Chapter M: CAMPBELL then rose and spoke as follows (16)

Within a few days after the Message of the President at the commencement of the present session of Congress was made public, the Spanish Minister[30] addressed to the Secretary of State a letter couched in terms which it cannot be necessary for me to particularize, and containing, not only strictures of the most extraordinary nature upon all the parts of that Message respecting Spain, but complaints no less extraordinary at what it did not contain. Consider this procedure in its real light, sir, and what is it? A foreign Minister takes to task the President of the United States for the manner in which he has executed one of the most important functions enjoined upon him by the constitution. He not only charges him with misrepresentation in what he did say, but he presumes to dictate to him what he should have said. I forbear all comment upon this conduct as it relates to the present Chief Magistrate. I ask you, sir, and I entreat every member of this Senate to ask himself, What is its tendency as it relates to our country? The Constitution of the United States makes it one of the President’s most solemn duties to communicate to Congress correct information relating to the state of our public affairs. In every possible case of disputes and controversies of right between the United States and any foreign nation, the Minister of that nation must have an interest--and the strongest interest, to give a gloss and coloring to the objects in litigation--opposite to the interest of our country. If, whenever the President of the United States, upon the high and solemn responsibility which weighs upon every act of his official duty, gives to Congress that account of our foreign relations which is necessary to enable them to adapt their measures to the circumstances for the general welfare of the Union, a foreign Minister, under color of his official privileges, is to contradict every part of his statements, to impeach the correctness of his facts, and to chide him even for his omissions, to what an abyss of abasement is the Chief Magistrate of this Union to be degraded! The freedom which a Spanish Minister, unreproved, can take to-day, a French Minister would claim as a right to-morrow, and a British Minister would exercise without ceremony the next day. A diplomatic censorship would be established over the Supreme Executive of this nation, and the President would not dare to exhibit to Congress the statement of our national concerns, without previously submitting his Message for approbation to a Cabinet Counsel of foreign Ministers. Under the British Constitution, the speeches of the Sovereign to his Parliament are all settled in his Privy Council, and the Royal lips are understood to give utterance only to the words of the Minister. The reason of this is, that by the forms of their constitution the Sovereign himself is above all responsibility, and the Minister is the person accountable to the nation for the substance of the discourse delivered by his master. In their practice, therefore, the speech is made by him on whom the responsibility rests. But if this new assumption of the Spanish Minister is submitted to, our practice will be an improvement on the British theory of a singular cast indeed; for, while the responsibility will rest upon the President who delivers the Message, its contents will be dictated by persons not only loosed from all responsibility to our country, but bound in allegiance, in zeal, in duty, to the very Princes with whom we have to contend. The same control which by this measure is attempted to be usurped over the acts of the President, will at the next step, and by an easy transition, be extended to the Legislature; and, instead of parcelling out the Message among several committees for their consideration, we shall have to appoint committees upon every part of the Message relating to any foreign Power to wait upon the Minister of that Power, and inquire what it is the pleasure of his master that we should do.

That such is the inevitable tendency and the real intention of the proceeding will appear, not only from a due consideration of the act itself, but from a proper estimate of its avowed motive, and from the subsequent conduct of the same Minister. He addressed this letter to the Secretary of State, not for the purpose of asking any explanation--not for the purpose of giving any satisfaction--not for any of the usual and proper purposes of a diplomatic communication--but (as he himself declares) for our Government to publish, with a view to counteract the statements of the President’s Message. It was a challenge to the President to enter the lists of a pamphleteering war against him, for the instruction of the American people and the amusement of foreign Courts; and having failed in this laudable project, he addresses, after the expiration of forty days, a circular letter to the other foreign Ministers residing in the United States, with copies of his letter to the Secretary of State, as if these foreign Ministers were the regular umpires between him and our Government. Not content however with this appeal, he authorizes them to give copies of his letters to ensure that publication with which our Government had not gratified him, and calls at once upon the American people, and upon the European Courts, to decide between the President and him. Here, too, sir, I beg gentlemen to abstract the particular instance from the general principle of this transaction. The same act which under one set of circumstances can only excite contempt, under another becomes formidable in the extreme. Of the newspaper appeal to the people I say nothing. The people of this country are not so dull of understanding or so depraved in vice as to credit the assertions of a foreigner, bound by no tie of duty to them--the creature and agent of their adversary--in contradiction to those of their own officer, answerable to them for his every word, and stationed at the post of their highest confidence. But the circular to the other foreign Ministers is a species of appeal hitherto unprecedented in the United States. And what is its object? The information of their Courts; that the Governments of France and Great Britain may learn from him the justice and generosity of his master.

It is probable that both those nations--the ally and the enemy of Spain--have much better materials for estimating the justice and generosity of His Catholic Majesty; but what have they to do in the case? By an anonymous newspaper publication, the idiom of which discovers its origin, a precedent is alleged in justification of this extraordinary step, and the reciprocal communication of diplomatic memorials concerning the affair of Holland in the years 1786 and 1787, between the Ministers of Great Britain, France, and Prussia, at the Hague, is gravely adduced as warranting this innovation of the Spanish Minister here. The very reference to that time, place, and occasion, would of itself be a sufficient indication of the intent at this time. In the years 1786 and 1787, the three Powers I have just mentioned undertook, between them, not only to interfere in the internal government of Holland, but to regulate and control it according to a plan upon which they were endeavoring to agree. Their Ministers, therefore, very naturally communicated to each other the memorials which they presented to the Dutch Government. And what was the result? Two of those three Powers fixed between themselves the doom of Holland--raised a tyrannical faction upon the ruins of that country’s freedom, and marched the Duke of Brunswick, at the head of thirty thousand men, into Amsterdam, to convince the Hollanders of the King of Prussia’s _justice_ and _generosity_.

