Chapter I: A. Coles (6)

"6thly. To the want of repose during the night, owing to the
troops not being provided with bars and nets to protect them
from the annoyance of mosquitoes.

"7thly. The want of cleanliness in the camp, the nature of the
position rendering it almost impracticable to preserve it.

"8thly. The sick and well being confined to the same tents,
which neither protected them sufficiently from the heat of the
sun, nor kept them dry from dews and rains."

The report and documents were ordered to be printed.

SATURDAY, April 28.

_Reduction of the Navy._

The House resumed the consideration of the bill for reducing the Naval Establishment of the United States.

Mr. SMILIE'S amendment was modified so as to fix the number of officers, &c., to be retained in service, as follows: thirteen captains, nine masters commandant, seventy-two lieutenants, ---- midshipmen and ---- seamen, ordinary seamen and boys.

Mr. MUMFORD again moved to postpone the further consideration of the subject indefinitely--lost, yeas 40, nays 54.

Mr. RANDOLPH moved to strike out the numbers thirteen, nine, and seventy-two, in the amendment, being desirous of reducing the officers, if any part of the establishment. Motion lost, ayes 40, noes 46.

Mr. N. R. MOORE called for a division of the question on Mr. SMILIE'S amendment.

And the question was taken on that part of it which authorizes the President to keep in service so many of the armed vessels as he may think proper, and to lay up the rest in ordinary in convenient ports. This part of the amendment was agreed to--yeas 61, nays 38.

The second clause of Mr. SMILIE'S amendment being under consideration--

Mr. SMILIE moved to fill the blank for the number of midshipmen with "one hundred and fifty" (about half the number at present in service)--Agreed to, ayes 51, noes 37.

The question was stated on filling the blank for the number of seamen to be retained with "two thousand seven hundred and twenty-three," as moved by Mr. BASSETT, and rejected, yeas 46, nays 52; also the question was taken on filling with 2,000, and rejected, yeas 39, nays 56; also on filling with 1,400, which was carried; and the House then adjourned.

TUESDAY, May 1.

_General Wilkinson._

Mr. BUTLER, from the committee appointed to inquire into the conduct of Brigadier General, James Wilkinson, rose to make a report.

The question on reading the report was taken and carried, 58 to 32.

The report is as follows:

The committee to whom was referred the resolution of the 4th
instant, directing an inquiry into the conduct of Brigadier
General James Wilkinson, in relation to his having at any
time, while in the service of the United States, corruptly
received money from the Government of Spain, or its agents, or
in relation to his having, during this time aforesaid, been
an accomplice, or in any way concerned with the agents of any
foreign power, or with Aaron Burr, in a project against the
dominions of the King of Spain, or to dismember these United
States, and to inquire generally into the conduct of the said
James Wilkinson, as Brigadier General of the Army of the United
States, report, that they have had under consideration the
several subjects of inquiry, and have investigated them to the
utmost of their power since the time of their appointment, but
from the limited period in which they have acted, and from the
extensive and complicated nature of the subjects, they are
under the necessity of stating that they have not been able to
make any thorough and conclusive investigation of the objects
of their inquiry.

Such testimony, however, as they have been able to procure,
they beg leave to submit as part of this report, and which may
be referred to under the following heads and order:

In relation to the first objects of inquiry, to wit: the
receipt of money by General Wilkinson from the Spanish
Government or its agents, refer to the

[Here follows a list of papers, 19 in number.]

In relation to the second object of inquiry, to wit: the
connection of General Wilkinson with the agents of Spain in a
project to dismember the United States, refer to the

[Here follows a list of 11 papers.]

In relation to the third object of inquiry, to wit: General
Wilkinson's connection with Aaron Burr, refer to

[Here follows a list of 14 papers.]

In relation to the fourth point of inquiry, to wit: the conduct
of General Wilkinson, as Brigadier General of the army of the
United States, refer to the

[Here follows a list of 6 papers.]

The committee think proper, also, to submit the following
papers relating to tobacco and other commercial transactions in
which General Wilkinson was concerned, from the month of ----
in the year 1788, to the month of ---- in the year 1790, to wit:

[Here follows a list of 10 papers.]

In making the last preceding statement the committee beg leave
to remark, that from an examination of the sentence of the
military court of inquiry, ordered at the request of General
Wilkinson, and of which Colonel Burbeck was President, it
appears that the tobacco transactions of General Wilkinson at
New Orleans in 1789 and 1790 constituted a material part of
that inquiry, and that a copy of an account current was laid
before the said court by General Wilkinson and designated
by No. ----, and several letters accompanying said account,
supposed by the court to be in the handwriting of Philip
Noland, the agent of General Wilkinson.

