Chapter M: CAMPBELL then rose and spoke as follows (14)

Mr. ADAMS.--Mr. President: Had the gentleman who asks leave to introduce this bill, assigned any new reasons as the foundation of his motion, whatever my opinion might have been upon their merits, I should not think it proper to combat them at this time; but the object of the bill is so simple, that its details are immaterial. Its purpose is totally to prohibit a branch of our commerce, which at the last session of the Legislature was proved to be of great importance to the country. Unless, therefore, a majority of the Senate should be of opinion that the bill ought to pass, it appears to me that the present is the stage at which it ought to be arrested: since the mere discussion of the question, and pendency of the measure before Congress, may have an unfavorable effect upon the commercial interest, or at least injuriously affect individual merchants, in the course of their affairs.

Mr. JACKSON seconded Mr. LOGAN’s motion, and in reply to Mr. ADAMS said, that he wished Mr. LOGAN to make it an annual motion, as Mr. Sawbridge had, in the Parliament of England, to reduce septennial Parliaments, but with more effect, until the trade so highly dishonorable to national character was annihilated. As to Mr. ADAMS’s observations that the bill was not allowed to be brought in last session, and that he had heard no new arguments, he would answer the gentleman by asking what new arguments had been advanced on the bill to prohibit the importation of slaves, when leave was given two days since to bring in the bill, and the same arguments had been rung in our ears by Quakers and others, ever since the constitution had been in operation, and not a new one had been produced. He said that the day would come when this dishonorable traffic would be rued by the United States; that day must arrive when a general peace would take place, when the present hostilities must cease; that it must and would then become the interest of every nation of Europe, having colonies in the West Indies, to extirpate this horde or ship them off to some other place. That the United States, by affording them succor, arms, ammunition, and provisions, must be considered by them as their allies--their supporters and their protectors. That he believed the United States would be viewed in this light by the French Government and by themselves, and that they would demand and expect us to grant them an asylum as allies and protectors, and send them to our coast. This was no novelty; and he had received information from a late celebrated French General, given in a public company at the city of Washington where he boarded, and the General was one who dined there, that arrangements had been made, if General Le Clerc had been victorious, to send those brigands to the Southern States. This was a melancholy subject for South Carolina and Georgia, and one of those brigands introduced into the Southern States was worse than a hundred importations of blacks from Africa, and more dangerous to the United States.

Mr. S. SMITH.--We are told that a celebrated French General, since here, has said, that had General Le Clerc succeeded, he meant to have landed all the blacks of St. Domingo on our southern shores. This may be--but, sir, it is not probable. If such, however, had been his intention, it could not have arisen from resentment on account of our commerce, for we had been of the greatest utility to him and his army, and had then carried on no commerce that was not fully sanctioned by France. Nay, I might say, that owing to the supplies from the United States, the colony of St. Domingo had been preserved to the mother country until the arrival of General Le Clerc. Unless, Mr. President, the honorable mover shall produce some new information, I shall be under the necessity of voting against leave to bring in this bill.

Mr. MITCHILL, in a speech of considerable length and detail, stated his objections to giving leave.

During the last session of Congress, the whole of the intercourse with St. Domingo had undergone a full investigation. While the bill regulating the clearance of armed merchant vessels was under discussion, that part of our foreign commerce had been minutely examined. It would be remembered that the bill had been committed, recommitted, amended, and modified, with the utmost labor and skill. Besides the talents which the Senate afforded, all the sources of Executive information had been drained, to aid their researches. And the letters of the British and French Ministers, complaining of the conduct of our merchants in forcing this trade, were opened to our view. The crude material of the bill had been hammered at and worked upon so elaborately, as to have at last received the complete burnish of a law. With all the knowledge that could be derived from so many quarters, the bill was at length passed to check the violence of our navigators, and to restrain the adventurous zeal of our merchants. The provisions of this law were such as it was deemed just and proper that a neutral nation should take. And this was a liberal condescension to the wishes of the two great maritime and belligerent powers, without forgetting the respect that we owed to our own. With both these he wished to cultivate peace and good understanding; but to neither of them would he consent to yield any portion of our neutral and national rights.

The difficulties exhibited in the ministerial correspondence, Mr. M. said, were thus removed. With a promptitude that deserved to be admired, Congress interposed its authority, for the purpose at once of doing justice to our neighbors, regulating our commerce, and tranquillizing the Mexican seas. With these salutary provisions, he believed the two complaining nations had been satisfied. At least we had done so much that they ought in all reason to be content. Congress had already manifested a due regard to all that France and Great Britain had offered upon the branch of West Indian commerce, and in the true spirit of good neighborhood, and correct principle, had modified and restricted the intercourse with Hayti. And so fully did the Europeans seem to acquiesce in our conduct, that he had not heard any further remonstrances made by either of them about it. He thought the observations of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. ADAMS) very much in point. Under a conviction that we had done as much as public faith and national honor required, he had given his vote against the introduction of a similar bill during the last session. Nothing had occurred from that time to this day, to alter the circumstances of the case, or to make it necessary for him to change his conduct.

