letting this matter lie over till next session.

Mr. WILLIAMS observed, that the sense of the committee should be first taken upon the propriety of going into the measure; if there was a majority in favor of it, (and he could not doubt it,) the matter would be referred to a select committee, who would make their report upon it.

Mr. S. SMITH was in favor of going into this measure; for if the war continued in Europe, he thought it probable we might be drawn into it.

Mr. SWANWICK should not be opposed to the present motion, because he agreed with the gentleman from Maryland, that whilst the war continued in Europe there was a probability of this country being drawn into the vortex. But he thought there was some weight, also, in the observation of the gentleman from Virginia, with respect to the ways and means; because, if, after they should agree to carry into effect certain measures, they should disagree about the means, their time would have been spent to no purpose.

The question was put and carried, there being 62 votes in favor of it.

_Completing and Manning the Frigates._

Mr. GALLATIN said, if the question was to determine the principle of manning the frigates, the resolution stood right as it was. But if it were not intended, by adopting this resolution, to commit any man, but only to say that they would take the business into consideration, and if found useful and necessary, and funds were attainable, they would carry it into effect, then the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. LIVINGSTON) would be proper. As to the committee's rising, he could see no ground for it, as these propositions were not new--they had had them before them for three weeks in the Speech of the PRESIDENT. Of course, so far as related to the frigates, gentlemen must have formed an opinion; yet he agreed that it was desirable to see some documents on the subject, before a decided affirmative or negative was given. He was, therefore, in favor of the amendment for a committee to be appointed. He wished all those subjects which were of a doubtful nature to be then determined. On the other hand, those upon which members were ready to decide at once, either by an acceptance or rejection, might be voted upon in the form in which they were introduced.

Mr. PARKER read the motion which was entered into last year, and thought it would be a good model for the present.

Mr. W. SMITH was of a different opinion. He thought the committee should first decide the abstract principle. He thought it would be wrong to refer to a select committee a business in which every member was so intimately interested, and he doubted not gentlemen were ready to decide upon this abstract question. With regard to expense, he was of opinion that if the situation of the country required it, that should be no object. If gentlemen thought differently, they would of course negative the proposition. Any information on the subject could be got before the business was finished. He thought they should first say what were the necessary objects of expense, and then provide the money, which might be done by borrowing or by taxes. If there was a necessity for the expense, there was no doubt the money would be raised. If gentlemen were not prepared to discuss the subject, he had no objection to the committee's rising, and, in the House, the Secretary of War might be called upon for information.

Mr. NICHOLAS thought the question was not fairly presented. It was whether they should man the frigates. But when they were called upon to determine this, they should know when they would be ready to receive the men. The probability was that the frigates would not be ready to receive the men before the next session of Congress.

Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) was in favor of the original proposition. He wished to provide for manning all the frigates which could be got ready before the next session of Congress. He believed if they adopted this plan, unnecessary delay would be prevented.

Mr. PARKER was ready to vote for the proposition of the gentleman from South Carolina. He believed the frigate in Philadelphia might be equipped, rigged, and manned, in three months. The only reason why he varied his motion was, that he might include the next proposition; but he believed it would be better for them to stand separate, as, before he voted for the additional vessels, he should wish to know how the means were to be got, and for what purpose they were to be used. The vessel at Boston, he said, would not be ready so soon, but it would be in readiness before the next meeting of Congress; that at Baltimore would be in readiness to receive her men in four months.

Mr. S. SMITH said, the frigate building at Baltimore would be launched on the 4th of July, and the equipments were in greater forwardness than those for the frigate at Philadelphia.

Mr. BALDWIN was against referring this proposition to a select committee. It would be desirable, indeed, to know what the cost of doing the business would be, but every one knew how little to be relied upon were estimates of this kind. He was ready to vote for manning the frigates; indeed there was no question upon which he was so ready to say aye, as upon this.

The question was about to be put on Mr. LIVINGSTON's motion, when

Mr. VARNUM said he thought the wording of the resolution improper, as the word "completing" would clash with the act of last session.