The committee conceiving that the papers collected by the said
court would aid them in their investigation, made application
for those papers to the Secretary of War, but were unable to
obtain them, they having been taken from the office by General
Wilkinson, as appears from the deposition of John Smith, chief
clerk in the War Office. The committee then directed a subpoena
to General Wilkinson, requiring him to send or produce all the
papers which had been used or collected by the said court, in
obedience to which General Wilkinson sent to the committee
a packet of papers which did not contain either the account
and letters referred to in the sentence of the court, or the
defence of General Wilkinson, nor have the committee been able
to procure them, and, consequently, have not had it in their
power to compare the accounts herewith exhibited with those
which were laid before the military court of inquiry. For the
further elucidation, refer to Walter Jones's deposition, marked
W. J.

The committee also submit the deposition of Daniel W. Coxe,
authenticating the papers to which he specially refers, marked
D. W. C.

Mr. GHOLSON observed that the reading of the documents accompanying the report would take until midnight, at least, and he hoped there would be no objection to dispense with the reading of them.

No one objecting, the reading of the documents was dispensed with, and the whole was ordered to be printed.

_Adjournment._

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have appointed a committee on their part, jointly with such committee as may be appointed on the part of this House, to wait on the President of the United States, and inform him of the proposed recess of Congress.

The House proceeded to consider the resolution from the Senate to appoint a joint committee to wait on the President, and acquaint him of the proposed recess of Congress; and the same was concurred in by the House; and Messrs. CRAWFORD and ROANE were appointed the committee on the part of the House.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate, having completed the legislative business before them, are ready to adjourn.

Mr. CRAWFORD, from the joint committee to wait on the President of the United States, and inform him of the proposed recess of Congress, reported that the committee had performed that service, and that the President informed them that he had no further communication to make to Congress during the present session.

_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that this House are now ready to adjourn; and that the clerk do go with the said message.

The clerk accordingly went with the said message; and, being returned, the SPEAKER adjourned the House until the first Monday in December next.

FOOTNOTES:

[9] Col. Isaac A. Coles, private secretary to Mr. Jefferson.

[10] By concurrence in the report of a committee, of which Mr. Madison was chairman, on the subject of a letter from Mr. Gunn to Mr. Baldwin, both members of Congress; as well as on the case of Mr. Frelinghuysen.

ELEVENTH CONGRESS.--THIRD SESSION.

BEGUN AT THE CITY OF WASHINGTON, DECEMBER 3, 1810.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.

MONDAY, December 3, 1810.

The third session of the eleventh Congress, conformably to the Constitution of Government of the United States, commenced this day; and the Senate assembled at the city of Washington.

PRESENT:

NICHOLAS GILMAN and CHARLES CUTTS, from New Hampshire.

CHAUNCEY GOODRICH and SAMUEL W. DANA, from Connecticut.

JONATHAN ROBINSON, from Vermont.

OBADIAH GERMAN, from New York.

MICHAEL LEIB, from Pennsylvania.

OUTERBRIDGE HORSEY, from Delaware.

SAMUEL SMITH, from Maryland.

WILLIAM B. GILES, from Virginia.

JOHN GAILLARD, from South Carolina.

WILLIAM H. CRAWFORD and CHARLES TAIT, from Georgia.

JOHN POPE, from Kentucky.

ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, from Ohio.

JOHN GAILLARD, President _pro tempore_, resumed the chair.

The number of Senators present not being sufficient to constitute a quorum, the Senate adjourned.

TUESDAY, December 4.

JOHN LAMBERT, from the State of New Jersey, ELISHA MATHEWSON, from the State of Rhode Island, and PHILIP REED, from the State of Maryland, severally attended.

The credentials of CHARLES CUTTS, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of New Hampshire, in place of Nahum Parker, Esq., resigned; also, of SAMUEL W. DANA, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Connecticut, in place of James Hillhouse, Esq., resigned, were severally read; and the oath required by law was, by the PRESIDENT, administered to them, respectively.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is assembled and ready to proceed to business.

_Ordered_, That Messrs SMITH, of Maryland, and GILMAN, be a committee on the part of the Senate, together with such committee as may be appointed by the House of Representatives on their part, to wait on the President of the United States and notify him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled and ready to receive any communications that he may be pleased to make to them.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that a quorum of the House of Representatives is assembled and ready to proceed to business. The House of Representatives have appointed a committee on their part, jointly with such committee as may be appointed on the part of the Senate, to wait on the President of the United States and notify him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled and ready to receive any communications that he may be pleased to make to them.

On motion, by Mr. SMITH, of Maryland,

_Resolved_, That James Mathers, sergeant-at-arms and doorkeeper to the Senate, be, and he is hereby, authorized to employ one assistant and two horses, for the purpose of performing such services as are usually required by the doorkeeper to the Senate; and that the sum of twenty-eight dollars be allowed him weekly for that purpose, to commence with, and remain during the session, and for twenty days after.

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, reported from the joint committee that they had waited on the President of the United States, and that the President informed the committee that he would make a communication to the two Houses to-morrow at 12 o'clock.