This, sir, is the precedent called to our recollection for the purpose of reconciling us to the humiliation of our condition. We are patiently to behold a Spanish Minister insulting the President of the United States--dictating to him _his_ construction of our constitution--calling upon other foreign Ministers to countenance his presumption--and intrenching himself behind the example of another nation, once made the victim of a like usurpation! The resemblance is but too strong, and will, I hope, not be forgotten by us. If the constitutional powers of a Dutch Stadtholder were prescribed and moulded according to the pleasure and by the interference of foreign Powers, (as undoubtedly they were,) let us remember the fact with a determination never to be so controlled ourselves. It is held up to us as an example: let us take it as warning.

The subsequent proceedings of the Spanish Minister have been all in the same spirit with that under which he presumed to call upon the President to enter the lists of altercation with him before the people of this country. They manifest pretensions to which we ought not to submit--which we ought vigorously to resist. In his last letter to the Secretary of State, he tells him that he will receive no orders but from his own master. Now, if this has any meaning, it must be to deny the United States the right of ordering him away: that is one of the most indisputable rights of every Sovereign Power. When pretensions so destitute of all foundation are advanced, it becomes us immediately to show our sense of them: not to resist them might be construed into acquiescence. It is a virtual dereliction of our rights not to defend them when they are assailed.

I am indeed fully sensible that the operation of the bill I have proposed, should it meet the sanction of Congress, will not be retrospective--that to what has passed no remedy which can now be provided will apply--but we may prevent in future occurrences of a like character, and much more dangerous consequence. We may prevent the spreading of an evil which threatens the dearest interests of the nation; we may prevent even the repetition of insults and injuries, which, but for the want of the regulations now proposed, in all probability never would have been offered. In my own opinion, the necessity for some legislative provision upon this subject will force itself upon this Government with additional pressure, from year to year, until it can no longer be resisted. If foreign Ministers are to possess in the United States an unbounded independence of all the tribunals of justice, while the United States on their part are to be deprived of the ordinary means of self-defence, enjoyed and exercised by all other Sovereigns, to check the abuse of those formidable privileges, the course of events will, in my belief, at no very distant day, bring us into that unhappy dilemma which will leave no other alternative than to infringe the laws of nations or to sacrifice our constitution--to commit violent outrage upon the rights of others, or to make a dastardly surrender of our own.

The amendment was adopted, and the bill ordered to a third reading.

FRIDAY, March 7.

_Privileges of Foreign Ministers._

The Senate resumed the third reading of the bill to prevent the abuse of the privileges and immunities enjoyed by foreign Ministers within the United States.

A motion was made to strike out the first, second, and third sections of the bill. Whereupon, a division of the question was called for; and on the question to strike out the first section, it was determined in the affirmative--yeas 23, nays 7, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Adair, Anderson, Baldwin, Bayard, Bradley,
Condit, Gaillard, Gilman, Hillhouse, Howland, Kitchel, Logan,
Maclay, Moore, Pickering, Smith of Maryland, Smith of Ohio,
Smith of Tennessee, Smith of Vermont, Stone, Sumter, Thruston,
and White.

NAYS.--Messrs. Adams, Mitchill, Plumer, Smith of New York,
Tracy, Turner, and Worthington.

And on the question to strike out the second section of the bill, it was determined in the affirmative--yeas 21, nays 9, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bayard, Bradley, Condit,
Gaillard, Gilman, Hillhouse, Howland, Kitchel, Logan, Maclay,
Moore, Pickering, Smith of Maryland, Smith of Ohio, Smith of
Tennessee, Smith of Vermont, Stone, Sumter, and Thruston.

NAYS.--Messrs. Adair, Adams, Mitchill, Plumer, Smith of New
York, Tracy, Turner, White, and Worthington.

And on the question to strike out the third section of the bill, it was determined in the affirmative--yeas 27, nays 3, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Adair, Adams, Anderson, Baldwin, Bayard,
Bradley, Condit, Gaillard, Gilman, Hillhouse, Howland, Kitchel,
Logan, Maclay, Moore, Pickering, Plumer, Smith of Maryland,
Smith of New York, Smith of Ohio, Smith of Tennessee, Smith of
Vermont, Stone, Sumter, Thruston, Turner, and White.

NAYS.--Messrs. Mitchill, Tracy, and Worthington.

And the bill having been further amended, on the question, Shall this bill pass? it was determined in the negative--yeas 4, nays 24, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Adams, Plumer, Smith of Ohio, and Thruston.

NAYS.--Messrs. Adair, Anderson, Baldwin, Bayard, Bradley,
Condit, Gaillard, Gilman, Hillhouse, Howland, Kitchel,
Logan, Maclay, Moore, Pickering, Smith of New York, Smith of
Tennessee, Smith of Vermont, Stone, Sumter, Tracy, Turner,
White, and Worthington.

So the bill was lost.

MONDAY, March 10.

_British Aggressions._

The Senate resumed the consideration of the third resolution reported by the committee, on the 5th of February last, to whom was referred that part of the Message of the President of the United States, at the opening of the session, which relates to the spoliations of our commerce.

