Chapter XVI: Front Matter (16)

Mr. GARDENIER suggested to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, since he had brought the subject before the House, the propriety of going the whole length of his principle. To my mind it is very clear, said he, that if those who oppose the law are to be remunerated, for what it cost them in consequence of prosecution, you must go only on the principle that the direct tax never ought to have been laid at all. If the law was right, it was improper to oppose it. If it was improper, perhaps according to modern democracy, it might be proper to oppose it by force. That, to my mind, is a very dangerous doctrine for legislators to broach; it is a doctrine to which I myself can never agree, for it is making Government a nullity. The suggestion which I wish to make is this: that if those men who suffered in the Hot-water Insurrection are to be remunerated, it is no more than fair that those should be remunerated who have quietly paid this tax. They were at least respectful to the laws. The committee therefore ought to be instructed to inquire into the propriety of repaying to the several contributors in the various States the direct tax, collected from them, unless there be something so admirable, so lovely, so worthy of encouragement in insurrection, that those concerned in it have peculiar claims to encouragement by Government. If that be the case, the gentleman stopped at the proper point. If there was nothing in insurrection, however, which the Legislature would feel it proper to cherish, the gentleman should either go the whole length of his principle or not touch it at all.

Mr. ROSS said he had not undertaken to state any principle at all. His object was to refer the subject to a committee to decide upon. He had not said that he considered the original resolution to contain a correct principle; it was a point left for the committee to consider and for the House to determine on. But if it was a correct principle that those who suffered under the sedition law should be remunerated, he said he had no hesitation in saying that his constituents, who had suffered as materially and as much as any for the democratic interest in this country, should be placed on the same ground as those who were asking for the favor of the House for no better reason; and when the gentleman calls upon me, said Mr. R., to go the whole length of a principle which he states, it is calling upon me to do that which is consequent on a principle which I have not assumed. The gentleman from Kentucky conceives that there is a difference between the cases alluded to in my amendment and the cases arising under the sedition law. Where is the difference, sir? In both cases they were laws of the United States: in both cases the judges of the courts of the United States were authorized to proceed. In neither of the cases did they decide the law unconstitutional. If, then, persons were punished by the sedition law in its full operation, carried into effect by the constituted authorities, where, I ask, is the distinction between that and any other law? To all the purposes of legality, that law is as much legal as that under which the direct tax was instituted. Whether the law under which a direct tax was collected, was constitutional or not, has it not as equally received the disapprobation of the Republicans of the United States as the sedition law? If then it was the object of the democratic party to rid the country of such a law as much as of the sedition law, I ask whether those who suffered under each law have not equal claims? There can be no legal claim upon the House under either law; but we know that it was the hardy yeomanry who presented a firm phalanx to the irresistible torrent of injurious laws of the Federal Administration, and who gave the present party the ascendency, and many of them have not, as the gentleman from Kentucky has been, compensated for their suffering by a long continuance in an honorable and lucrative office which he enjoys by the confidence of his constituents.

Mr. POTTER declared himself at a loss to know whether the House was sitting here as a branch of the Legislature to pass laws, or as a body to remunerate those concerned in the violation of them. The House sit here to make laws and not to encourage those who resisted them; but if they determined to give premiums for the violations of laws, they had better depart home at once.

Mr. RHEA wished the House to get rid of this motion and the amendment as speedily as possible. If the House were to go on as it had commenced the session, the whole time of the House would be spent about nothing, discussing propositions which could not possibly produce good to the nation. He therefore moved to postpone the whole subject indefinitely.