WEDNESDAY, December 5.

TIMOTHY PICKERING, from the State of Massachusetts, and STEPHEN R. BRADLEY, from the State of Vermont, severally attended.

_President's Annual Message._

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

_Fellow-citizens of the Senate
and House of Representatives_:

The embarrassments which have prevailed in our foreign
relations, and so much employed the deliberations of Congress,
make it a primary duty in meeting you to communicate whatever
may have occurred in that branch of our national affairs.

The act of the last session of Congress concerning the
commercial intercourse between the United States and Great
Britain and France, and their dependencies, having invited, in
a new form, a termination of their edicts against our neutral
commerce; copies of the act were immediately forwarded to our
Ministers at London and Paris, with a view that its object
might be within the early attention of the French and British
Governments.

By the communication received through our Minister at Paris, it
appeared that a knowledge of the act by the French Government
was followed by a declaration that the Berlin and Milan decrees
were revoked, and would cease to have effect on the first day
of November ensuing. These being the only known edicts of
France within the description of the act, and the revocation of
them being such that they ceased at that date to violate our
neutral commerce, the fact, as prescribed by law, was announced
by a proclamation, bearing date the second day of November.

It would have well accorded with the conciliatory views
indicated by this proceeding on the part of France, to have
extended them to all the grounds of just complaint which now
remain unadjusted with the United States. It was particularly
anticipated that, as a further evidence of just dispositions
towards them, restoration would have been immediately made of
the property of our citizens, seized under a misapplication of
the principle of reprisals, combined with a misconstruction of
the law of the United States. This expectation has not been
fulfilled.

From the British Government, no communication on the subject
of the act has been received. To a communication, from our
minister at London, of a revocation, by the French Government,
of its Berlin and Milan decrees, it was answered, that the
British system would be relinquished as soon as the repeal of
the French decrees should have actually taken effect, and the
commerce of neutral nations have been restored to the condition
in which it stood previously to the promulgation of those
decrees. This pledge, although it does not necessarily import,
does not exclude, the intention of relinquishing, along with
the Orders in Council, the practice of those novel blockades,
which have a like effect of interrupting our neutral commerce:
and this further justice to the United States is the rather to
be looked for, inasmuch as the blockades in question, being
not more contrary to the established law of nations than
inconsistent with the rules of blockade formerly recognized by
Great Britain herself, could have no alleged basis other than
the plea of retaliation, alleged as the basis of the Orders
in Council. Under the modification of the original orders of
November, 1807, into the orders of April, 1809, there is,
indeed, scarcely a nominal distinction between the orders and
the blockades. One of those illegitimate blockades, bearing
date in May, 1806, having been expressly avowed to be still
unrescinded, and to be, in effect, comprehended in the Orders
in Council, was too distinctly brought within the purview of
the act of Congress not to be comprehended in the explanation
of the requisites to a compliance with it. The British
Government was accordingly apprised by our Minister near it,
that such was the light in which the subject was to be regarded.

On the other important subjects depending between the United
States and that Government, no progress has been made from
which an early and satisfactory result can be relied on.

In this new posture of our relations with those powers,
the consideration of Congress will be properly turned to a
removal of doubts which may occur in the exposition, and of
difficulties in the execution, of the act above cited.

The commerce of the United States with the north of Europe,
heretofore much vexed by licentious cruisers, particularly
under the Danish flag, has latterly been visited with fresh
and extensive depredations. The measures pursued in behalf
of our injured citizens, not having obtained justice for
them, a further and more formal interposition with the Danish
Government is contemplated. The principles which have been
maintained by that Government in relation to neutral commerce,
and the friendly professions of His Danish Majesty towards the
United States, are valuable pledges in favor of a successful
issue.

Among the events growing out of the state of the Spanish
monarchy, our attention was imperiously attracted to the change
developing itself in that portion of West Florida which, though
of right appertaining to the United States, had remained in
the possession of Spain, awaiting the result of negotiations
for its actual delivery to them. The Spanish authority was
subverted, and a situation produced exposing the country to
ulterior events which might essentially affect the rights and
welfare of the Union. In such a conjuncture I did not delay the
interposition required for the occupancy of the territory west
of the river Perdido, to which the title of the United States
extends, and to which the laws provided for the Territory of
Orleans are applicable. With this view, the proclamation, of
which a copy is laid before you, was confided to the Governor
of that Territory, to be carried into effect. The legality and
necessity of the course pursued, assure me of the favorable
light in which it will present itself to the Legislature,
and of the promptitude with which they will supply whatever
provisions may be due to the essential rights and equitable
interests of the people thus brought into the bosom of the
American family.

Our amity with the Powers of Barbary, with the exception of a
recent occurrence at Tunis, of which an explanation is just
received, appears to have been uninterrupted, and to have
become more firmly established.