For my own part, said Mr. M., I think the St. Domingo commerce is no great thing in itself. We might do exceedingly well without it; and I am very far from approving the means by which it has been carried on; but I dislike the idea of forbidding it, at the mandate of a foreign power. Like our Revolutionary patriots, let us put our foot here, and hence refuse to budge. It is not for us to legislate at the nod or bidding of any nation. I hope we understand our business better than to register edicts for them; while we pay due respect to others, it becomes us also to respect ourselves. The precedent is a dangerous one. If we agree to interdict this intercourse, we may, at the next session, be informed that we ought to withdraw from some other important port or region. When we are found to be so complying to one nation, we shall be subjected to a like request or menace from another, until, sir, our flag shall be furled in one foreign port after another, and nothing be left us but the coasting trade at home. The sad consequences have been ably portrayed by the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. SAMUEL SMITH.)

Mr. HILLHOUSE said, he hoped the question would be taken by yeas and nays, because he confidently expected there would be a great majority of the Senate opposed to giving leave to bring in the bill, for he considered the measure not only as improper, but as ill-timed.

The gentleman from Georgia has told us that the conflict in St. Domingo is that of masters attempting to reclaim their slaves, and that if the United States suffer the trade to be carried on, we shall be considered as aiding and upholding those slaves, and give offence to France. And that when peace shall take place in Europe, the French will transport those negroes by thousands to the shores of South Carolina and Georgia, to the endangering the lives of the citizens of those States. This Mr. H. considered as a bugbear, with which we ought not to be frightened, for, as to the warfare in St. Domingo being a mere conflict between master and slave, it will be well remembered that the French Republic long ago liberated all the slaves in that island, and declared them free. As to the citizens of the United States carrying arms and military stores to the enemies of France, the law of nations has declared the penalty, which is a forfeiture of the property, and the United States can in no way be implicated thereby. And as to France landing those negroes on our shores, he said there was power, and he believed there would be found a disposition in the people of the United States to repel such an insult; for if we cannot prevent France or any other power from invading our territory and insulting our national honor, by landing their outcasts upon our shores, we shall no longer deserve the name of an independent nation.

Mr. JACKSON, in reply to Mr. SMITH and Mr. MITCHILL, confessed he had seen no official document, other than what the honorable mover had read, but he had seen at Newcastle, in Delaware, a whole fleet bound to St. Domingo, to force a trade which even captains of vessels, true Americans, cried shame on. That the honorable gentleman had called out, why had not the mover brought forward a resolution against Britain or some other power who had committed depredations on our commerce! Mr. J. said he wished to begin here, by preventing our own merchants from doing injury to other nations, and then to strike at those who insulted us. He for himself was prepared and willing to attack the first power who had insulted us with far more superior weapons than arming our ships. He was an agricultural man, and would suffer with the flour-makers; but he would call on the honorable gentleman either from Maryland, from New York, from Massachusetts, or Connecticut, to strike at Great Britain or any other nation who had injured us, by a resolution of prohibition of trade or intercourse, and he was the man who would second it and keep it on till the injuring nation should cry _peccavi_--keep it on one twelvemonth, and you would see them all at your feet. Look at the Legislature of Jamaica petitioning their Governor from time to time for American intercourse. Look at Trinidad, the same, in a state of famine. Sir, we have no favors to ask the nations of the earth; they must ask them of us, or their West India colonies must starve.

That, however, with respect to documents, he would inform the gentleman from Maryland, that he had seen, though not official, a letter from General Ferrand, Governor of St. Domingo, and which was published in all the principal newspapers of the United States, complaining to the French Government on this subject, and laying all the blame to the American Government, if not in direct, in the most severe indirect terms. That as to the total separation of the self-created Emperor and nation of Hayti, and its independence of the parent country, and under which gentlemen declared our rights of trade founded on the laws of nations--the late attack on that General by the Emperor proved it did not exist; he was defeated, his army scattered and driven to the mountains; that Ferrand held the island as French Governor for the French nation, and the separation was not such as to warrant the arguments used for a right to trade. It would be a fatal argument used against us as respected our Southern States by other powers. On the same grounds, a parcel of runaways and outcasts from South Carolina and Georgia, to the amount of some hundreds, now collected on or near the Okefonokee[28] swamp in Georgia, might be termed an independent society; or if an insurrection took place in those States, the rebellious horde, on creating an emperor, be supplied with arms and ammunition, as a separate and independent nation. This, as the honorable gentleman from Connecticut had been pleased to term his fears bugbears, might be no bugbear to him, safe and remote from the scene of action, near New Haven; but it was a serious bugbear to him, and would be to the whole southern country, where the horrid scenes of that island would be reacted, their property destroyed, and their families massacred.

After a few replicatory remarks from Mr. LOGAN, the consideration of the subject was postponed to Monday.

TUESDAY, January 7, 1806.

JAMES TURNER, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of North Carolina, for the term of six years, from the third of March, 1805, produced his credentials, which were read, and the oath prescribed by law having been administered, he took his seat in the Senate.

MONDAY, January 13.

_Hamet Caramalli, ex-Bashaw of Tripoli._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States:_

I lay before Congress the application of Hamet Caramalli, elder
brother of the reigning Bashaw of Tripoli, soliciting from the
United States attention to his services and sufferings in the
late war against that State. And, in order to possess them of
the ground on which that application stands, the facts shall be
stated according to the views and information of the Executive.