Mr. MACON said he had been in hopes when this motion had been made, that it would be one of the happy days of the House; that the question proposed would occupy the whole day in debate, and that all would agree in it at last. As to comparing this case with that of the direct tax, it was notorious that the discussion on the sedition law and the public opinion also took a very different turn from that which it took on any other law. The whole discussion (said Mr. M.) as well as I recollect, turned upon the constitutionality of the law. Then, if it is still believed that the law was unconstitutional, I leave it to gentlemen to say whether it can be viewed in the same light as a law, the constitutionality of which is not disputed. In the one case, trials took place for speaking and writing; in the other case for opposing the execution of a law. I wish this question to be settled for this reason: In all governments where liberty and freedom have existed, parties also have had existence. Thinking honestly produces parties. That those gentlemen who were in power when the sedition law was passed, should step a little too far, was not so much to be wondered at as that those who came after them should do so; because they were making the first experiment of the instrument. I then believed, and do still believe, that the law was unconstitutional. Taking up this question, the original resolution of my colleague is that remuneration should be made to those people who suffered under it; but seeing that the question with respect to the constitutionality of the law had always been matter of dispute, it proposes that a committee shall inquire into the subject. The House is no farther committed by passing this resolution, than to consent to the inquiry being made. I submit it to the candor and reflection of gentlemen of all parties, whether this thing, in a national point of view, can produce any evil--on the contrary, may it not produce good? All that has been said about the direct tax laws can have no other effect than to draw off the attention of the House from the true question before them. The question on this law, in my mind, is a different one from any other law which has been passed. I feel no hesitation in acknowledging that it is my opinion that all the sufferers ought to be remunerated, both those who suffered under the sedition law, and those who suffered under the common law. It is the business of all parties to settle amicably as they can any subject of contention between persons of different political persuasions. If this first resolution should be referred to a committee, and they report that the law was unconstitutional, I will venture to pronounce that no majority will ever again make a law of that kind. If, sir, the sufferers under the sedition law did suffer contrary to the constitution, ought not their expenses to be reimbursed? On the subject of contribution, I know that that party to which I was attached, did contribute, and did consider it an honorable cause. I was willing (and there are gentlemen in this House who know it) to open my purse when a man of a very different political creed from myself, Peter Porcupine, was oppressed. I care not of what party a man be, that is oppressed. I can prove that the party opposed to me in politics have also subscribed. It is all no more than the subscriptions for printing speeches which are occasionally made in the House, in which gentlemen of all parties unite. Suppose that the whole fine in any particular case had been paid by individual subscription, what has the Government to do with that? Will it be contended, because an old soldier who received a pension also received individual contributions, that the pension should be taken from him, or that the Government is thereby acquitted of what it owed him? Surely not; the Government has nothing to do with transactions between individuals. As to the particular gentleman brought into this discussion, I believe that every man that contributed any thing towards paying the fine levied on him, was remunerated to his satisfaction. I have thought proper to state these opinions of mine, and to avow myself in favor of reimbursing the sufferers. But before I sit down, I must say that my opinion of modern democracy is very different from that of the gentleman from New York. I consider it as neither leading to insurrection, rebellion, nor any such thing. I believe that the true principle of every modern democrat, is, that the law constitutionally made is supreme, and is to be obeyed; that it has nothing to do with riots, rebellion, and insurrection. I know very well, and shall not deny it, that there are times when insurrection is a holy thing, but it is not peculiarly attributable to democracy. With us, election puts every thing to rights; and on them every man of pure democratic principles depends. It is doubtful whether the question of the constitutionality of the sedition law can be settled in a more easy way, and in a mode less liable to irritation, than that proposed by my colleague. If the committee report as I wish, it is well; if not, it settles the question forever; and it is surely desirable that the question should be settled. However gentlemen may differ, as to the principle proposed to be investigated, they might with propriety vote for the inquiry, as it is the ordinary course of every day. I do not consider this as proposing to give a premium to violators of the laws. I know that much depends in this world on names; and that if you give any man or thing a bad name, whether merited or not, it is difficult to get rid of it. I hope the House will not be deterred from this inquiry by any name attempted to be given to it. It is proper that this question should be settled; and if considered now, it will be settled by a body which did not partake of the heats of those times, and when, to say the least of it, there is a little division in the great parties of the nation; and it seems to me that the gentleman who moved it has been fortunate in the selection of his time. Eight years have elapsed, a new President is just inducted, and the question is now brought up for our decision. I am sorry that any member of this House should make a motion with no other view but for procrastination. I do not believe that my colleague who made this motion is more in the habit of procrastinating the public business than other members of the House; and I was in hopes that there would have been no dissentient voice to his motion. He only asks of you to let the inquiry be made. He does not ask a single member of the House to commit himself upon the question, but merely asks that a committee may be permitted to inquire into it; and this, it seems to me, is no extraordinary request. I hope that the resolution, without being trammelled with any extraneous matter, will be passed.

Mr. KEY said he should vote for indefinite postponement of the resolution. What good purpose could its adoption answer, unless the House had the power to take money from the Treasury of the United States for the purpose of remunerating any person who had suffered? Had Congress that power? He apprehended not. He could see no such power amongst those delegated to Congress. The gentleman from North Carolina admitted the House were under no obligation to remunerate the sufferers; and if the gentleman would turn to the rules laid down for the definition of the powers of Congress, he would see that there was no authority to draw money from the Treasury for this purpose. Under that view of the constitution, Mr. K. said he must vote for indefinite postponement.

Mr. MACON asked under what clause of the constitution Captain Murray and others had been remunerated? Under what clause money paid into the Treasury had been returned in various instances? The right to take, gave the right to return that which was taken. In many instances this principle had been practised on. There was no law to authorize the punishment of a man for robbing the mail; but it was derived from the power of establishing post roads. The power of refunding money was one which had been often exercised.