Whilst it is universally admitted that a well-instructed people
alone can be permanently a free people, and while it is evident
that the means of diffusing and improving useful knowledge
form so small a proportion of the expenditures for national
purposes, I cannot presume it to be unseasonable to invite
your attention to the advantages of superadding to the means
of education, provided by the several States, a seminary of
learning, instituted by the National Legislature, within the
limits of their exclusive jurisdiction, the expense of which
might be defrayed or reimbursed out of the vacant grounds which
have accrued to the nation within those limits.

Such an institution, though local in its legal character, would
be universal in its beneficial effects. By enlightening the
opinions, by expanding the patriotism, and by assimilating
the principles, the sentiments, and the manners, of those who
might resort to this temple of science, to be redistributed,
in due time, through every part of the community, sources of
jealousy and prejudice would be diminished, the features of
national character would be multiplied, and greater extent
given to social harmony. But, above all, a well-constituted
seminary, in the centre of the nation, is recommended by the
consideration that the additional instruction emanating from it
would contribute not less to strengthen the foundations than to
adorn the structure of our free and happy system of Government.

Among the commercial abuses still committed under the American
flag, and leaving in force my former reference to that subject,
it appears that American citizens are instrumental in carrying
on a traffic in enslaved Africans, equally in violation of
the laws of humanity, and in defiance of those of their own
country. The same just and benevolent motives which produced
the interdiction in force against this criminal conduct, will
doubtless be felt by Congress in devising further means of
suppressing the evil.

In the midst of uncertainties necessarily connected with the
great interests of the United States, prudence requires a
continuance of our defensive and precautionary arrangement.
The Secretary of War and Secretary of the Navy will submit
the statements and estimates which may aid Congress in
their ensuing provisions for the land and naval forces. The
statements of the latter will include a view of the transfers
of appropriations in the naval expenditures, and the grounds on
which they were made.

The corps of engineers, with the Military Academy, are entitled
to the early attention of Congress. The buildings at the seat
fixed by law for the present academy are so far in decay, as
not to afford the necessary accommodation. But a revision
of the law is recommended principally with a view to a more
enlarged cultivation and diffusion of the advantages of such
institutions, by providing professorships for all the necessary
branches of military instruction, and by the establishment of
an additional academy at the Seat of Government or elsewhere.
The means by which war, as well for defence as for offence, is
now carried on, render these schools of the more scientific
operations an indispensable part of every adequate system.
Even among nations whose large standing armies and frequent
wars afford every other opportunity of instruction, these
establishments are found to be indispensable for the due
attainment of the branches of military science which require
a regular course of study and experiment. In a Government
happily without the other opportunities, seminaries, where the
elementary principles of the art of war can be taught without
actual war, and without the expense of extensive and standing
armies, have the precious advantage of uniting an essential
preparation against external danger, with a scrupulous regard
to internal safety. In no other way, probably, can a provision
of equal efficacy for the public defence be made at so little
expense, or more consistently with the public liberty.

Reserving for future occasions, in the course of the session,
whatever other communications may claim your attention, I close
the present, by expressing my reliance, under the blessing of
Divine Providence, on the judgment and patriotism which will
guide your measures, at a period particularly calling for
united councils, and inflexible exertions, for the welfare of
our country, and by assuring you of the fidelity and alacrity
with which my co-operation will be afforded.

JAMES MADISON.

WASHINGTON, _December 5, 1810_.

FRIDAY, December 7.

JOSEPH ANDERSON, from the State of Tennessee, attended.

TUESDAY, December 11.

RICHARD BRENT, from the State of Virginia, attended.

WEDNESDAY, December 12.

The VICE PRESIDENT of the United States resumed the chair.

JESSE FRANKLIN, from the State of North Carolina, also took his seat in the Senate.

THURSDAY, December 13.

HENRY CLAY, from the State of Kentucky, took his seat in the Senate.

MONDAY, December 17.

JAMES LLOYD, from the State of Massachusetts, took his seat in the Senate.

TUESDAY, December 18.

JOHN CONDIT, from the State of New Jersey, and JOHN SMITH, from the State of New York, severally took their seats in the Senate.

_Bank of the United States._

Mr. LEIB presented the petition of the President and Directors of the Bank of the United States, praying a renewal of their charter, for reasons therein stated; and the petition was read, and referred to a select committee, to consist of five members, to consider and report thereon; and that the petition be printed for the use of the Senate.

Messrs. CRAWFORD, LEIB, LLOYD, POPE, and ANDERSON, were appointed the committee.

_Territory of Orleans._

Mr. GILES, from the committee to whom was referred, on the 8th instant, so much of the Message of the President of the United States as relates to the occupation of that part of West Florida which is included within the boundaries described by the treaty for the acquisition of Louisiana, reported a bill declaring the laws now in force in the Territory of Orleans, to extend to and to have full force and effect to the river Perdido, pursuant to the treaty concluded at Paris on the 30th day of April, 1803, and for other purposes; and the bill was read, and passed to the second reading.