During the war with Tripoli, it was suggested that Hamet
Caramalli, elder brother of the reigning Bashaw, and driven by
him from his throne, meditated the recovery of his inheritance,
and that a concert of action with us was desirable to him.
We considered that concerted operations by those who have a
common enemy were entirely justifiable, and might produce
effects favorable to both without binding either to guarantee
the objects of the other. But the distance of the scene, the
difficulties of communication, and the uncertainty of our
information, inducing the less confidence in the measure, it
was committed to our agents as one which might be resorted to,
if it promised to promote our success.

Mr. Eaton, however, (our late Consul,) on his return from the
Mediterranean, possessing personal knowledge of the scene,
and having confidence in the effect of a joint operation, we
authorized Commodore Barron, then proceeding with his squadron,
to enter into an understanding with Hamet, if he should deem it
useful; and as it was represented that he would need some aids
of arms and ammunition, and even of money, he was authorized to
furnish them to a moderate extent, according to the prospect
of utility to be expected from it. In order to avail him of
the advantages of Mr. Eaton’s knowledge of circumstances,
an occasional employment was provided for the latter as an
agent for the Navy in that sea. Our expectation was, that
an intercourse should be kept up between the ex-Bashaw and
the Commodore, that while the former moved on by land, our
squadron should proceed with equal pace, so as to arrive at
their destination together, and to attack the common enemy by
land and sea at the same time. The instructions of June 6th to
Commodore Barron show that a co-operation only was intended,
and by no means a union of our object with the fortune of
the ex-Bashaw; and the Commodore’s letters of March 22d and
May 19th, prove that he had the most correct idea of our
intentions. His verbal instructions, indeed, to Mr. Eaton and
Captain Hull, if the expressions are accurately committed to
writing by those gentlemen, do not limit the extent of his
co-operation as rigorously as he probably intended; but it is
certain, from the ex-Bashaw’s letter of January 3d, written
when he was proceeding to join Mr. Eaton, and in which he says,
“your operations should be carried on by sea, mine by land,”
that he left the position in which he was, with a proper idea
of the nature of the co-operation. If Mr. Eaton’s subsequent
convention should appear to bring forward other objects, his
letter of April 29th and May 1st, views this convention but
as provisional; the second article, as he expressly states,
guarding it against any ill effect, and his letter of June
30th confirms this construction.

In the event it was found, that, after placing the ex-Bashaw
in possession of Derne, one of the most important cities and
provinces of the country, where he had resided himself as
governor, he was totally unable to command any resources, or
to bear any part in co-operation with us. This hope was then
at an end, and we certainly had never contemplated, nor were
we prepared to land an army of our own, or to raise, pay, or
subsist, an army of Arabs to march from Derne to Tripoli, and
to carry on a land war at such a distance from our resources.
Our means and our authority were merely naval, and that such
were the expectations of Hamet, his letter of June 29th is an
unequivocal acknowledgment. While, therefore, an impression
from the capture of Derne might still operate at Tripoli, and
an attack on that place from our squadron was daily expected,
Colonel Lear thought it the best moment to listen to overtures
of peace, then made by the Bashaw. He did so, and while urging
provisions for the United States, he paid attention also to the
interests of Hamet, but was able to effect nothing more than to
engage the restitution of his family, and even the persevering
in this demand, suspended for some time the conclusion of the
treaty.

In operations at such distance, it becomes necessary to leave
much to the discretion of the agents employed, but events may
still turn up beyond the limits of that discretion. Unable in
such a case to consult his government, a zealous citizen will
act as he believes that would direct him, were it apprised of
the circumstances, and will take on himself the responsibility.
In all these cases the purity and patriotism of the motives
should shield the agent from blame, and even secure a sanction
where the error is not too injurious. Should it be thought by
any, that the verbal instructions said to have been given by
Commodore Barron to Mr. Eaton amount to a stipulation that
the United States should place Hamet Caramalli on the throne
of Tripoli, a stipulation so entirely unauthorized, so far
beyond our views, and so onerous, could not be sanctioned by
our Government, or should Hamet Caramalli, contrary to the
evidence of his letters of January 3d and June 29th, be thought
to have left the position which he now seems to regret, under
a mistaken expectation that we were at all events to place him
on his throne, on an appeal to the liberality of the nation,
something equivalent to the replacing him in his former
situation might be worthy its consideration.

A nation, by establishing a character of liberality and
magnanimity, gains in the friendship and respect of others more
than the worth of mere money. This appeal is now made by Hamet
Caramalli to the United States. The ground he has taken being
different, not only from our views, but from those expressed
by himself on former occasions, Mr. Eaton was desired to state
whether any verbal communications passed from him to Hamet,
which had varied what he saw in writing. His answer of December
5th, is herewith transmitted, and has rendered it still
more necessary, that, in presenting to the Legislature the
application of Hamet, I should present them at the same time an
exact statement of the views and proceedings of the Executive,
through this whole business, that they may clearly understand
the ground on which we are placed. It is accompanied by all
the papers which bear any relation to the principles of the
co-operation, and which can inform their judgment in deciding
on the application of Hamet Caramalli.