Mr. GARDENIER was in favor of an inquiry. It was not only proper that an inquiry should be made, but it was the bounden duty of the House to make it. A member of the House in his place had stated facts which if true undoubtedly entitled him to their interference. Our duty (said Mr. G.) is imperative. The case of the gentleman does not rest upon the question whether the sedition law was constitutional or unconstitutional, but upon the fact that he was not a proper object for the exercise of that law. For, if the statement made be correct, he was punished for uttering a creed which would not be improper for every member of the House; and I will say that subsequent events have shown the sincerity with which the gentleman did make it; that he had kept his promise most religiously; that it was not applicable to those men, or that time, any more than to the present, but was a creed on which he practised before and ever since, so far as his political course is known to me. It is a case in which the privileges of the members of this House are materially concerned. If under the sedition law for a letter written by a member of this House to his constituents, giving his view of public measures, he has been punished, it concerns the safety of this House that complete and perfect remuneration should be made. It is as important that every member should be permitted to speak freely to his constituents, as that he should without restraint address the Chair of the House. It was a case, therefore, which never ought to have been the subject of a judicial investigation, much less considered as a crime. The gentleman at the time followed the dictates of his conscience. To his conscience and his God alone should he be responsible. Sir, should we refuse an inquiry into this case, when we know that the fine of James Thompson Callender, for one of the most atrocious libels ever written in the United States, was remitted? When we know that it was remitted by the President of the United States, after the money had been received by the proper receiving officer of the United States, when it had passed out of the hands of James Thompson Callender into the hands of the officer of Government, and was, to all intents and purposes, in the Treasury of the United States, because there is no such thing as a treasury in which money is actually deposited--for a libel, too, in which the great Father of his Country was treated with a shameless indignity, which could not but have gone to the heart of every man? When the President of the United States was in that libel called a hoary-headed incendiary, should that fine be returned, and shall a gentleman in this House be fined and imprisoned for that which was not even improper? Shall we not restore to him that which others have been suffered to retain, and for which we have not brought to question him who restored it after it was in possession of the receiving officer of the United States--in fact, after it was in the Treasury? Let us not be guilty of this inconsistency. If the sedition law has gone to the tomb of the Capulets, and I believe it has, I am not one who wishes to bear up against the people's voice; the Government is theirs, and when they speak we obey. If under that law the Government has received money for an act which really, if the statement of the gentleman be true, could scarcely be considered an offence within the purview of that law, will you not give it back to him? Either give back the money in the case, or take measures to recover that money which was given back in the other. I am not for making fish of one and flesh of another. Whilst on this subject I will declare that I never did consider the sedition law as unconstitutional. Congress were competent to pass it. But, that parties will sometimes in the ardor of their course exceed the limits of discretion, and do violence to the milder feeling of the community in which they live, has been proved in the Adams Administration, and in that which has lately disappeared; and when they have cooled down, it is but rendering justice to the sense of the country to acknowledge their errors. No, sir, I am satisfied that all prosecutions for libels on the Government should be at least very hesitatingly sustained. You cannot draw a precise line by which you shall limit the right of investigation. The two things are so blended together that you cannot separate them. You must either make the Government supreme or the people supreme. I am for the latter. As Dr. Johnson makes Lord Chesterfield say, liberty and licentiousness are blended like the colors in the rainbow; it is impossible to tell where one ends and the other begins. Licentiousness is a speck on the eye of the political body, which you can never touch without injuring the eye itself. I hope and trust that with this investigation will be connected an inquiry into the prosecutions at common law in Connecticut. I have seen in the State of New York, but not under the present Administration, a defendant coming into court, begging only to be permitted to prove that what he had said was true; I have seen also an Attorney-General rise to prevent it: I have seen the truth smothered on the trial by men who were as clamorous against the sedition law as any loud-mouthed patriot in the country. I have seen them bringing almost to the block the victim who may only wish to prove the truth of what he said--which was denied him. I mention this to show that where parties are contending against each other, where there is a majority on one hand and a minority on the other, that which appears on paper proper for the protection of the Government, turns out to be for the oppression of the minority. In the nature of parties it cannot be otherwise. Therefore, in my opinion, the Government of the United States cannot render a greater service than by declaring it will not be accessary to any diminution of the rights of the citizen; that free investigation shall in all cases be permitted. Mr. G. made some further observations on the particular case of Mr. LYON, and concluded by expressing his hope that the resolution would pass.

The question that the resolution be postponed indefinitely, was decided by yeas and nays--yeas 69, nays 50.