The question was put and negatived, 50 to 34.

Mr. MACON wished the frigates to be completed, but not manned, he therefore moved to strike out the words "and manning."

The question was put and negatived; there being only twenty-four votes in favor of it.

Mr. GILES moved to strike out the word "completing;" but, after some conversation, the motion was withdrawn, and the original resolution was carried.

The third proposition next came under consideration.

Mr. NICHOLAS hoped the gentleman who introduced this motion, would tell them for what purpose these additional vessels were wanted. He supposed this resolution to be connected with the next, and if so, he thought they should be considered together. What, he asked, were to be the instructions given to the commanders of these vessels? He thought it a very embarrassing business, and one that would certainly lead to war; nay, indeed, the thing seemed to be a war operation in itself.

Mr. W. SMITH wished the gentleman had made his inquiries before. They would have come more properly when the frigates were under consideration, as the same objection would be against both; and the next resolution had no more connection with this than with that already agreed to. The gentleman seemed to have let go the opportunity of calling upon him; as, however, he did not wish to evade his call, (though he was not willing to say he would himself vote for the measure,) he would say that it appeared to him, from the present state of the commerce of this country, to be necessary to provide convoys for our vessels. These vessels might not, indeed, be employed as a regular convoy, but partly confined to the coasts and harbors.

Mr. NICHOLAS expected the gentleman from South Carolina would have acknowledged that the two resolutions were connected. Indeed he must have intended those vessels to be employed in this way, or such a resolution would not have been introduced. With respect to Sweden's treaty for a reciprocal convoy, there was some ground for it, as there was a difference between the Northern Powers of Europe, as to the principle of free ships making free goods; but where there was no difference as to the principle, no such thing could take place.

Mr. GALLATIN said the present resolution was certainly in some degree connected with the next. It was understood that the purchasing of frigates and sloops of war, was for the purpose of convoying our trade. Under the present circumstances of this country, he should be opposed to this proposition; not that he denied the right of neutral powers to afford convoys to their merchant vessels; but, because under present circumstances it was impolitic to adopt the measure, not only for the reasons urged by the gentleman from Virginia, but on account of our situation with respect to France at the present moment. By our treaty with France, enemy's property was to be respected on board of American vessels, and certain articles used in the building of ships were not considered as contraband; the PRESIDENT would, of course, be obliged to give orders to have our vessels protected in this situation, and who could not see that this would be the source of war; and if the convoy were not to be employed to enforce these two privileges, he did not see what use it could be of. He knew that depredations without number had been committed in the West Indies; but he was led to believe that this was done by pirates more than by any other vessels. But suppose it were practicable to distinguish between those vessels which were regularly, and those which were piratically taken; yet, he must confess he would not be for running the risk of a rupture, by sending out armed vessels to contest the point, especially when we have reason to believe that these attacks are unauthorized by the French Government.

Mr. G. thought it would only be necessary to extend our navy in case of war, and were this unhappily to be our situation, vessels might easily be purchased without delay; but whilst we were at peace, he did not think the advantages which could be derived from a convoy would be a sufficient inducement to go into the measure. Besides he was induced by another motive to give this proposition his negative. He knew the depredations upon our commerce had been great; but he did not look upon this loss as falling only upon merchants. There was not an individual who did not bear a part of it.[17] For instance, if a merchant paid ten or fifteen per cent. additional upon his cargo, he will put a proportionably high price upon his commodities, which must eventually be paid by the consumer. Therefore, so far as an argument might be drawn from this circumstance, it became a question of expediency, and he thought it would be granted, that the loss to individuals would be less in this way than if they had to support a navy to protect our trade.