TH. JEFFERSON.

JANUARY 13, 1806.

The Message and documents therein referred to were read, and ordered to lie for consideration,

And on motion, the House adjourned.

TUESDAY, January 14.

_Inhabitants of Galliopolis._

Mr. WORTHINGTON presented the petition of a number of French settlers of Galliopolis, grantees, on the 3d of March, 1795, of 20,000 acres of land, situated on the Ohio River, and nearly opposite the mouth of Little Sandusky, on condition that they settle the same within five years from the date of the letters patent, and stating that they, being ignorant of this condition, are liable to lose their lands, although for the space of four years they have paid the taxes thereon, and praying the interposition of Congress in their behalf; and the petition was read and referred to Messrs. WORTHINGTON, SMITH of Tennessee, and ADAIR, to consider and report thereon.

FRIDAY, January 17.

_Aggressions on Commerce._

On motion, the galleries were cleared, and the doors of the Senate Chamber were closed; and, after the considerations of the confidential business,

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States_:

In my Message to both Houses of Congress at the opening of
their present session, I submitted to their attention, among
other subjects, the oppression of our commerce and navigation
by the irregular practices of armed vessels, public and
private; and by the introduction of new principles, derogatory
of the rights of neutrals, and unacknowledged by the usages of
nations.

The memorials of several bodies of merchants of the United
States are now communicated, and will develop these principles
and practices, which are producing the most ruinous effects on
our lawful commerce and navigation.

The right of a neutral to carry on commercial intercourse with
every part of the dominions of a belligerent, permitted by the
laws of the country, (with the exception of blockaded ports and
contraband of war,) was believed to have been decided between
Great Britain and the United States, by the sentence of their
commissioners mutually appointed to decide on that and other
questions of difference between the two nations, and by the
actual payment of the damages awarded by them against Great
Britain for the infractions of that right. When, therefore, it
was perceived that the same principle was revived, with others
more novel, and extending the injury, instructions were given
to the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States at the
Court of London, and remonstrances duly made by him on the
subject, as will appear by documents transmitted herewith.
These were followed by a partial and temporary suspension only,
without any disavowal of the principle. He has, therefore,
been instructed to urge this subject anew, to bring it more
fully to the bar of reason, and to insist on rights too evident
and too important to be surrendered. In the mean time the evil
is proceeding, under adjudications founded on the principle
which is denied. Under these circumstances the subject presents
itself for the consideration of Congress.

On the impressment of our seamen, our remonstrances have
never been intermitted. A hope existed at one moment of an
arrangement which might have been submitted to, but it soon
passed away, and the practice, though relaxed at times in
the distant seas, had been constantly pursued in those in
our neighborhood. The grounds on which the reclamations on
this subject have been urged, will appear in an extract from
instructions to our minister at London now communicated.

TH. JEFFERSON.

JANUARY 17, 1806.

The message and document therein referred to were in part read, and ordered to lie for consideration.

_Purchase of Florida._

A confidential message from the House of Representatives, by Messrs. BIDWELL and EARLY, two of their members, as follows:

Mr. PRESIDENT: We are directed by the House of Representatives, in confidence, to bring to the Senate a bill, entitled “An act making provision for defraying any extraordinary expenses attending the intercourse between the United States and foreign nations;” in which they request the concurrence of the Senate.

The bill was read and passed to the second reading.

_Ordered_, That the message and bill last read, be considered confidential, and that secrecy be observed by the members and officers of the Senate.

FRIDAY, January 24.

JAMES A. BAYARD, appointed a Senator for the State of Delaware, for the term of six years, commencing on the fourth of March last, produced his credentials, which were read; and, the oath prescribed by law having been administered, he took his seat in the Senate.

FRIDAY, January 31.

_Purchase of Florida._

The third reading of the bill, entitled “An act making provision for defraying any extraordinary expenses attending the intercourse between the United States and foreign nations,” was resumed; and, on the question to amend the bill, as follows: After the words “United States,” sec. 1, insert “for the purpose of obtaining by negotiation, or otherwise, as he may deem most expedient, the free navigation of the river St. Lawrence, as His Britannic Majesty’s territory, lying south and east thereof, or any other territory lying east of the Mississippi, and south of the aforesaid river St. Lawrence not owned or possessed by citizens of the United States.”

It was determined in the negative--yeas 10, nays 21, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Adams, Bayard, Bradley, Hillhouse, Pickering, Plumer, Smith of Vermont, Tracy, White, and Wright.

NAYS.--Messrs. Adair, Anderson, Baldwin, Condit, Fenner, Gaillard, Gilman, Howland, Kitchel, Logan, Maclay, Mitchill, Moore, Smith of Maryland, Smith of New York, Smith of Ohio, Smith of Tennessee, Sumter, Thruston, Turner, and Worthington.

WEDNESDAY, February 5.