MONDAY, May 29.

Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, ORCHARD COOK; and from Pennsylvania, BENJAMIN SAY and JOHN SMILIE, appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats.

WEDNESDAY, May 31.

JULIAN POYDRAS appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat, as the Delegate for the Territory of Orleans.

Mr. MCKIM presented a petition of thirty-five American citizens confined at Carthagena, in South America, under sentence of slavery, stating that, through means of falsehood and deception, they were induced to engage in the unlawful expedition of Miranda, fitted out from the city of New York, in the year one thousand eight hundred and six, and that they were captured by the Spaniards, and condemned to slavery, and praying that Congress will take their distressing case into consideration, and effect their release and return to their native country.--Referred to Mr. MCKIM, Mr. SAY, Mr. EMOTT, Mr. ROANE, and Mr. COCHRAN, to examine the matter thereof, and report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the House.

MONDAY, June 5.

Two other members, to wit: EZEKIEL WHITMAN, from Massachusetts, and RICHARD WYNN, from South Carolina, appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats in the House.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate, having been informed of the death of the Honorable FRANCIS MALBONE, one of the Senators from the State of Rhode Island, have directed the same to be communicated to this House.

On motion of Mr. POTTER,

_Resolved, unanimously_, That this House will attend the funeral of FRANCIS MALBONE, Esquire, late a member of the Senate of the United States.

_Resolved, unanimously_, That this House do wear mourning on the left arm for the space of one month, in testimony of their respect for the memory of the deceased.

TUESDAY, June 6.

Another member, to wit, WILSON C. NICHOLAS, from Virginia, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

WEDNESDAY, June 7.

Another member, to wit, ERASTUS ROOT, from New York, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

FRIDAY, June 9.

Another member, to wit, NICHOLAS VAN DYKE, from Delaware, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

MONDAY, June 12.

_Mississippi Territory._

The SPEAKER presented a petition enclosed to him from a number of inhabitants of the district east of Pearl river, in the Mississippi Territory, praying for the division of the Territory.

Mr. POINDEXTER moved that the petition lie on the table. It would perhaps be disrespectful to the petitioners to reject it, although its contents would merit that course. There were three parties who must, by the ordinance for the government of the Territory, consent before the Territory of the Mississippi could be divided. One party was the Mississippi Territory, the other the State of Georgia, and the third the United States. Neither of these parties had consented. There was, therefore, an absolute interdiction to all legislation on the subject; and the House could, with as much propriety, refer a petition from a State to be exempt from general taxation, or to recede from the Union, as to refer this petition.

Mr. BURWELL said he felt himself bound to oppose the motion for its lying on the table. If the request was wholly improper, the report of a committee to that effect would settle the question at once.

Mr. BIBB was in favor of the motion; though, had a motion been made to reject it, he should have voted against it.

Mr. MACON was in favor of a reference of the petition. No harm could arise from an inquiry into it.

Mr. TROUP admitted the correctness of the remarks of the delegate from the Territory, but wished the petition to be referred to a committee for the purpose of an inquiry as well into the amount of population in that country as into its quality; whether it was lawful or unlawful. There were certain facts connected with this subject, perhaps not generally known to the House. In the course of last year, he had understood that a great many persons, amounting to perhaps three or four thousand, had crossed the Tennessee river, and fixed themselves on its banks, not only contrary to law, but the impression was that they had set out in defiance of the law, and had even gone so far as to organize themselves into military associations for the purpose.

Mr. POINDEXTER observed that there had been a settlement contrary to the existing law on Tennessee near about a year ago; but that they were ordered to be driven off by the military force, except they would take permission to reside as tenants at will. Some had done so, and some had been driven off.

Mr. TROUP said he knew that orders had been given to remove them, but of their removal and dispersion he had not heard. He said he had further understood that there were, in the county of Madison alone, two or three thousand intruders, and many of them settled on Indian lands, whose owners they excited to hostilities. There was another fact, of which the House might keep possession. Among these intruders was one of the name of Harrison, he believed, who claimed under what was called the Tennessee Yazoo claims, and who settled on the land with his retainers, and deliberately began to apportion it among them. Whether he had been dispossessed, Mr. T. said he did not know. It was absolutely necessary to ascertain the situation of that country, and therefore he should vote for the reference of the petition to a committee.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table--67 to 27.

TUESDAY, June 13.

_Miranda's Exhibition._

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the following resolution, reported by the committee appointed to consider the petition of thirty-six citizens concerned in Miranda's expedition, and now confined in the vaults of Carthagena, South America:

"_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
requested to adopt the most immediate and efficacious means
in his power to obtain the liberation of the prisoners, if it
shall appear to his satisfaction that they were involuntarily
drawn into the unlawful enterprise in which they were engaged;
and that ---- dollars be appropriated for that purpose."