Mr. S. SMITH.--Mr. President: The subject now before the Senate is, the third resolution reported by your committee on that part of the Message which relates to British spoliations. The first resolution is a declaration of our neutral rights, and has passed the Senate unanimously. The second requests the President to send a special mission to Great Britain to demand restoration of property unlawfully taken from our merchants, and, by a peaceful arrangement, to adjust all differences subsisting between that nation and the United States. The third is now before us. I will take leave to read it.

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 manufactures of the United Kingdoms 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.

This resolution is intended, Mr. President, to afford aid to the negotiation recommended in the second. Without this aid, or something similar, I doubt whether Great Britain would not calculate, as heretofore, on an indecisive character in our Government--on its indisposition to lend any aid or protection to commerce; and reasoning thus, whether her Minister might not be induced to believe that he could proceed in safety to the destruction of every part of our commerce with her enemies and their dependencies. This measure, Mr. President, is called a war measure. Is it so? If it is, then does Great Britain maintain a constant war measure against the United States, for she, at all times, prohibits the importation, into her ports, of every article manufactured within our country. She even prohibits our provisions from being consumed in her kingdoms, except when her wants compel her to admit them. If, then, she has set us the example, and has, by her laws, prohibited every article of our manufacture from being admitted into her kingdoms, how can our prohibiting a part of her manufactures from being imported into the United States, be considered as a war measure? This measure is not intended to take effect immediately. The first of November next is contemplated; which will give full time for negotiation, and for Great Britain to reflect on her cruel and unprovoked conduct towards us--a conduct that has been highly reprobated in England--a conduct that, when examined, has but too much the appearance of a determination to benefit by the plunder of our property, without the authority of law, and directly contrary to the public sanction given to our neutral trade in a correspondence held between Lord Hawkesbury and Mr. King, in 1801.

FRIDAY, March 14.

_Captain Peter Landais._

The bill, entitled “An act for the relief of Peter Landais,” was read the third time; and, on motion to strike out the word “six,” and in lieu thereof to insert the word “three,” thereby to reduce the sum proposed for his relief to three thousand dollars, it passed in the negative.

On motion, by one of the majority, it was agreed to reconsider the last vote, and to strike out the word “six.”

On motion, to fill the blank with the word “five,” it passed in the negative; and, on motion, it was agreed to fill the blank with the word “four.”

On the question, shall the bill pass as amended? it was determined in the affirmative--yeas 19, nays 10, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Adair, Adams, Anderson, Bayard, Condit, Gilman,
Howland, Kitchel, Maclay, Mitchill, Smith of Maryland, Smith of
Ohio, Smith of Tennessee, Smith of Vermont, Thruston, Turner,
White, Worthington, and Wright.

NAYS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Bradley, Gaillard, Hillhouse, Moore,
Pickering, Plumer, Smith of New York, Sumter, and Tracy.

So it was _Resolved_, That this bill pass as amended.

MONDAY, March 17.

_Ex-Bashaw of Tripoli._

Mr. BRADLEY, from the committee appointed on the 16th of January last, to consider the Message of the President of the United States of the 13th of January, respecting the application of Hamet Caramalli, made the following report:

The ex-Bashaw founds his claim on the justice of the United
States, from his services and suffering in their cause, and
from his having been deceived and amused with the prospect of
being placed on his throne, as legitimate Sovereign of Tripoli,
and frequently drawn from eligible situations for the purpose
of being made the dupe and instrument of policy, and finally
sacrificed to misfortune and wretchedness. The committee, from
a full investigation of the documents which have been laid
before Congress, with other evidence that has come within
their knowledge, are enabled to lay before the Senate a brief
statement of facts in relation to the ex-Bashaw, and the result
of their deliberations thereon.

This unfortunate prince, by the treason and perfidy of his
brother, the reigning Bashaw, was driven from his throne,
an exile, to the Regency of Tunis, where the agency of the
United States, in the Mediterranean, found him; and as early
as August, eighteen hundred and one, entered into a convention
to co-operate with him, the object of which was to obtain
a permanent peace with Tripoli, to place the ex-Bashaw on
his throne, and procure indemnification for all expense in
accomplishing the same. This agreement was renewed in November
following, with encouragement that the United States would
persevere, until they had effected the object; and in eighteen
hundred and two, when the reigning Bashaw had made overtures
to the ex-Bashaw to settle on him the two provinces of Derne
and Bengazi, and when the ex-Bashaw was on the point of leaving
Tunis, under an escort furnished him by the reigning Bashaw,
the agents of the United States prevailed on him to abandon the
offer, with assurance that the United States would effectually
co-operate, and place him on the throne of Tripoli.

The same engagements were renewed in eighteen hundred and
three, and the plan of co-operation so arranged, that the
ex-Bashaw, by his own exertions and force, took possession of
the province of Derne; but the American squadron, at that time
under the command of Commodore Morris, instead of improving
that favorable moment to co-operate with the ex-Bashaw, and
to put an end to the war, unfortunately abandoned the Barbary
coast, and left the ex-Bashaw to contend solely with all the
force of the reigning Bashaw, and who in consequence was
obliged, in the fore part of the year eighteen hundred and
four, to give up his conquest of Derne, and fly from the fury
of the usurper into Egypt. These transactions were, from time
to time, not only communicated by our agents to Government, but
were laid before Congress in February, eighteen hundred and
four, in the documents accompanying the report of the Committee
of Claims on the petition of Mr. Eaton, late Consul at Tunis,
which committee expressed their decided approbation of his
official conduct, and to which report the committee beg leave
to refer.