The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the report of the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund, stating that the measures which have been authorized by the Board subsequent to their report of 5th February, 1805, so far as the same have been completed, are fully detailed in the report of the Secretary of the Treasury to the Board, dated the 4th of the present month; and in the statements therein referred to, which are herewith transmitted, and prayed to be considered as part of the report. And the report was read, and ordered to lie for consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Maryland, from the committee appointed the 15th of January last, on that part of the Message of the President of the United States which relates to the spoliation of our commerce on the high seas, and informs us of new principles assumed by the British Courts of Admiralty, as a pretext for the condemnation of our vessels in their prize courts, made report, and the report was read, and ordered to lie for consideration.

The motion, that it be

_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire why the
expenditures in the Navy Department, for the year 1805, have
so far exceeded the appropriations for the same, and report
thereon to the Senate;

was resumed and adopted; and ordered that it be referred to the committee appointed on the 28th January last, to make inquiry into the specific expenditures of the respective departments, to report thereon.

The bill making provision for the compensation of witnesses who attended the trial of the impeachment of Samuel Chase, was read the second time, and ordered to the third reading.

THURSDAY, February 6.

_Purchase of Florida._

The Senate resumed the third reading of the bill, entitled “An act making provision for defraying any extraordinary expenses attending the intercourse between the United States and foreign nations;” and,

On motion that the bill, and message from the House of Representatives accompanying the same, be referred to a select committee, with instructions to inquire and report to the Senate their opinion, whether West Florida was or was not included in the cession of Louisiana to the United States by the treaty with France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803, together with the evidence upon which such an opinion may be supported; it was determined in the negative--yeas 8, nays 23, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Adair, Adams, Bayard, Hillhouse, Pickering,
Plumer, Tracy, and White.

NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bradley, Condit, Fenner,
Gaillard, Gilman, Howland, Kitchel, Logan, Maclay, Mitchill,
Moore, Smith of Maryland, Smith of New York, Smith of
Tennessee, Smith of Vermont, Stone, Sumter, Thruston, Turner,
Worthington, and Wright.

On motion to postpone the further consideration of the bill at this time, and to take up the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That the President be requested to lay before the
Senate the instructions given to Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney,
late Ministers of the United States to the Court of Spain,
together with the facts and arguments exhibited by them, in
their negotiation, in support of their claims to territories
eastward of the Mississippi, as far as the river Perdido, and
of territory on the western side of the Mississippi, as far as
the Rio Bravo; the essay of Mr. Cevallos, the Minister of His
Catholic Majesty, in answer to our Ministers, in relation to
the western limits; and any other documents in his possession,
tending to establish the rightful boundaries of Louisiana:

It passed in the negative.

FRIDAY, February 7.

_Purchase of Florida._

The Senate resumed the third reading of the bill, entitled “An act making provision for defraying any extraordinary expenses attending the intercourse between the United States and foreign nations;” and,

On motion to postpone the further consideration of the bill at this time, and take up the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
requested to renew our negotiations with the Spanish
Government, in such a manner as may bring every subject in
controversy between the two countries to a speedy termination,
equally advantageous to both:

It passed in the negative.

On motion to strike out of the bill the words “two millions,” section one, and in lieu thereof, insert “one million;” a division was called for, and the question on striking out was determined in the negative--yeas 13, nays 18, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Adair, Adams, Bayard, Bradley, Gilman,
Hillhouse, Logan, Mitchill, Pickering, Plumer, Stone, Tracy,
and White.

NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Condit, Fenner, Gaillard,
Howland, Kitchel, Maclay, Moore, Smith of Maryland, Smith
of New York, Smith of Tennessee, Smith of Vermont, Sumter,
Thruston, Turner, Worthington, and Wright.

On motion to amend the bill by inserting after the word “applied,” in the first section, the words “for the purchase from the Spanish Government of their territories lying on the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, and eastward of the river Mississippi,” it passed in the negative--yeas 9, nays 20, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Adair, Adams, Bayard, Gilman, Hillhouse,
Pickering, Plumer, Tracy, and White.

NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bradley, Condit, Fenner,
Gaillard, Howland, Kitchel, Maclay, Moore, Smith of Maryland,
Smith of New York, Smith of Tennessee, Smith of Vermont, Stone,
Sumter, Thruston, Turner, Worthington, and Wright.

On motion to postpone the consideration of the bill until Monday next, it passed in the negative.

On motion to agree to the final passage of the bill, it passed in the affirmative--yeas 17, nays 11, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Condit, Fenner, Gaillard,
Howland, Kitchel, Maclay, Moore, Smith of Maryland, Smith of
New York, Smith of Tennessee, Smith of Vermont, Thruston,
Turner, Worthington, and Wright.

NAYS.--Messrs. Adair, Adams, Bayard, Gilman, Hillhouse,
Pickering, Plumer, Stone, Sumter, Tracy, and White.

So it was _Resolved_, That this bill pass.[29]

MONDAY, February 10.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the amendments reported to the bill to suspend the commercial intercourse between the United States and the French island of St. Domingo; and, having amended the report, it was in part adopted, and the bill was reported to the House accordingly; and the bill having been further amended,

_Ordered_, That it pass to the third reading as amended.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the House have passed a bill, entitled “An act declaring the assent of Congress to an act of the General Assembly of the State of North Carolina;” a bill, entitled “An act declaring the consent of Congress to an act of the State of South Carolina, passed on the 21st day of December, 1804, so far as the same relates to authorizing the City Council of Charleston to impose and collect a duty on the tonnage of vessels from foreign ports;” also, a bill, entitled “An act to regulate and fix the compensation of officers of the Senate and House of Representatives;” in which bills they desire the concurrence of the Senate.