Mr. MCKIM observed, that he believed nothing further would be necessary for the attainment of this object than an application by the Government of the United States; he then moved to fill the blank in the resolution with such a sum ($3,500) as would defray the expense of sending a vessel there and clothing the prisoners previous to their return.

Mr. RANDOLPH said he believed there would be no better time than on this motion to express the disapprobation which he felt of the report; for he was unwilling in his representative capacity, to give one cent of the public money for bringing back into the bosom of the body politic these unfortunate but guilty men. He knew how invidious a task it was to appear to lean to the side of inhumanity; he knew how very natural it was for the mind of man to relent after the commission of a crime, and to see nothing in a culprit but his misfortunes, forgetting his guilt; but there were occasions, and he took this to be one, where to lean apparently to the side of humanity is an act of as great injustice and cruelty to society as the Legislature can commit. What were the House about to do? To make an appropriation of money for an extraordinary purpose of foreign intercourse. Was not the President of the United States already invested with power to negotiate with the Spanish Government on this, as well as with any other Government on any subject? Was the President of the United States presumed to have turned a deaf ear to the cries of our suffering countrymen in captivity in a foreign nation? Mr. R. said this was not like a question of redeeming our countrymen from slavery in Barbary or Tripoli; but it was a question whether this Government would lend its countenance to that class of men who were concerned in the expeditions of Miranda and Aaron Burr. He for one said, that he would not consent to it; and that those persons who, above the dull pursuits of civil life, had enlisted under these leaders, might take for him, however he might feel for their situation as men, the lot which they themselves had selected. He said he considered them as voluntarily expatriated from this country, and among the articles of commerce and manufacture, which it might be contemplated to encourage by bounty and premiums, he confessed for one, that the importation of such citizens as these was not an article of traffic which would meet with any encouragement from him. So far from being afraid of any ill consequences resulting from the sparseness of our population, he was afraid that our population, (and experience has tested the fact,) sparse as it was in number, in quality was redundant. We have been told, said Mr. R., and I believe it, that but the other day the Foreign Office in Great Britain cast its eyes on Colonel Burr, and that they either did commit him--I understand that he was committed and stood so for some time, and was only released on condition of quitting the country--that they either did commit or threaten to imprison that unfortunate man. I want to know, sir, if he had stood so committed, in what respect his case, in a political point of view, would have stood contradistinguished from that of these petitioners? I can see no difference but such as, in my mind, would have operated to his advantage. There is an equality of guilt, but on his part a superiority of intellectual character which would have rendered him, if there is to be an accession to the State by bringing back to its bosom those who have voluntarily thrown themselves out of the protection of the country, a more valuable acquisition, or rather a less valuable loss, than these unfortunate men.

It appears to me, sir, that in passing this resolution we shall hold up a premium to vice; for, if this proposition be agreed to, when some new Miranda or Burr comes forward with his project, he will tell his conspirators that they will have nothing more to do, should the matter turn out adversely, than to put up a face and tell Congress that they were involuntarily drawn into it. An extraordinary mode, to be sure, of volunteering to go against their will. These _involuntary_ volunteers will be told they will have nothing to do but throw the whole weight of the blame on the original mover of the expedition, and Congress will tax their fellow-creatures--who, poor souls, had not enlarged and liberal minds, and were content with the dull pursuits of civil life--for redeeming them, clothing them, and bringing them back again to society. I wish the committee to take the thing into consideration. As men and Christians our conduct is to be governed by one rule; as representatives of the people other considerations are proper. There is, in the proposed interference, no justice; there may be much mercy, but it is a mercy which carries cruelty, if not deliberate, the most pernicious of all possible species of cruelty, along with it. Suppose these men had been arrested and tried in this country, what would have been their lot? It is difficult for me to say. I am no lawyer; but I suppose, under the mild institutions in some of our States, they would have been condemned to hard labor for life. In what do they differ, to their advantage from other felons? In nothing. Who would step forward to rescue them from that punishment due to their crime if convicted by our own courts? Nobody. Everybody would have said that they deserved it. Now, on the contrary, having escaped the hand of justice in this country, and fallen into the grasp of the strong hand of power in another country, we are not contented to let them reap what they have sown; we are not contented to leave them in the hands of justice. I believe that there exists a proper disposition in the Executive to interfere, where American citizens are wrongfully treated abroad. And, shall we come forward and open the public purse, and assume on ourselves the responsibility of that act which the President refuses to do, and thus share among us the imputation, such as it may be, which society chooses to cast upon us in consequence of it, instead of letting it fall singly and individually upon him, in case he chooses to incur it? No, sir. I have no disposition to pass this resolution to take the responsibility upon myself. In short, I should have been glad, if instead of telling us that these men are unfortunate and miserable, (for who are so unfortunate and miserable as the truly guilty?) that the members of that committee, or the respectable chairman himself, had come forward and shown the claim of these petitioners to the peculiar patronage of the country. So far from any disposition to bring them back, I would allow a drawback or bounty on the exportation of every man of similar principles.