WEDNESDAY, December 19.

CHRISTOPHER GRANT CHAMPLIN, from the State of Rhode Island, took his seat in the Senate.

THURSDAY, December 27.

JENKIN WHITESIDE, from the State of Tennessee, took his seat in the Senate.

_Occupation of West Florida._

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill declaring the laws now in force in the Territory of Orleans, to extend to, and to have full force and effect, to the river Perdido, pursuant to the treaty concluded at Paris on the 30th of April, 1803; and for other purposes.

The question was on the bill's passage to a third reading.

Mr. POPE.--Mr. President, I regret that the honorable chairman of the committee who reported this bill is not here to give it that support which his talents, information, and the importance of the subject authorize us to expect. His absence has devolved on me, as a member of the committee, and a representative of that section of the Union more immediately interested in the subject before us, to explain to the Senate some of the grounds which induced them to make this report. The first important question which the proclamation of the President and this bill presents for consideration is, whether or not the United States have a good title to the territory in question. Before I examine the treaty of cession from France to the United States, of 1803, the source of our claim, permit me to inquire what were the limits of Louisiana in that quarter to which this subject leads us before the treaty and cession of 1762-'3, between France, Spain, and Great Britain? On this subject, however, I believe there is no contrariety of opinion. Before this period, Louisiana extended east of the river Mississippi to the river Perdido. France and Spain, by the Treaty of 1719, established this boundary between Florida, now called East Florida, and Louisiana. The ancient limits of Louisiana have been so fully ascertained by the documents laid before Congress at different times, and the numerous discussions the subject has undergone, that I should only waste the time of the Senate in attempting to throw any new light on it. I shall only refer the Senate to one additional evidence that this river was the ancient eastern boundary of this province. Mr. Smollet, in his continuation of "Hume's History of England," states the answer of the British Government to the propositions made by France for peace early in the year 1761, from which it appears that France then claimed the river Perdido as their eastern limit, nor does this fact appear to have been contested by the British Minister. It appears that previous to the war which terminated in 1763, Louisiana comprehended nearly the whole country watered by the Mississippi and its branches. I find it stated in a pamphlet published in New York, that France, by a secret cession, contemporaneous with the treaty called the Family Compact of 1761, transferred this country to Spain, to induce her to become her ally in the war against Great Britain; and although I can find no evidence to support this statement, yet the events of that war, previous to that period, renders it at least probable. It will be remembered that the arms of Great Britain had triumphed over those of France, both by sea and land. France had lost Canada, and a great number of ships of war. Spain was not then a party in the war, and, to induce her to become so, it seems probable that France, under the pressure of adverse fortune, ceded to her this province. But, as this statement does not correspond with the documents on our tables, nor the views of others who have examined this subject, we are compelled to take it for granted, that the cession of West Louisiana, with the island of New Orleans, to Spain, and of East Louisiana, since called West Florida, to Great Britain, were made at the same time, in the year 1762. It is, however, well known that France made the cession to Great Britain at the instance, and for the benefit of Spain, to enable her, with the cession of Florida, now called East Florida, to obtain a restitution of Cuba. The whole of Louisiana, not conquered by Great Britain, may, with propriety, be said to have been given up, or ceded to Spain. Let us now examine that part of the treaty of cession between the United States and France of 1803, which relates to this question. By that treaty we acquired Louisiana as fully, and in the same manner, as it had been acquired by France from Spain, in virtue of the Treaty of St. Ildefonso of the 1st of October, 1800. By this treaty, Spain retroceded Louisiana to France, "with the same extent it then had in the hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it, and such as it should be after the treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and other States." That this extract from that treaty is correct, cannot be doubted, as it has never been denied by Spain. The word "retrocede" in this treaty has, I believe, occasioned more doubt with regard to the meaning of this cession that any expression contained in it, but cannot, when the subject is properly examined, have the effect contended for. It is said that as France ceded to Spain, in 1762, Louisiana west of the Mississippi, including the island of New Orleans, the word "retrocede" must limit the cession to what had been previously ceded by France to Spain; but if it be true that Louisiana east and west of the Mississippi was ceded to Spain in the year 1761, although East Louisiana was afterwards ceded by France, with the consent of Spain, to Great Britain, the word "retrocede" might, with propriety, be used with reference to the original grant to Spain in 1661, or if, what will not be denied, the cession of East Louisiana to Great Britain by France, was at the instance, and for the benefit of Spain, Spain, in 1800, after she had acquired East Louisiana, alias West Florida, so called by Great Britain after 1763, could well say to France, I re-grant to you what you ceded to me, and on my account, or at least, so much as I can re-grant consistently with the treaties I have since made; and this seems to be the plain and evident meaning of the instrument. If the parties had meant to confine the retrocession to the limits of the cession, made by France to Spain, of Louisiana west of the Mississippi, including the island of New Orleans, they would have used the same deception. They would certainly have stopped after saying the extent it then had in the hands of Spain. But to prevent mistake or misconstruction, they add, "that it had when France possessed it," and, what is still more conclusive of the meaning of the parties, they go on to say, "and such as it should be after the treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and other States." As Spain had never entered into any treaty with regard to the western boundary of Louisiana, and as the only treaties to which the parties could have alluded was that of 1783 with Great Britain, and of 1795 with the United States, both relative to limits on the east side of the Mississippi, it is perfectly clear that the contracting parties meant to comprehend whatever of Louisiana, on the east side of the Mississippi, Spain had a title to. If the construction I contend for is not admitted, then the latter parts of the description will have no effect, contrary to a settled principle of law and common sense, that every part of an instrument shall have effect, if it can by any reasonable construction. To strengthen the construction for which I insist, it may not be amiss to consider the views of the French Government at the time this treaty of St. Ildefonso was made. They no doubt acquired this province with an intention of holding it, and it was an object of national pride to regain as much as practicable of the colonies which had been lost under the old Government. Besides, they could not be ignorant of the importance of East Louisiana, now West Florida, to the security of New Orleans; and, as the practicability of obtaining it at that time from Spain cannot be doubted, the presumption is irresistible that the cession was intended to embrace it. I had intended to have ascertained at the Department of State the ground of objection with Spain to the surrender of that country to the United States, but have not made the inquiry. I do not, however, think it difficult to account for the conduct of Spain. My conjecture is, that France, after she had sold Louisiana to the United States, and received the price stipulated, secretly advised Spain not to surrender it, having at that time formed the project which she is now attempting to execute, of acquiring the whole Spanish Empire. Her interest was, therefore, identified with that of Spain, and she was, no doubt, willing to unite with Spain in giving the most limited construction to the cession to the United States. I find that Congress, by an act passed on the 24th of February, 1804, have solemnly asserted our right to this territory, and authorized the President to take possession of it and to establish a port of entry, &c., on the Mobile, whenever he should deem it expedient. The time when, and circumstances under which, this step should be taken, were submitted to the discretion of the Executive. I may be permitted to ask why, if we had no title to this territory, the President was urged to take possession by force, and censured for not doing it? If my recollection is accurate, all parties agreed we ought to have the country--they only differed as to the mode of acquiring it. The President, influenced by that policy which has hitherto guided the present Administration, of avoiding making this nation a party in the present European war, in the exercise of the discretionary power vested in him by that act, did not think proper to seize upon it by force, but to wait for the occurrence of events to throw it into our hands without a struggle.