In the full possession of the knowledge of these facts, the
Government of the United States, in June, eighteen hundred and
four, despatched Commodore Barron, with a squadron, into the
Mediterranean, and in his instructions submitted to his entire
discretion the subject of availing himself of the co-operation
of the ex-Bashaw, and referring him to Mr. Eaton as an agent
sent out by Government for that purpose.

After Commodore Barron had arrived on the station, in
September, eighteen hundred and four, he despatched Mr. Eaton
and Captain Hull into Egypt, to find the ex-Bashaw, with
instructions to assure him that the Commodore would take the
most effectual measures with the forces under his command, to
co-operate with him against the usurper, his brother, and to
establish him in the Regency of Tripoli. After encountering
many difficulties and dangers, the ex-Bashaw was found in
Upper Egypt with the Mamelukes, and commanding the Arabs;
the same assurances were again made to him, and a convention
was reduced to writing, the stipulations of which had the
same objects in view; the United States to obtain a permanent
peace and their prisoners, the ex-Bashaw to obtain his throne.
Under these impressions, and with the fullest confidence in
the assurances he had received from the agents of the United
States, and even from Commodore Barron himself, by one of his
(the Bashaw’s) secretaries, whom he had sent to wait on the
Commodore for that purpose, he gave up his prospects in Egypt,
abandoned his property in that country, constituted Mr. Eaton
general and commander-in-chief of his forces, and with such
an army as he was able to raise and support, marched through
the Libyan desert, suffering every hardship incident to such a
perilous undertaking; and with his army, commanded by General
Eaton, aided by O’Bannon and Mann, three American officers,
who shared with him the dangers and hardships of the campaign,
and whose names their country will for ever record with honor,
attacked the city of Derne in the Regency of Tripoli, on the
twenty-seventh day of April, one thousand eight hundred and
five, and, after a well-fought battle, took the same; and for
the first time planted the American colors on the ramparts of
a Tripolitan fort. And in several battles afterwards, one of
which he fought without the aid of the Americans, (they having
been restrained by orders, not warranted by any policy, issued
as appears by Mr. Lear, the American Consul,) defeated the army
of the usurper with great slaughter, maintained his conquest,
and, without the hazard of a repulse, would have marched to the
throne of Tripoli, had he been supported by the co-operation
of the American squadron, which in honor and good faith he
had a right to expect. The committee would here explicitly
declare, that, in their opinion, no blame ought to attach to
Commodore Barron. A wasting sickness, and a consequent mental
as well as bodily debility, had rendered him totally unable to
exercise the duties of commanding the squadron, previously to
this momentous crisis, and from which he has never recovered;
and to this cause alone may be attributed the final failure
of the plan of co-operation which appears to have been wisely
concerted by the Government, and hitherto bravely executed by
its officers.

But, however unpleasant the task, the committee are compelled,
by the obligations of truth and duty, to state further that
Mr. Lear, to whom was intrusted the power of negotiating the
peace, appears to have gained a complete ascendency over the
Commodore, thus debilitated by sickness; or rather, having
assumed the command in the name of the Commodore, to have
dictated every measure; to have paralyzed every military
operation by sea and land; and finally, without displaying
the fleet or squadron before Tripoli, without consulting even
the safety of the ex-Bashaw or his army, against the opinion
of all the officers of the fleet, so far as the committee
have been able to obtain the same, and of Commodore Rodgers,
(as appears from Mr. Lear’s letter to the Secretary of State,
dated Syracuse harbor, July 5th, 1805,) to have entered into
a convention with the reigning Bashaw, by which, contrary to
his instructions, he stipulated to pay him sixty thousand
dollars, to abandon the ex-Bashaw, and to withdraw all aid and
assistance from his army. And although a stipulation was made
that the wife and children of the ex-Bashaw should be delivered
to him on his withdrawing from the territories of Tripoli,
yet that stipulation has not been carried into execution, and
it is highly probable was never intended to be. The committee
forbear to make any comment on the impropriety of the orders
issued to General Eaton to evacuate Derne, five days previous
to Mr. Lear’s sailing from Malta for Tripoli, to enter on his
negotiation; and the honor of the nation forbids any remarks on
the unworthy attempt to compel the ex-Bashaw and General Eaton
to give up and abandon their conquest, by withholding supplies
from the army at Derne, eight days previous to the commencement
of the negotiation; nor will the committee condescend to enter
into a consideration of pretended reasons, assigned by Mr. Lear
to palliate his management of the affairs of the negotiation;
such as, the danger of the American prisoners in Tripoli, the
unfitness of the ships for service, and the want of means to
prosecute the war; they appear to the committee to have no
foundation in fact, and are used rather as a veil to cover an
inglorious deed, than solid reasons to justify the negotiator’s
conduct. The committee are free to say, that, in their opinion,
it was in the power of the United States, with the force then
employed, and a small portion of the sixty thousand dollars,
thus improperly expended, to have placed Hamet Caramalli, the
rightful sovereign of Tripoli, on his throne; to have obtained
their prisoners in perfect safety, without the payment of a
cent, with assurance, and probable certainty, of eventual
remuneration for all expenses; and to have established a
peace with the Barbary Powers, that would have been secure
and permanent, and which would have dignified the name and
character of the American people.

Whatever Hamet, the ex-Bashaw, may have said, in his letter of
June 29th, 1805, to palliate the conduct which first abandoned
and then ruined him, the Senate cannot fail to discern that
he was then at Syracuse, in a country of strangers to his
merits, and hostile to his nation and religion, and where every
circumstance conspired to depress him, which, together with the
fear of starving, left him scarcely a moral agent.