Mr. EMOTT said, that as he had been a member of the committee whose report was now under consideration, he felt the propriety of making a few observations to show the expediency of adopting the resolution. In order to obtain the release of these miserable and deluded men, it was necessary that the Government should interfere, because the Spanish Government never would release them till such application was made. The only money necessary to be paid was not to the Spanish Government, but to defray the expense of bringing back the prisoners. It was not to buy their liberty, but to employ a person to go there to request it.

It had been said that the President had power to attempt the release of these persons without any resolution of the House. Mr. E. said he would not enter into that consideration. He knew, if the President had the power, that he had not chosen to exercise it; and if the House could find from the statement of the situation of these men that they ought to be relieved, they should not refrain from expressing their opinion, merely because the President had the power and would not exercise it.

It might be necessary, Mr. E. said, to call to the minds of the committee the situation of these men. They were persons employed by Miranda, in his expedition, who, he undertook to say, did not know that they were going on any expedition contrary to the laws of the country. When taken, they had been tried by the Spaniards on a charge of piracy, and condemned to lie in a dungeon for a term of years. They prayed the Congress for its interposition in their behalf.

It had been said that these men knowingly engaged in this expedition. Mr. E. said he believed that they did not; but, admitting, for a moment, that this was the case; that they did know the pursuit on which they were entering, they should not, for that reason alone, be suffered to lie in prison. Let it be understood, said Mr. E., that this expedition, whatever it was, was carried on, in the face of day, in the city of New York, and that equipments of the vessels and enlistments were made without interruption in the face of day. And would these persons believe that they were going on an unlawful expedition? They might have enlisted from the best motives; and, supposing that they had enlisted under the knowledge that they were going on an expedition, yet seeing that it was carried on in open day without interruption from the Government, he much doubted whether these poor men ought to be suffered to lie in prison.

But, putting motives aside, these men declare that they did not understand the nature of the service for which they were engaged; and this statement the committee who made the report had brought themselves to believe. Let it be recollected that these unfortunate individuals were lying in prison; and, although they had, by some means, forwarded a petition here, they could not attend in person to urge their claim to relief by proofs presented to the House. The persons who procured these men to go on this expedition certainly would not be very willing to come forward and give testimony; because, by so doing, they might criminate themselves and render themselves liable to the operation of the laws of their country. Considering that these persons were removed thousands of miles from us, that they were unfriended, and that the persons who alone could prove that their intent was innocent, would not come forward for fear of criminating themselves, he thought these men were entitled to commiseration, and he believed that it was in his power to show two or three circumstances which would convince the House that they had no knowledge of the nature of this expedition. The first circumstance was the extreme improbability that these men would have engaged in this expedition, if the nature of it had been explained. Had Mr. Smith or General Miranda gone to these men and said, "we are going on an expedition against the laws of the country, and, if taken, you will be punished under the laws of one country or the other," it is extremely improbable that they would have engaged. It is not likely that Miranda or Mr. Smith avowed their purposes, and told them that they were going on an expedition hostile in its nature, and against the laws of the country, because its object was to revolutionize a nation in amity with the United States. It is impossible that these men should have known the nature of the expedition, when it was not known to the Government here, however public. This circumstance, to me, is conclusive, to show that these young men did not know it. There might have been persons who did; if you please, Mr. Ogden, who furnished the ship, or others, but it is impossible to believe, that these men, who were mere soldiers for carrying on the expedition, knew the nature of it. I am convinced that these persons, all privates--for the officers were executed--did not know why they did enlist, or that the corps was for the purpose to which it was actually designed.

I have said, and perhaps every person here knows, that the whole of the business was carried on in the face of day. Here were General Miranda and Mr. Smith coming to the seat of Government, and back to New York, procuring clothes, enlisting men. Can it be conceived that all this could have been carried on, if General Miranda had not meant to conceal it from the Government? But it is in my power to furnish something more than mere conjecture on this subject. The committee will recollect that a greater part of this transaction took place at New York. There the men were to rendezvous, there the vessel was furnished, and to that State most of the young men who are now in South America did belong. In that State this matter was the subject of judicial investigation. Mr. Smith and Mr. Ogden were indicted. I will read a part of the evidence given on the trial, which will satisfy any one, at least it has satisfied me, that these men had no hand in it. Mr. Fink, who was produced as evidence on the part of the Government to convict Mr. Smith, was the person who was intrusted with enlistments.