The expediency of taking possession of this territory cannot, it appears to me, admit of a doubt. If the President had refused or hesitated to meet the wishes of the people of West Florida by extending to them the protection of the American Government, and they had sought security in the arms of a foreign power, what should we have heard? He would have been charged with imbecility, and fear of incurring responsibility. He would have been denounced as unworthy of the station his country had assigned him. Let it be remembered that the Orleans country is our most valuable part--remote from our physical force--a climate more fatal to our people than the sword of a victorious enemy--and that an enemy in possession of West Florida can with great facility cut off New Orleans from the upper country. If the fortunate moment had not been seized, this province would have fallen into the hands of a foreign power, or, if time had been given for intrigue to mature itself, another Burr plot would probably have risen from the ashes of the first, more formidable to the integrity of this empire. Burr, like Archimedes, fancied that if he had a place to stand upon--a place beyond the jurisdiction of the United States to rally his followers--he could overturn the Government. He has, it is true, fled from the frowns of an indignant country; but he was not alone. Let an opportunity be afforded, and a thousand Burrs would throw off the mask and point their arms against the Federal Union. On a subject of such interest, it would have been criminal in those appointed to watch over the national safety to have hesitated. I was surprised to hear this procedure pronounced a robbery, and making of war. Why should our sympathies be awakened in favor of Spain? What claim has the Spanish Government upon our moderation and forbearance? What has been her conduct? From the moment we became an independent nation she has been intriguing to separate the Western country from the Atlantic States. She has made, at different periods, and as late as the year 1797, in violation of her treaty of 1795 with this country, direct propositions to the Western people to secede from the Union, and to accomplish her object, at least attempted the use of means the most corrupt. What has been her conduct since we acquired Louisiana? If I am correctly informed, our deserters and slaves who have taken refuge in Florida, in many instances have not been surrendered, and enormous duties have been imposed on our vessels navigating the Mobile. Under all these provocations, sufficient to have drawn upon them from almost any other nation an open declaration of war, our Government, influenced by that pacific policy which has hitherto regulated its course towards foreign nations, exercised patience and forbearance. And since the late revolution in Spain, I believe it will not be pretended that this Government has manifested any disposition to throw our weight into the scale of France against the Spanish party. Our Government has taken no step in relation to West Florida, until compelled by a regard to our own safety. The Executive in the proceeding under consideration has used language the most conciliatory, and on the face of his proclamation given a pledge that this Government will at any time enter into amicable negotiations on the subject of our claim to this territory, if it shall be disputed.