Upon these facts, and to carry into effect the principle of
duty arising out of them, the only remuneration now left
in the power of the United States to make, the committee
herewith present a bill for the consideration of the Senate.
The committee are confident that the legislature of a free
and Christian country can never leave it in the power of a
Mahometan to say that they violate their faith, or withhold the
operations of justice from one who has fallen a victim to his
unbounded confidence in their integrity and honor.

The report was ordered to lie for consideration.

Mr. BRADLEY, from the same committee, also reported a bill “for the relief of Hamet Caramalli, ex-Bashaw of Tripoli;” and the bill was read, and ordered to the second reading.

TUESDAY, March 18.

_Thanks to General Eaton, and his Companions._

Mr. Bradley submitted the following resolutions for consideration, which were read:

“_Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America, in Congress assembled_, That Congress
entertain a high sense of the patriotism, intrepidity, and
valor, of William Eaton, late General-in-chief of the army
of the ex-Bashaw of Tripoli, and of Priestly N. O’Bannon,
and George Washington Mann, three American officers, who,
with a small number of American marines and the forces of the
ex-Bashaw, composed of Greeks and Arabs, courageously marched
through the Libyan desert, defeated the Tripolitan army near
Derne, and took that city on the twenty-seventh day of April,
eighteen hundred and five, and for the first time spread the
American eagle in Africa, on the ramparts of a Tripolitan fort,
and thereby contributed to release three hundred American
prisoners from bondage in Tripoli.

“_Resolved_, As a further testimony of the gratitude of their
country, that the President of the United States be requested
to cause to be surveyed, within the limits of the public lands
of the United States now open for sale, as the said William
Eaton shall elect, a township of six miles square, to be
called Derne, as a memorial of the conquest of that city, for
ever; and to cause to be laid out, surveyed, and granted, to
the said William Eaton, in one entire tract, within the said
township, ---- thousand acres; and to Priestly N. O’Bannon
and George Washington Mann, each ---- thousand acres; and to
Arthur Campbell, Bernard O’Brian, David Thomas, and James Owen,
the only surviving marines who served as volunteers in that
expedition, three hundred and twenty acres each; to be granted
to them, respectively, their heirs, and assigns, for ever.”

WEDNESDAY, March 19.

_Death of Senator Jackson._

The Senate were informed that JAMES JACKSON, one of their members, from the State of Georgia, had deceased the last night, whereupon,

_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to take order for superintending the funeral of JAMES JACKSON, and that the Senate will attend the same; and that notice of the event be given to the House of Representatives; and,

_Ordered_, That this committee consist of Messrs. ANDERSON, SUMTER, and WRIGHT.

_Resolved, unanimously_, That the members of the Senate, from a sincere desire of showing every mark of respect due to the memory of JAMES JACKSON, deceased, late a member thereof, will go into mourning for him one month, by the usual mode of wearing a crape round the left arm.

The Senate adjourned.

THURSDAY, March 20.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the House will attend the funeral of JAMES JACKSON, Esquire, late a Senator of the United States. They have also determined to wear mourning on the left arm, for the space of one month, in testimony of their respect for the memory of that distinguished Revolutionary patriot.

TUESDAY, April 1.

_Ex-Bashaw of Tripoli._

The bill for the relief of Hamet Caramalli, ex-Bashaw of Tripoli, being under consideration, on the question, Shall this bill pass? Mr. BRADLEY having finished his remarks in support of the bill--

Mr. ADAMS said: Mr. President, when the question was yesterday stated from the Chair, on the final passage of this bill, and I found myself called on to record my assent to or dissent from it, I felt myself bound in duty to call upon the committee by whom it was reported, for the evidence upon which they had rested the claim of Hamet Bashaw to the grant of money which is proposed by the bill to be made to him. Together with the bill the committee had reported what they term “a brief statement of facts;” upon which they declare the bill itself to be founded, and wherein they consider his claim, not on the generosity, but on the justice of the United States, from his service and sufferings in their cause, and from his having been deceived and amused with the prospect of being placed on his throne, as legitimate sovereign of Tripoli, and frequently drawn from eligible situations for the purpose of being made the dupe or instrument of policy, and finally sacrificed to misfortune and wretchedness. The bill accordingly makes the grant, expressly in consideration of his services and sufferings in our cause; and, in voting for the bill as it now stands, I should consider myself as sanctioning, as far as my vote would go, the report of the committee, upon which the bill is founded. This I could not do without further information. I thought, sir, and have thought, from the moment when I first saw the report, that the statement it contained, far from being supported by the voluminous documents which have been, in the course of the session, communicated to the Senate, respecting all our transactions with Tripoli, was in many respects contradictory to the whole tenor of those documents; my recollection of the documents was, indeed, only of their general tenor; for, amidst the pressure of the various other important business which we have had before us, I had not found time for a reperusal of them since I had heard them read at your table. But, of their general complexion, my mind had received a clear and very decided impression, with which I found it impossible to reconcile any part of the committee’s report. I presumed, however, that the committee were possessed of evidence, not yet communicated to the Senate, which warranted them in those assertions, which all the papers with which I had been made acquainted tended rather to disprove than to confirm. The chairman of the committee has this day informed the Senate of the grounds upon which the report was drawn up, and has communicated what he considers as the additional evidence in its support. He has also favored us with the arguments upon which he thinks the views of the subject, taken in the report, are fully substantiated. I regret, sir, that neither his arguments nor his evidence have been satisfactory to my mind; but that, after giving them what I deem their full share of weight, I still remain convinced that the report is founded upon a supposed state of facts altogether erroneous, and a view of the whole subject altogether incorrect.