The bills brought up for consideration were read, and ordered to the second reading.

Mr. WRIGHT, from the committee to whom was referred, on the 31st of January last, the bill for the protection and indemnification of American seamen, reported it without amendment.

Mr. THRUSTON, from the committee to whom was referred, on the 5th instant, the bill, entitled “An act for altering the time for holding the circuit court in the district of North Carolina,” reported the bill with amendments; which were read, and ordered to lie for consideration.

WEDNESDAY, February 12.

_British Aggressions._

The Senate resumed the report of the committee, of the fifth instant, on that part of the Message of the President of the United States, which relates to the spoliation of our commerce on the high seas, and of the new principles assumed by the British Courts of Admiralty, as a pretext for the condemnation of our vessels, in their prize courts, to wit:

1. _Resolved_, That the capture and condemnation, under the
orders of the British Government, and adjudications of their
Courts of Admiralty, of American vessels and their cargoes,
on the pretext of their being employed in a trade with the
enemies of Great Britain, prohibited in time of peace, is an
unprovoked aggression upon the property of the citizens of
these United States, a violation of their neutral rights, and
an encroachment upon their national independence.

2. _Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
requested to demand and insist upon the restoration of the
property of their citizens, captured and condemned on the
pretext of its being employed in a trade with the enemies
of Great Britain, prohibited in time of peace; and upon the
indemnification of such American citizens, for their losses
and damages sustained by these captures and condemnations; and
to enter into such arrangements with the British Government,
on this and all other differences subsisting between the
two nations, and particularly respecting the impressment of
American seamen, as may be consistent with the honor and
interests of the United States, and manifest their earnest
desire to obtain for themselves and their citizens, by amicable
negotiation, that justice to which they are entitled.

3. _Resolved_, That it is expedient to prohibit by law the
importation into the United States of any of the following
goods, wares, or merchandise, being the growth, produce,
or manufacture, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, or the dependencies thereof, that is to say: woollens,
linens, hats, nails, looking glasses, rum, hardwares, slate,
salt, coal, boots, shoes, ribbons, silks, and plated and glass
wares. The said prohibition to commence from the ---- day of
----, unless previously thereto equitable arrangements shall be
made between the two Governments, on the differences subsisting
between them; and to continue until such arrangements shall be
agreed upon and settled.

And, on the question to adopt the first resolution, as reported by the committee, it was determined unanimously in the affirmative--yeas 28.

THURSDAY, February 13.

_British Aggressions._

The report of the committee, made on the 5th instant, on that part of the Message of the President of the United States which relates to the spoliation of our commerce, and of the new principles assumed by the British Courts of Admiralty, was resumed.

Mr. ISRAEL SMITH said that he was extremely sorry that he could not bring his mind to assent to the second resolution; because he viewed it of great importance that there should be unanimity upon a subject of this nature. He was not opposed to it from any constitutional objection, arising from a belief that the Senate had no right to give their advice and consent to the Executive as to the course and conditions upon which they desired that an accommodation might be brought about; but he was opposed to it from the peculiar impropriety of so doing, deduced from the whole circumstances of the case, as it now presented itself for consideration. It would be recollected by the Senate, that many of our complaints against the British Government were of long continuance; that they had been the subject of our pointed and repeated remonstrances, and in a particular manner, the impressment of American seamen; that, on a former occasion, they had committed vast spoliations on our commerce, not under the sanction of the laws of nations, as their subsequent transactions with our Government have acknowledged; but under the authority of the particular orders of their Government, thereby subjecting the property of our merchants upon the high seas, not only to the restrictions and forfeitures incurred by the law of nations, but also exposing it to all the vexations and forfeitures growing out of the caprice of British orders of capture. The late encroachments on our rights as a neutral nation, and which are now the subject of consideration, are of a nature similar to those we have before experienced, and proceed from the same unwarrantable cause; and, further, are continued in full force and operation at the very moment our Government is pressing upon their consideration the injustice of their proceedings, by argument too strong and convincing to admit of doubt. And how are they answered? By procrastination, and hints that the necessity of the case is a sufficient justification. The Executive, indignant at this evasion, and despairing of redress by any further appeal to their justice and magnanimity, has turned to the National Legislature, and informed them that what remained to be done on this interesting subject must rest on the wisdom and firmness of Congress.

Mr. ANDERSON.--Mr. President: In discussing the merits of the resolution now under consideration, it will be necessary that we keep constantly in view the great principle of the one which has already passed this House by a unanimous vote, because this second resolution is predicated upon the principle of the first. In the first we declare, that the capture and condemnation, under the orders of the British Government, and adjudication of their Courts of Admiralty, of American vessels and their cargoes, on the pretext of their being employed in a trade with the enemies of Great Britain, prohibited in time of peace, is an unprovoked aggression upon the property of the citizens of the United States, a violation of their neutral rights, and an encroachment upon their national independence.