On the same trial there was one of the persons who has actually enlisted who deposed that the same information which Peter Rose received was given to others. This man also was a private in the expedition, and swears that the person who employed him told him that he was to be employed in the service of the Government; that he was to be carried to Washington by water and thence to New Orleans. The men who now petition Congress are persons who are placed precisely in the same situation. We find, in the course of the trial, that the person employed to enlist the men, declares that the person employing him refused to tell him for what purpose they were to be enlisted, and, of course, he could not inform those whom he enlisted.

Mr. E. said he had already remarked the extreme difficulty under which these persons labored, that they were at a distance of several thousand miles from this country, incarcerated, and friendless. He had satisfied his mind that they had engaged in this business unknowingly and unwillingly--and, what was now asked of the Government? That they should expend large sums of money for the purpose of buying them out? No. All that the Spanish Government wanted, he undertook to say, was, that a request should be made by the Government of this country for those men; and all the money required for this service, was money enough to send an agent there and facilitate his return.

Nothing had been said by him, Mr. E. remarked, of the peculiar sufferings of these men; but there were representations enough, to show that they were chained naked in a dungeon, without clothing, and without wood. Some had died and others must die. He hoped, therefore, for the reasons which he had given, that the committee would be satisfied that these men were not guilty of crime. If not guilty, he hoped there could be no doubt that they were a proper subject for the interference of the Government.

Mr. BACON observed that the conclusion which the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) had drawn, rested upon the idea that the men were guilty. If they were guilty, they certainly should not receive the benefit of the interposition of the Government of the United States. They had no claim on the United States when considered as criminals, or as men who had voluntarily engaged in this service. The report of the committee did not state this to be the case. I acknowledge, said Mr. B., that they are guilty in some respects, having innocently transgressed the laws. If they are guilty in the eye of justice, I contend they ought not to have relief. The report of the committee states, that, under a persuasion that the facts set forth by the petitioners were true, they were induced to submit this resolution. The committee had evidence, which they deemed competent, to prove that these men were not guilty men. In what respect, then, are they to be compared to Aaron Burr? No man will say that he did not proceed on his expedition with his eyes open, or that he could plead ignorance. The fact in relation to these men appears to be that they were inveigled; that their offence was involuntary, not as respected engaging in what they thought the service of the United States, but as to going abroad, for against their consent they were forced into the service. Therefore, with great truth, it might be said that they were scourged to the service. If this was the fact, as the committee appear to have believed, I ask, in what their case differs from that of men taken captives by the Algerines? Those men taken by the Algerines are engaged in lawful commerce; these poor men are engaged in an unlawful act, but not knowing it to be unlawful, and believing it to be correct, they are as innocent, in fact, as those who act innocently. The gentleman says, suppose they were to return to their country, would they not be punished? If the facts, as they state them, are correct, as I believe them to be, I do not believe that they would be punished. The law does not punish a man because he does not act, but for the _quo animo_ with which he does it.

Mr. TAYLOR said if he could view this subject in the light in which it had been viewed by most of its advocates, and particularly by the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. PEARSON,) he should think it was the duty of this Government to make exertion for the release of these people; but even then he should inquire whether any exertion in their favor would not rather do them an injury than a service; for it would be recollected that every gentleman who had spoken seemed to consider the mercy which was asked to depend upon and to be bestowed by the United States. Were I a Spaniard, and attended the debate in this House, I should think that gentlemen in favor of the resolution contemplated an infraction of the rights of the nation before whose courts, and by whose laws, these men were condemned. These fine appeals to mercy and humanity would apply well before the power possessing the right to bestow mercy, but are not applicable to the feelings proper to be exercised on this occasion by this House. I say that it is one of the attributes of Government to punish those who have infringed or broken the laws of the country. These people have been condemned by a Spanish tribunal; it is by that Government alone that mercy is to be shown; and an exertion by this House in attempting to bestow mercy upon these people is an infringement of that right. I challenge gentlemen to show me an instance in the annals of diplomacy of a like nature with this proposition. I recollect one instance, but I have heard no gentleman propose to go so far. Oliver Cromwell, when a member of the British Commonwealth, was imprisoned by the inquisition, ordered his admirals to draw up before the harbor and demand his release. This is the only case I have met with in the course of my reading, of an attempt by one nation to relieve criminals condemned by another nation under its own laws. If this view be a just one, it certainly becomes a matter of great delicacy. If this Government had never been by the most secret whisper implicated (unjustly, as I firmly believe) in this transaction, still it would have been a subject of the greatest delicacy for the Government of the United States to interfere. What will the Government of Spain, Junta, King, or Governors of Spanish provinces to whom you apply, say to you on this subject? Why they will say--"We have long suspected, we have heard from your own quarter, that you were implicated in this expedition; you now give us proof; you have come forward in an unprecedented manner and interfered in a case with which you have no business, a case which is fully embraced by the sovereignty which we ourselves exercise over our own courts." Will it not at once be inferred that these assertions throughout the United States had been true, and that this Government was implicated or concerned, or, to use the words of yesterday, that this Government had connived at such an expedition? You will but render the sufferings of these people more rigorous. It is not to be conceived, although the gentleman from Massachusetts and others have acquitted the Government of participation, that the Spanish Government will do so also. Why, even in our cool and calm situation, you see that suspicion of the connivance of the Administration is not yet quite done away--and do you suppose, sir, that the Spaniards, against whom repeated expeditions have been made, at a distance from those sources whence conviction might flash upon their minds, will form the same opinion of the subject that we do? Fear forms a bias on their mind; and we form a conviction on the side on which we feel interested.