The merits of Hamet Bashaw’s claim upon the United States must depend upon the nature of the engagements contracted between the United States and him, and upon the transactions under those engagements. With respect to the nature of the engagements, there is a very striking difference between the statement of the committee and the statement of the President of the United States in his Message of the 13th of January last. The statement of the committee is as much at variance with the ideas of Hamet Bashaw himself as with those of the President, and equally in opposition to those of Commodore Barron and Mr. Lear, as they appear in the printed papers.

With regard to the facts material to constitute the peculiar character of the ex-Bashaw’s claim, the statement of the committee is no less in flat contradiction to the statements of the President, to the acknowledgments of Hamet Bashaw, and to the tenor of the most substantial documents.

As to the nature of the engagements, the committee represent Hamet Bashaw as having been inveigled, deceived, amused with promises to place him on his throne, and finally betrayed and sacrificed. They appear to think the United States were bound, at all events, and, by their exclusive exertions, to restore him to his dignity, and that the mere act of withdrawing their aid, without accomplishing that object, was a treacherous violation of their faith plighted to him.

Let us now see what was the real nature of those magnificent offers of the reigning Bashaw to his brother--the armed escort, and the two provinces--upon the abandonment of which, under the influence of our agents, the report raises such a fund of merit and sacrifice on the part of Hamet. The committee take this circumstance from a statement made by Mr. Eaton to the Committee of Claims, in February 7, 1804, printed among the documents of that season. Largely as the chairman of the committee has drawn from that statement in making his report, it is singular that the following passage in it, page 16, has escaped his attention:

“Meantime, I had wrought upon the Bey’s Minister to countenance
and aid my project, in consideration of my promise to give
him $10,000, on condition of his fidelity, and in case of its
success. I thought it good policy to secure the Minister;
not so much for the service he would render, as to check the
mischief which seemed impending. He confessed it was the
intention of the enemy Bashaw, by this illusive overture, to
get possession of the rival brother in order to destroy him;
and he permitted my dragoman, under an injunction of secrecy,
to communicate the design to Hamet Bashaw. This determined him
to go to Malta, under a pretext to his people of evading the
Swedish and American cruisers.”

And are these the overtures? Is this the eligible situation, of such precious value to the ex-Bashaw, that this nation, or its Government, is to be charged with perfidy and treachery because our agents prevailed upon him to abandon them? Even so! The reigning Bashaw sends an escort of forty men, with offers of two provinces, to his exiled brother, for the sole purpose of getting him into his possession to destroy him. Our agents discover the project; apprise the destined victim of his intended fate; rescue him from inevitable destruction--and now, we are to be told, that by this act, we were not conferring, but receiving an obligation, which bound us in honor and duty to restore him to his throne.

Thus much, sir, for the nature of the transactions between the agents of the United States and the ex-Bashaw, prior to the year 1804, when Commodore Barron with his squadron were sent into the Mediterranean, and when he was vested with discretionary powers to avail himself of Hamet’s co-operation, and referred to Mr. Eaton as an agent sent out by Government for that purpose.

This discretionary power of Commodore Barron, the chairman of the committee has this day strongly contended was altogether unlimited, and such is the idea given of it in the report; but this I apprehend to be a mistake of the utmost importance. It is in direct contradiction to the statement of the President’s Message, and to the testimony of Commodore Barron himself. The President’s Message says:

“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 aid 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. 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 fortunes of the ex-Bashaw; and the Commodore’s
letters of March 22, and May 19, prove that he had the most
correct idea of our intentions.”

Thus, sir, the discretionary power of Commodore Barron, to avail himself of Hamet’s co-operation, was not unlimited--neither by the intention of the Executive, nor in his own understanding. It was limited both as to the nature of the engagement he was to contract, and as to the sum appropriated for the purpose; co-operation is a term of reciprocal import--it certainly means that there should be some operation on both sides. The operation in this case by sea, was to be conducted entirely and exclusively by the squadron of the United States. Hamet Bashaw could contribute, and was expected to contribute, nothing to that. His operation was to be by land; and, upon principles of ordinary reciprocity, it might have been required that this also should be exclusively at his expense. The Government, however, were willing to furnish him some aid even there. And the sum of twenty thousand dollars had been appropriated for that purpose. This was going as far as prudence would warrant, or as good faith could require. Hamet himself could have entertained no other expectation, since, in his letter to Mr. Eaton, of 3d January, he says: “Your operations should be carried on by sea; mine by land.” And even after the peace was made, in his letter to Mr. Eaton, of 20th June, he acknowledges, as clearly as language can express it, that the failure of co-operation was not on our part, but his own; that his means had not been found to answer our reasonable expectations; and that he was “satisfied with all our nation has done concerning him.”

If Hamet, after the capture of Derne, was totally unable to command any resources, or bear any part in co-operation with us, how can it be said that he would, without the hazard of a repulse, have marched to the throne of Tripoli, had he been supported by the co-operation of our squadron? But, further, I ask what were the means, what were the resources, of this sovereign prince, from the hour when Mr. Eaton received his orders to withdraw from him? The event, sir, is worth a thousand arguments. He could not support himself a day. He was compelled to take instantaneous refuge on board our vessels, and was saved from destruction only by being brought away. Does this look like marching to the throne of Tripoli?