In order to show that the ground we have taken is correct, I will take leave to refer to a book (entitled An Examination of the British Doctrine which subjects to capture a neutral trade, not open in time of peace) ascribed to a gentleman high in office, who has deservedly acquired great celebrity in the political world. It will be found that the principle contended for in the resolution I have cited, obtained as early as the first rise of regular commerce, and was even reduced to system as early as 1338. To this doctrine Great Britain acceded by treaty with Sweden, in 1655, and afterwards, in 1674, she actually claimed and enjoyed the benefit of a free trade, she being at that time in peace and the Dutch in war with France. With what kind of pretext can Great Britain pretend to deprive us of the exercise of the very rights which she herself has claimed and exercised, upon precisely the same principles? Besides, those neutral rights have, by constant and very long usage, become the established law of nations, and have from time to time been ingrafted into many treaties even where Great Britain was herself a party. Upon this doctrine, thus sustained, we request the President to demand and insist upon the restoration of the property of our citizens, captured and condemned on the pretext of its being employed in a trade with the enemies of Great Britain, prohibited in time of peace, and upon the indemnification of such American citizens for their losses and damages sustained by these captures and condemnations.

It has been objected that the language of this resolution is too strong, that the words _demand_ and _insist_ go too far; and that the absolute restoration of our vessels, &c., will, by these words being retained, be made _sine qua non_ of an accommodation with Great Britain. If, sir, we were to express ourselves in less forcible language, we should, in my opinion, subvert our own principles, and recede from the high ground we have taken, which might eventually radically destroy our neutral rights, and completely paralyze our commerce.

The words _demand_ and _insist_ are diplomatic, and as such most proper to be used, and the more so, as they seem to be appropriate to the principle of the first resolution. But, Mr. President, the latter part of this resolution, by which indemnification may be made, and new arrangements entered into with Great Britain, so far ameliorates those precedent words that the President will possess ample powers, according to a true exposition of the whole taken together, and he will not, in my opinion, be trammelled in the manner the gentleman from Ohio conceives. In settling national differences, it has ever been necessary in some points to give a little, and in others to take, according to the peculiar circumstances upon which the negotiation might happen to turn; either upon a point of national honor, or an interesting point of national commerce, or both so connected as not well to be severed.

Mr. MITCHELL said he hoped the resolution would be adopted in its full extent. On this subject he differed wholly from the honorable gentleman from Vermont, (Mr. ISRAEL SMITH.)

As the proposition recommended to the Senate by the select committee was now before them in its most broad and extensive sense, he should apply his remarks to the principle, rather than to the form of the resolution under debate.

Toward the end of 1803, more than half the articles of the treaty between our Government and that of Great Britain had ceased. Since that event commercial intercourse had been carried on by the two nations, under their respective laws, without any convention or pact between them. Inconveniences had been experienced in various ways from that time to the present. An attempt indeed had been made two years ago to remove a considerable part of them by a repeal of the countervailing duties; but that effort not corresponding with the feelings of the nation, had been relinquished.

The war which was rekindled in Europe soon after the expiration of the temporary articles of the treaty had embarrassed the commerce of the great maritime powers, and thrown into the hands of neutrals an extraordinary proportion of the colonial and carrying trade. The citizens of the United States, among others, had profited by the opportunity, and engaged extensively in this neutral commerce. But it had been the policy of Great Britain, the strongest maritime nation among the belligerents, to interrupt this intercourse of neutrals with the colonies of her colonies, as if they had been her own colonies. A series of outrageous proceedings had been the result; such as had excited the most lively indignation against them from Maine to Georgia, and roused the nation with one voice to resist and repel them.

Mr. BAYARD.--Mr. President, if there be any objection to the resolution now before us, it is that it shelters the Executive Government from that responsibility as to its measures which properly ought to attach to it. The duty prescribed by the resolution is of an Executive nature, and the President is charged with the care of those interests for which the resolution provides. By prescribing a course of conduct to the Executive, we release that branch of Government from responsibility as to the event, and take it upon ourselves. But, sir, though I feel this objection, yet at the present moment it is outweighed by other considerations. The state of our public affairs is critical, and at such a time I think it becomes every branch and member of the Government to co-operate with cordiality and zeal in support of each other, and to strive to do more rather than less than their respective duty.

The design of this resolution, sir, presents itself to my mind in a very different point of view from that in which it appears to the gentleman from Vermont, (Mr. SMITH.) That honorable member is opposed to it, because he thinks it gives just cause of offence to the President: that we prescribe to the President a duty which he ought certainly to perform without our injunction, and of consequence we betray doubts that he will do what belongs to his office without our interference.

For my part, sir, I do not consider the resolution as intended in any degree for the President, but as designed for the British Government. I suppose without the resolution the President would take the course which it marks out. But we intend to manifest by it, that it is not simply the opinion of the President that specific redress should be granted for the wrongs we have suffered, but that it is the concurrent sense of this branch of the Government, that such redress should be insisted on. I do not mean that we should be considered as offering an empty menace to the British cabinet, but a demonstration of the union of different branches of our Government in demanding satisfaction for the wrongs done us. Foreign Governments calculate much on our divisions, our union will disappoint those calculations.