Gentlemen, in order to induce us to grant pardon to these men, which we have no power to do, have told us that they are innocent; because, forsooth, they themselves have said so. I recollect, sir, once in a conversation with a most eminent barrister in the State in which I live, who had often performed the duty of counsellor and advocate in our State, he informed me that in a practice of thirty years, in the course of which he had been concerned in the cases of many culprits, on many, nay, on all occasions, he put this plain question to his client: "I am your counsel; it is necessary for me, in order to make the best possible defence of your cause, to make the best statement in your favor, to know whether you are guilty or not." He declared that he had never yet met with a man who acknowledged that he was guilty. I believe that this disposition to appear innocent, is inherent in human nature. It is natural for these men to say that they are not guilty; they said so to the court before whom they were tried. Why were they not liberated? Why was not that mercy which is so pathetically called for bestowed on them by that tribunal before whom the case was examined? If they are the immaculate and almost sainted victims which they are described to be, why did not the court which heard the testimony on both sides of the question bestow that clemency asked of us? I should presume, that when all the circumstances came out before the court, they were not favorable to the petitioners; and it is a respect due from this Government to the acts of that Government that such a construction should be put upon this matter. If we are to distrust the acts of the Spaniard, because, as we are told, he is vindictive and cruel, he might justly say that we have not done to others as we would be done by.

We should place the President of the United States in a very unpleasant situation indeed by requiring him to demand these men, if we would not also be willing to go to war for them. As our navy is now afloat I would propose as an amendment to the project, if gentlemen are serious in their determination to rescue these men, that our fleet shall sail before Carthagena and compel the Spanish Governor or Junta to give them up. This is the only mode of interfering with a matter of this kind, which is sanctioned by precedent, as I have before stated.

It would seem, sir, as if the passing scenes of this world were entirely forgotten. The British Government has been suspected of having connived at this expedition as well as the Government of the United States. They have received Miranda into their bosom; and on the examination on the trial of Sir Home Popham, it did appear that he had received orders to sail for a particular port of that continent to create a diversion of an attack expected to be made in another part of it. But what have the British Government done on the subject? Have they not considered it a delicate one? Have they not in their conduct given us the most sound and wholesome advice on the subject? Although I believe these men were employed to answer a purpose all-important to her, yet she has not extended towards these sufferers in her own cause that clemency which is asked at our hands. These men who were suffering in her employ, demonstrably acting in furtherance of her interest, have not met with the clemency of the Government; and the case is more strong when it is recollected that since the capture of these men, although previously at war with Spain, Great Britain was not only at peace but in alliance with that nation. With all these favorable circumstances, when but a hint from the British Ministry in favor of these people might have released them, yet being so delicate a subject that it has not been touched by them, shall we, who have been crusading and exerting every nerve for the releasement of our seamen, and with all our efforts have been unsuccessful, shall we start on a fresh crusade for these men, when the efforts of the Government in the other cause, in so noble, so just, and so humane a cause, have as yet proved unavailing? Shall we engage in a contest for these people, who are acknowledged justly to be in the power and under the sentence of the courts of another nation, whilst the honest American tar, guiltless of harm, is writhing under the lash of every boatswain on board a man-of-war? If you will go on and reform the whole world, begin with one grievance first; to use a homely phrase, do not put too many irons in the fire.