I am aware, sir, that the report has very explicitly declared that no blame ought to attach to Commodore Barron; but it has also declared that a wasting sickness, and consequent mental as well as bodily debility, had rendered him totally unable to command the squadron; that to this cause alone may be attributed the final failure of the plan of co-operation; that Mr. Lear appears to have gained a complete ascendency over him, thus debilitated by sickness; or rather that Lear, having assumed the command, in the name of the Commodore, paralyzed every military operation by sea and land; and they go so far as to impute to Mr. Lear all the letters of Commodore Barron, subsequent to that of 21st of March, 1805. If the gentleman from Maryland considers all this, sir, as perfectly respectful to the Commodore, I can only say that it appears in a different light to me, nor do I imagine it will bear that complexion to the person immediately interested in it. But the chairman of the committee has gone yet further. He has told you, in so many words, that the Commodore was reduced to a state of perfect childhood; has represented him as equally incapable of thought and of action; in a mere state of dotage. And all this upon what evidence? Why, because, in one of his letters, Commodore Barron says he is unable to write with his own hand; and because, from the 19th to the 22d of May, there appear among the documents, five letters, long letters, says the gentleman, and yet the Commodore’s secretary had an inflammation in his eyes.

MONDAY, April 7.

The bill, entitled “An act further to alter and establish certain post roads, and for other purposes,” was read the second time, and referred to Messrs. ANDERSON, WHITE, and STONE, to consider and report thereon.

_Importation of Slaves._

Mr. WRIGHT communicated a resolution of the Legislature of the State of Maryland instructing their Senators and Representatives in Congress to use their utmost exertions to obtain an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to prevent the further importation of slaves; whereupon, Mr. WRIGHT submitted the following resolutions for the consideration of the Senate:

_Resolved, &c._ That the following article be proposed to the
Legislatures of the several States, as an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by
three-fourths of the said Legislatures, shall be valid as a
part of the said constitution, to wit:

_Resolved_, That the migration or importation of slaves into
the United States, or any territory thereof, be prohibited
after the first day of January 1808.

THURSDAY, April 10.

_Non-Importation Act._

The Senate took into consideration, in Committee of the Whole, (Mr. ANDERSON having been requested by the PRESIDENT to take the Chair,) the amendments reported by the select committee to the bill, entitled “An act to prohibit the importation of certain goods, wares, and merchandise.” And, after debate, the PRESIDENT resumed the Chair, and Mr. ANDERSON, from the Committee of the Whole, reported that they had disagreed to the amendments of the select committee, but had agreed to an amendment to the bill; which was read, and the bill was amended accordingly; and, on the question, Shall the bill pass to the third reading, as amended? it passed in the affirmative--yeas 19, nays 9, as follows:

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

NAYS.--Messrs. Adair, Bradley, Hillhouse, Pickering, Plumer,
Stone, Sumter, Tracy, and White.

FRIDAY, April 11.

_Potomac Bridge._

The bill, entitled “An act authorizing the erection of a bridge over the river Potomac, within the District of Columbia,” was read the third time; and, on motion to postpone the further consideration thereof until the first Monday in December next, it passed in the affirmative--yeas 19, nays 10, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Adair, Adams, Anderson, Baldwin, Gilman,
Hillhouse, Howland, Kitchel, Maclay, Mitchill, Pickering, Smith
of Maryland, Smith of New York, Stone, Sumter, Thruston, Tracy,
Worthington, and Wright.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bradley, Condit, Gaillard, Moore, Plumer, Smith
of Ohio, Smith of Tennessee, Smith of Vermont, Turner, and
White.

So the bill was postponed.

SATURDAY, April 12.

_Exclusion of Army and Naval officers from civil appointments._

The bill, entitled “An act to prohibit the officers of the Army and Navy from holding or exercising any civil office,” was read the second time; and on motion to postpone this bill to the first Monday in December next, it passed in the affirmative--yeas 17, nays 10, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Adair, Adams, Baldwin, Condit, Gilman, Howland,
Kitchel, Logan, Mitchill, Plumer, Smith of Maryland, Smith of
New York, Smith of Tennessee, Smith of Vermont, Tracy, White,
and Wright.

NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Gaillard, Hillhouse, Maclay, Moore,
Pickering, Stone, Sumter, Turner, and Worthington.

So the bill was postponed.

MONDAY, April 14.

_Tunisian Demand and Threat._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, which was read, and ordered to lie for consideration:

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

During the blockade of Tripoli by the squadron of the United
States, a small cruiser, under the flag of Tunis, with two
prizes (all of trifling value) attempted to enter Tripoli,
was turned back, warned, and attempting again to enter, was
taken and detained as prize by the squadron. Her restitution
was claimed by the Bey of Tunis, with a threat of war, in
terms so serious that, on withdrawing from the blockade of
Tripoli, the commanding officer of the squadron thought it his
duty to repair to Tunis with his squadron, and to require a
categorical declaration, whether peace or war was intended. The
Bey preferred explaining himself by an Ambassador to the United
States, who, on his arrival, renewed the request that the
vessel and her prizes should be restored. It was deemed proper
to give this proof of friendship to the Bey, and the Ambassador
was informed the vessels would be restored. Afterwards he made
a requisition of naval stores to be sent to the Bey, in order
to secure a peace for the term of three years, with a threat
of war, if refused. It has been refused, and the Ambassador is
about to depart without receding from his threat or demand.