Mr. W. SMITH acknowledged that there was considerable weight in the arguments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, though he did not find sufficient weight in them to change his opinion of the propriety of the measure. The gentleman from Virginia had endeavored to show that, as there was no difference of opinion as to principle between France and this country, the regulations entered into with Sweden did not apply; whilst the gentleman from Pennsylvania had produced arguments to show that we were in that situation. With respect to the treaty articles in dispute, it would be an easy matter for the President to give the commanders of our vessels proper instructions on that head. And would any gentleman say it was not right to defend our vessels against pirates? Would not the French say, if they were applied to for redress, "You knew these were pirates; why did you not defend yourselves against them?" The expense, which seems so much to alarm gentlemen, should be put out of the question. The only question, said he, is, if your property is unjustly attacked, will you defend it?

But it was said the loss did not fall upon the merchant, but upon the consumer. Mr. S. asserted it fell upon the country; and so far from the expense of the proposed armament being equal to the loss sustained by captures, it would not, in his opinion, be a tenth part of the amount, for whatever the plunderers got this country lost. Mr. S. said he had made a rough calculation of what would be the expense of three frigates, of 32 guns, and six sloops of war of 16 guns, and found it to be $926,000, including the equipment and manning for one year.

Mr. GILES said, the gentleman from South Carolina talked of defensive measures, but his plans were offensive. That gentleman had undertaken to doubt the right of France to declare her ports rebel ports. Was this defensive? Every nation had this right. It was not long since Great Britain exercised it against us. Yet, aided by a convoy, he wished to push our trade to these ports. This would not only be hazarding the peace of the country, but taking the direct road to war.

Besides, said Mr. G., could it be expected that six or ten frigates could convoy all our vessels? No; not a twentieth part of them. They could, therefore, be of little use, but might be the means of producing the greatest evil to the country.

Mr. BALDWIN said, in all their determinations with respect to a naval force, however great the emergency, it has always been determined to build, rather than purchase vessels, and he saw no reason for departing from this mode in the present instance.

After some objections from Mr. W. SMITH to the building plan, which he said would take three or four years to furnish the proposed vessels, whereas merchant vessels might be immediately purchased, which would answer the purpose of small frigates, the committee rose, reported the two resolutions, which the House took up and agreed to, and committees were appointed to report upon them by bills or otherwise.

WEDNESDAY, June 7.

_Defensive Measures._

ARMING MERCHANT VESSELS.

The 5th, which was in the following words, having been read,

"_Resolved_, That provision be made, by law, for regulating
the arming of merchant vessels of the United States,"

Mr. SWANWICK inquired, with what view these vessels were to be provided? Against whom they were to be employed? and in what cases they were to defend themselves? The information which he might receive on these inquiries, he said, would have considerable weight in influencing his vote.

Mr. HARPER said the detail would be brought forward in the bill; the principle was now only to be determined. He had not thought of all the modifications which might be given to it, though he had thought of many; but it would be best discussed in its general form. The gentleman, if he thought proper, might introduce into the resolution any principle which he might wish to have inserted in it.

Mr. WILLIAMS said it was well known that a number of our merchantmen were arming in different ports of the Union, and it was, therefore, necessary to regulate this business, to prevent mischief being done. Gentlemen might differ in opinion with respect to the marine law or laws of nations on this subject; but all would wish, since vessels were arming, that they should be put under some restraint. When he voted for manning the frigates, he did it with a view to have them employed in the defence of our coasts, and not as a convoy. Our situation, he said, was truly critical, and he was undetermined how far it would be proper to arm the merchant vessels of the United States; but to prevent mischief, he wished the resolution might be agreed to, reserving to himself the right of voting ultimately for or against it. It might afterwards undergo such modifications as should be found necessary.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said the gentleman from Pennsylvania had very properly inquired what was the scope of the present resolution, and he expected some answer would have been given. The gentleman from South Carolina had said they must vote for the principle, and the detail would come of course. So that without knowing its object, whether it was defensive or offensive, they were called upon to agree to the principle. This deficiency had been supplied in some degree by the gentleman from New York. He says the merchants have undertaken to arm their vessels. He wished to know whence he derived his information? The only information before them was in the PRESIDENT's Speech, where he says he has forbidden such armament, except in the East India trade. He therefore supposed the fact not well founded. What, he asked, was intended to be done with these armed vessels? He said they must argue hypothetically. He supposed they were intended to protect our trade. He did not believe they were meant to operate offensively. But he would ask if this were the case, if it would not lead directly to war? since individuals would be left to determine the laws of nations, and of course the peace of the country would be placed at their disposal, and all precautions, on the part of Government, would be in vain, since individuals, who might have an opposite interest to that of the Government, might be continually committing acts of hostility.