On motion, the Senate now adjourned.

FRIDAY, February 14.

_British Aggressions._

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee, made on the 5th instant, on that part of the Message of the President of the United States which relates to the violation of neutral rights, and the impressment of American seamen.

The second resolution being still under consideration, as follows:

“2. _Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
requested to _demand and insist upon the restoration of the
property of their citizens, captured, and condemned, on the
pretext of its being employed in a trade with the enemies
of Great Britain, prohibited in time of peace: and upon the
indemnification of such American citizens, for their losses
and damages sustained by those captures and condemnations: and
to_ enter into such arrangements with the British Government,
on this and all other differences subsisting between the two
nations, (and particularly respecting the impressment of
American seamen,) as may be consistent with the honor and
interest of the United States, and manifest their earnest
desire to obtain for themselves and their citizens, by amicable
negotiation, that justice to which they are entitled.”

Mr. WORTHINGTON.--On further consideration of the resolution now before the Senate I confess I feel more opposed to it, and do believe, on the whole, it will be best not to pass it in its present form. The resolution must mean something, or it must mean nothing. It must intend to convey to the President the opinions and advice of this body, or not to convey it. Now, sir, if it is intended to convey to the President the opinion and advice of the Senate, which is certainly my understanding of it, I beg gentlemen to reflect a little before they adopt it. The advice of this Senate I trust will never be given to the President without having the desired effect; and let me add, sir, that from the intimate connection which exists between this and the Executive branch of the Government, I must believe that the President would not feel himself justified, nor would he be willing to take so much responsibility on himself as entirely to reject it. Sir, I could not justify him if he did. We are equally responsible with him in our executive capacity, and can we for a moment believe that he would act contrary to the decided opinion of the Senate, who can at all times control or defeat him by rejecting a treaty made contrary to their advice and opinions? What, sir, is the object of the resolution?

We request the President “to demand and insist upon the restoration of the property of their citizens, captured and condemned on the pretext of its being employed in a trade with the enemies of Great Britain, prohibited in time of peace; and upon the indemnification of such American citizens for their losses and damages sustained by these captures and condemnations:” and afterwards “to enter into such arrangements with the British Government, on this and all other differences subsisting between the two nations, (and particularly respecting the impressment of American seamen,) as may be consistent with the honor and interests of the United States, and manifest their earnest desire to obtain for themselves and their citizens, by amicable negotiation, that justice to which they are entitled.”

Mr. ADAIR.--Mr. President, the motion before the Senate is to recommit the resolution to a special committee. Gentlemen in favor of the resolution as it stands, have called upon us to point out the alterations we wish to make in it, as a cause of commitment; I will do so by stating my objections to it in its present shape. The first resolution on the paper which I hold in my hand, and which met with a unanimous vote of the Senate two days past, contains a mere declaration of their opinion on an abstract principle; to this resolution I fully and freely assent, although I did not vote for it, being that day unwell and absent. But this second resolution, if it is to have any effect at all, is meant to convey an instruction to the President of the United States. It contains a request to him, not only that he will endeavor to obtain an adjustment of our differences by treaty, but that prior to this he will “demand and insist upon the restoration of the property of our citizens captured and condemned on the pretence of its being employed in a trade with the enemies of Great Britain, prohibited in time of peace; and upon the indemnification of such American citizens for their losses and damages sustained by these captures and condemnations;” that he will enter into arrangements, &c. This, Mr. President, is the part of the resolution I object to. It is going too far. It is circumscribing the powers of the President, and tying him down to a particular point. It is making that the _sine qua non_, the basis on which alone he is to treat; at least it is doing this so far as an opinion of the Senate, expressed in this way, can do it. It really looks to me, as if, on this particular point of the restitution, we were afraid to trust our Chief Magistrate. I presume there is not a member who hears me, who does not fully believe the captures and condemnations alluded to in the resolution were unjust; that they are an infringement of our rights; and that we are entitled to restitution. But let it be remembered that these condemnations are the solemn decisions of a court of very high authority in Great Britain; a court that, it is well known, acts under the counsels (if not the control) of the cabinet. May we not then reasonably suppose that the British Government are as fully assured (in their own minds) that these condemnations are just and warranted, under the law of nations, as we are that they are unjust and unwarranted; and that they will be as unwilling to acknowledge in the face of the whole world that they have been wantonly robbing us of our property, as we will be to acknowledge that we have paid so much without a cause? It has been well observed by an honorable member from Tennessee, that in forming commercial treaties of this kind, there will be various points to consider, and it may not be necessary to contend for strict justice in every punctilio; arrangements or treaties, when there are existing differences to settle, must always be a bargain of compromise and forbearance; in one point we may give a little, that we may obtain an equivalent in another. So it may turn out in settling our disputes with Great Britain. Why then are we not satisfied with expressing our opinion on the great principle of right; and leave it altogether with our Chief Magistrate to enter into and point out the details?

Messrs. J. QUINCY ADAMS, SAMUEL SMITH, PICKERING, TRACY, and MACLAY, delivered their sentiments.