Under these circumstances, and considering that the several
provisions of the act of March 25th, 1804, will cease, in
consequence of the ratification of the treaty of peace with
Tripoli, now advised and consented to by the Senate, I have
thought it my duty to communicate these facts, in order that
Congress may consider the expediency of continuing the same
provisions for a limited time, or making others equivalent.

TH. JEFFERSON.

APRIL 14, 1806.

TUESDAY, April 15.

_Non-Importation Act._

The bill, entitled “An act to prohibit the importation of certain goods, wares, and merchandise,” was read the third time; and the amendment adopted was again considered and rejected.

A motion was made to postpone the bill for the purpose of considering the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That, in consequence of a more favorable course
of conduct on the part of Great Britain, in respect to the
disturbance of the trade of the United States; and entertaining
a hope that the British Ministry, lately established, will
be disposed to a reasonable arrangement of all affairs of
difference between the two nations, the Senate do hereby
postpone the further consideration of the bill, entitled “An
act to prohibit the importation of certain goods, wares, and
merchandise,” to the first Monday in November next.

And, on the question to agree to this motion, it passed in the negative--yeas 9, nays 19, as follows:

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

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

And on the question, Shall this bill pass? it was determined in the affirmative--yeas 19, nays 9, as follows:

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

NAYS.--Messrs. Adair, Hillhouse, Logan, Pickering, Plumer,
Stone, Sumter, Tracy, and White.

So it was _Resolved_, That this bill pass.

FRIDAY, April 18.

_Demand and Threat of Tunis._

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

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with the request of the Senate, of yesterday’s
date, I now communicate the entire correspondence between the
Ambassador of Tunis and the Secretary of State; from which the
Senate will see, that the first application by the Ambassador
for restitution of the vessels taken in violation of blockade,
having been yielded to, the only remaining cause of difference
brought forward by him, is the requisition of a present of
naval stores, to secure a peace for three years; after which,
the inference is obvious, that a renewal of the presents is to
be expected, to renew the prolongation of peace for another
term. But this demand has been pressed in verbal conferences,
much more explicitly and pertinaciously than appears in the
written correspondence. To save the delay of copying, some
originals are enclosed, with a request that they be returned.

TH. JEFFERSON.

APRIL 18, 1806.

SATURDAY, April 19.

The bill for the relief of Hamet Caramalli was read the third time.

_Resolved_, That this bill pass, that it be engrossed, and that the title thereof be, “An act for the temporary relief of Hamet Caramalli.”

MONDAY, April 21.

_Adjournment._

On motion, it was

_Resolved_, That Messrs. WHITE and ADAMS be a committee on the part of the Senate, with such as the House of Representatives may join, to wait on the President of the United States and notify him that, unless he may have any further communications to make to the two Houses of Congress, they are ready to adjourn.

_Expunging the Journal._

On motion, that every thing in the Journal relative to the memorials of S. G. Ogden and William Smith be expunged therefrom, it passed in the affirmative--yeas 13, nays 8, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Adair, Condit, Gilman, Kitchel, Logan, Mitchill,
Smith of Maryland, Smith of New York, Stone, Thruston, Turner,
Worthington, and Wright.

NAYS.--Messrs. Adams, Baldwin, Hillhouse, Pickering, Plumer,
Smith of Ohio, Tracy, and White.[31]

_Ordered_, That the Secretary inform the House of Representatives that the Senate, having finished the business before them, are about to adjourn.

Whereupon, the Senate adjourned without day.

NINTH CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION.

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

LIST OF REPRESENTATIVES.

_New Hampshire._--Silas Betton, Caleb Ellis, David Hough, Samuel Tenney, and Thomas W. Thompson.

_Massachusetts._--Joseph Barker, Barnabas Bidwell, Phanuel Bishop, John Chandler, Orchard Cook, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, William Ely, Isaiah L. Green, Seth Hastings, Jeremiah Nelson, Josiah Quincy, Ebenezer Seaver, William Stedman, Samuel Taggart, Joseph B. Varnum, and Peleg Wadsworth.

_Rhode Island._--Nehemiah Knight, and Joseph Stanton.

_Connecticut._--Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, jr., Jonathan O. Mosely, Timothy Pitkin, jr., John Cotton Smith, Lewis B. Sturges, and Benjamin Tallmadge.

_Vermont._--Martin Chittenden, James Elliot, James Fisk, and Gideon Olin.

_New York._--John Blake, jr., Philip Van Cortlandt, George Clinton, Silas Halsey, Josiah Masters, Henry W. Livingston, Gurdon S. Mumford, John Russell, Peter Sailly, Thomas Sammons, Martin G. Schuneman, David Thomas, Uri Tracy, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Nathan Williams, Eliphalet Wickes, and Daniel C. Verplanck.

_New Jersey._--Ezra Darby, Ebenezer Elmer, John Lambert, James Sloan, Henry Southard, and William Helms.

_Pennsylvania._--Isaac Anderson, David Bard, Robt. Brown, Joseph Clay, Frederick Conrad, Wm. Findlay, Andrew Gregg, James Kelly, Michael Leib, John Pugh, John Hamilton, John Rea, Jacob Richards, John Smilie, Samuel Smith, John Whitehill, and Robert Whitehill.

_Delaware._--James M. Broom.

_Maryland._--John Archer, John Campbell, Leonard Covington, Charles Goldsborough, Patrick Magruder, Roger Nelson, William McCreery, Nicholas R. Moore, and Joseph B. Nicholson.