There are other at least plausible grounds upon which this bill as an original proposition might be supported entirely independent of the cession. Spain is indebted to us a large amount for spoliations committed on our commerce; and as there is no Government at present towards which the ordinary proceeding can be pursued to obtain payment, could we not, on the principle of the attachment law, as an act of self-justice, seize on this territory to secure satisfaction?

As this measure has been emphatically called an act of robbery and war, it may not be amiss to consider the political state of the Spanish colonies in relation to the Spanish Government in the hands of the Junta, and the new dynasty about to be established by Bonaparte. It may be said, perhaps, that the late alienation of the Spanish Crown and the revolution in Spain have dissolved the tie which connects them with the mother country. On this point I will not detain the Senate. If the French arms shall be successful in Spain, of which I believe few entertain much doubt, and the Junta shall be driven from Old Spain to any of the colonies, their political character must cease, and they can no longer claim the exercise of any jurisdiction or sovereignty over the colonies. The colonies are not bound together by any political bond unconnected with the mother country; they are subject to the mother country, but the moment she is conquered, they are at liberty to provide for themselves, unless, indeed, the Emperor of France or King Joseph can claim them. France, in an official exposé, and King Joseph, by proclamation, have declared their willingness that the colonies should become independent, provided they did not connect themselves with Great Britain. If France, therefore, shall, which is probable, conquer the mother country, we are fully authorized by her public declaration to the world to acquire, with the consent of the inhabitants, not only West but East Florida, Cuba, or any other province which we shall deem it expedient to connect with the United States. This bill may be justified, independent of title, by the law of self-preservation. Have we any assurance that the Spanish Government will maintain their neutrality in this territory if we should be involved in a war with either France or Great Britain? Can they, or will they, prevent the march of an enemy's forces through that territory into the United States? No, sir; we have every reason to expect the contrary. Considering how vulnerable we are from this territory, its present state, and the aspect of our foreign affairs, it appears to me we are authorized to take possession of it as a measure of national security. It may be objected that taking the property of others by force tends to relax the morals of the people, by destroying that criterion of right and wrong, the observance of which is so necessary to the purity of our Republic; and I am ready to admit that we ought to proceed upon this principle of necessity and expediency with great caution, and never to act upon it but in extreme and evident cases. Had we a colony on the coast of England or France, similarly situated, we know they would not hesitate. When we reflect that our property is seized by almost every nation; that the laws and usages of nations are disregarded by nearly all Europe; that their conduct has been lately marked with a degree of perfidy and rapacity unexampled in the history of the civilized world; that they have in fact become States of Barbary; it appears to me that we ought not, as regards them, to be over nice or squeamish upon questions of this sort. Shall we sit here with our arms folded until the enemy is at our gates? If we waste our time in discussion and refining abstract questions of right and wrong, we shall lose our independence, and we shall deserve to lose it. I had hoped this bill would have passed without much debate; I know the people are tired of long speeches and documents. This fondness for lengthy discussions, has even drawn upon Congress the reproaches of the ladies; they begin to say--less talk and more action.

FRIDAY, December 28.

_Occupation of West Florida._

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill respecting the territory west of the Perdido.

Mr. HORSEY addressed the Senate as follows:

Mr. President: The bill under consideration contains two important provisions. The first in effect incorporates with the Territory of Orleans the province of West Florida east of the Mississippi, as far as the river Perdido; the second extends to that part of the province thus incorporated the laws now in force within the said Territory.

These provisions naturally involve two questions: first, whether the United States have a good title to that part of the province described in the bill; and secondly, whether it would be expedient for the Government of the United States to take possession of it by force.

Before I proceed to consider these questions, I beg leave, Mr. President, to advert to what may be considered a preliminary question. I refer to the authority of the President of the United States to issue his proclamation and the accompanying orders of the 27th of August last, directing the forcible occupation of that territory. I deem it material to consider this point, because, if the proclamation were unauthorized, then Congress are not committed by it, nor are they bound to give it their sanction.

If the President had any authority to issue this proclamation, that authority must have been derived either under the Constitution of the United States or under some act or acts of Congress. The President has no power which does not proceed from one or the other of these sources. The constitution has given to Congress the exclusive power of making laws and declaring war--to the President the power of executing the laws of the Union. The powers of the one are legislative, of the other executive. The question then would be, whether the President in issuing this proclamation has not transcended the limits of his powers.