Mr. S. SMITH acknowledged that the present was a very delicate subject; but had not the PRESIDENT forbidden the arming of merchant vessels, he should have been of opinion that the merchant vessels of a neutral power had always a right to arm for their own defence. But he believed it was necessary that something should be done. Merchants would arm their vessels from the right given to them by the law of nations, and, if not restrained, might go on to do acts which could not be justified. Though he believed merchants possessed the right of arming their vessels, yet, rather than do any thing which would involve the country in war, he believed they would desist from the practice, and bear the losses which they might, for the want of arms, suffer. He moved to strike out the word "regulating," and to insert in the place of it "restricting in certain cases."

Mr. GALLATIN said it seemed as if the motion of the gentleman from South Carolina was susceptible of any shape, since the amendment now incorporated into it seemed to have a different view from the original. At present he would state his objections to the principle of the resolution itself. The first inquiry was, whether the law of nations permitted the merchant vessels of neutral nations to arm? If they had not a right to permit it, whether they are not bound to prohibit it? He had examined the law of nations on this subject, and found no such authority, nor did the practice of modern times justify the practice. He took a view of the different stages of society, to show that whenever regular governments were established, the public defence was always placed in them, and it was their duty to protect individuals, since they did not give them leave to protect themselves.

Mr. G. said he knew of no exception but in case of letters of marque and reprisal, and he did not know a single instance within the last century where these had been granted, but war had been the consequence, so repugnant were they to the present state of society. It was true, nations might be in such a state as to find it necessary to grant such a power; as when a nation with which it has to do is unable to support the common relations of intercourse. Two instances of this kind presented themselves, viz: the East India trade and the Mediterranean trade. In carrying on our trade with the East Indies, our vessels were met by those of a number of uncivilized powers, upon whom no restraint could be had, so that no remedy was left to us, but immediate resistance. Nearly of the same nature was the situation of the Barbary Powers in the Mediterranean; and, although we enter into a treaty with them, we have not a perfect reliance upon their observing their engagements; our merchant vessels are therefore permitted to trade to those parts armed. He knew it might be said that, at present, the West Indies were in a similar situation. He believed, in some respects, they were; and this could be the only plea for adopting a measure like the present. If it were to be understood that there was to be an end of the negotiation with France, or that the privilege of arming would not be abandoned, it might be proper to authorize the arming of merchant vessels; but he believed, if it were considered that such a permission would be almost certain to involve us in war, it would appear to be much more wise to await the event of the negotiation with France; not that he was afraid of offending France by a measure of this kind, but he was afraid of involving our country in a war.

Mr. S. SMITH conceived that Congress were called together to adopt such measures as were best calculated to preserve the peace of the country, by means of negotiation, and to fix upon such means of defence as would not be injurious to the country. It was his opinion that the President was not authorized by law to prevent the vessels of merchants being armed; but the merchants of the United States would readily submit to any loss rather than go to war. He knew that this was the opinion of the Philadelphia merchants: he had seen many of them. Nor had he met with one native American who wished to go into this arming plan; they believe it would infringe our neutrality, and throw us into a war. When he came here, his mind was scarcely made up on the subject. He did not like to give up his right to defend his property; but he had found this to be the general opinion, and therefore he brought forward the amendment, which had been well amended by the gentleman from Connecticut. The gentleman from South Carolina had since added _West Indies_, and this brought them to an issue; for it was war or no war.

If the latter amendment was agreed to, he should be for striking out the whole, leaving it general; because, with West Indies in it, it would be particularly pointed.

They had been told of the loss sustained by spoliations, and where it fell. He believed it fell upon the great body of the people of America, and that the fall in the price of produce had been occasioned principally by the British Admiral having forbidden the carrying our provisions to Hispaniola. The British fleet in the West Indies, he said, was supplied with provisions from Ireland, whilst the French depended upon this country for supplies; so that they were our best customers there.

FRIDAY, June 9.

STEPHEN BULLOCK, from Massachusetts, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

_Defensive Measures._

NAVAL FORCE.

Mr. W. SMITH said, he had waived a consideration of the third and fourth resolutions, in order to pass to the fifth, because he thought it was probable the committee would have determined upon arming our merchant vessels; and if so, it might have influenced the votes of members on those; but, as the committee had just decided against arming merchant vessels, he should propose another resolution to the committee. It was well known that the three frigates which had been agreed to be manned, would not be ready for sea for several months; in the mean time there might be occasion for some armed vessels; he should, therefore, submit to them the following resolution:

"_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this committee, that
the _President of the United States_ ought to be authorized
by law to provide a further naval force, whenever, in his
opinion, the circumstances of the country shall require the
same; and that ---- dollars be appropriated for that
purpose."

The CHAIRMAN said the resolutions of the gentleman from North Carolina were first in order.

Mr. W. SMITH said he had no objection to the proposition of the gentleman from North Carolina, as a part of a plan of defence, but he thought it also necessary to attend to the protection of our commerce.

Mr. BLOUNT said, it was perfectly indifferent to him whether the gentleman from South Carolina considered his plan as a part or the whole of a system. That gentleman had accused those who voted against his proposition, with being unwilling to place the country in a posture of defence. Now, he had voted against, and should continue to vote against, his proposition--but he was willing, notwithstanding (as he believed all those who voted with him were) to put the country in a state of defence. It was his opinion that internal defence only was necessary. He thought the system which he had proposed would be sufficient. When they had adopted this resolution, it might be considered whether any thing more was necessary. He had no idea of creating a naval force for defence; on the contrary, he believed it would be the means of plunging us into fresh difficulties. For this reason, if the resolution he had proposed were passed into a law, he should go home satisfied, with a belief that he had done all that was necessary. And he was convinced that his constituents would believe that he never wanted a disposition to defend his country when in danger.

Mr. W. SMITH did not think these propositions could be of any use at present; they would be very proper in case an invasion was apprehended. He thought the principal object, at this time, was to defend our commerce, and thereby secure the revenue arising from it, either by an effectual naval armament, or by an embargo; and he thought he was correct in saying, in reference to this defence, that the gentleman opposed every thing, and proposed nothing. Gentlemen, he said, were very ready to propose things which would cost the public nothing: the militia measure proposed would cost no more than the passing of the law; but, if ever any expense was to be incurred, then all was opposition.

The commerce of the country could not be defended, without calling upon the people for revenue; and he thought those gentlemen who stepped forward to advocate such measures as involved expense, and which were consequently in some degree unpopular, deserved the gratitude of their constituents. He had never hesitated to do this, when he thought it necessary. He should not, however, object to the passing of this proposition; he only rose to say, he did not think it immediately necessary.

Mr. W. SMITH called for the reading of a similar resolution passed in 1794; which being read, and a wish expressed that the present might be made conformable to it, Mr. BLOUNT gave his consent; and, after a few observations from Mr. WILLIAMS in favor of the resolution, though he denied that it could be carried into effect without expense, the resolution was agreed to.

SATURDAY, June 17.

A bill was reported forbidding citizens of the United States from entering into the service of any foreign Prince or State in a state of war, which was read twice and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Monday.

_Stamp Duties._

Mr. W. SMITH, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported a bill for laying a stamp duty on vellum, parchment, and paper, viz:

For a license to practice as a counsellor, attorney, &c.,
five dollars.

For every grant, or letters patent, four dollars.

For every exemplification or certified copy of
letters-patent, two dollars.