Sir, what is the nature and import of this proclamation? In my humble conception both legislation and war. War--because it directs the occupation of this territory by a military force. The regular troops of the United States are ordered to march, and if they should not be found adequate to the object, the Governors of the Orleans and Mississippi Territories are directed to call out the militia of their respective territories, to co-operate with the regular forces. But we shall be told, sir, that the President, in issuing this proclamation, has taken the precaution to direct that in case any particular place, however small, should remain in possession of a Spanish force, the commanding officer is not to proceed to employ force against it, but to make immediate report thereof to the Secretary of State. Suppose while your commanding officer is making this report, the Spanish force sallies out and makes an attack upon your army, or suppose a Spanish army, with Governor Folch at their head, should march from East Florida with the view of repelling the invasion of this territory; what are Governor Claiborne and his army to do? Ground their arms and surrender themselves prisoners of war; or are they, sir, to drop their muskets and take to their heels? These are the only alternatives presented--they must either surrender, run, or fight. And who will doubt which of these alternatives the gallantry of an American army would impel them to choose! Sir, a conflict would be inevitable.

But while the President has been so affectedly cautious with respect to Spanish force, he has overlooked altogether the contingency of resistance on the part of the revolutionists. These patriots it would seem had called a convention and issued a declaration of independence, and now it appears have formed and established a regular Government, which is organized and in operation. If these proceedings are not all a sham, the territory in question is now in the possession of a people claiming to be sovereign and independent; and is it supposable that this people can behave so dastardly as to submit, without a struggle, to the incursion of a hostile army, whose avowed object is the conquest of the country and the subversion of its constitution and independence? And here permit me to remark, that the style and tenor of the letter from the Secretary of State of the 15th of November, 1810, to Governor Holmes, in answer to the letter of the President of the convention praying the recognition and protection of the United States, are not admirably calculated to give a welcome reception to the American Army. If then assistance should be offered on the part of the constitutionalists, what is your army to do? The orders contain no proviso in this particular, requiring that the fact should be reported to the Department of State; but their clear intent is, that force should be employed. Under such circumstances is it not to be expected that this measure of the Executive will result in war? Is it not to be expected, that either the Spaniards or the Conventionalists will attempt to repel this palpable infringement upon their rights and territory?

But, sir, this proclamation is not only war, but it is an act of legislation too. It annexes the territory in question to the Orleans Territory; it creates a Governor; it enacts laws, and appropriates money. It gives the Governor of the Orleans Territory all the authorities and functions over this particular territory which he possesses by virtue of his office as governor, and makes an appropriation of a sum of money, not exceeding twenty thousand dollars. This proclamation is substantially the bill under discussion, except that it goes much further. The first section of the bill only contains an annexation of the territory in question to the Orleans Territory--this the proclamation has already done. The second section only extends the laws of that territory to the particular territory in question--and this too the proclamation has already done. The only material difference in fact existing between the proclamation and this bill is, that the proclamation contains the further and important provision for raising the troops and the money necessary for carrying it into execution. And here, sir, I will take the liberty to remark that I do not consider this bill the only one intended on this subject. This is a mere entering wedge--when this is passed, Congress are permitted to pass another, providing the necessary military and pecuniary means to carry this act into execution; and, indeed, I should not be surprised, if, before the close of the session, a bill were introduced to take possession of East as well as West Florida.

If the President had no power under the constitution to issue this proclamation, I think it equally clear he had none under any existing laws of Congress. The act of the 31st of October, 1803, authorizing the President of the United States to take possession of and occupy the territory ceded by France to the United States, by the treaty concluded at Paris on the 30th of April, 1803, I apprehend, expired on the 1st day of October, 1804; to which period it was limited by the first section of the act for erecting Louisiana into two Territories, and providing for the temporary government thereof, passed the 20th day of March, 1804.

This section enacts, that "the act passed the 31st day of October, entitled 'An act to enable the President of the United States to take possession of the territories ceded by France to the United States, by the treaty concluded at Paris, on the 30th day of April, 1803; and for the temporary government thereof,' shall continue in force until the 1st day of October, 1804, any thing therein to the contrary notwithstanding; on which said 1st day of October, this act shall commence, and have full force, and shall continue in force for and during the term of one year, and to the end of the next session of Congress, which may happen thereafter." Let it be recollected that at the time this last-mentioned act passed, the President had fulfilled his powers, under the act of the 31st of October, 1803, so far as it respected the taking possession of Louisiana. Possession had been actually and formally delivered, and the stock created and transferred to the French Government, according to the stipulations of the treaty. Besides, the very nature and design of the act of the 26th March, independent of the express limitation, superseded the act of the 31st of October.

But it is said, there are acts of Congress which, though contemplating a present possession in a foreign authority, also contemplate an ultimate possession by the United States, under which the proclamation may be justified, even though the act of the 31st of October should have expired. The acts here referred to, I understand to be the act of the 24th of February, 1804, for laying and collecting duties within the territories ceded by France to the United States, the act above mentioned of the 26th of March, erecting Louisiana into two Territories, and the act of the 2d of March, 1805, authorizing the establishment of a Government in the Territory of Orleans, similar to the Government of the Mississippi Territory. The President himself admits, in his message at the opening of the session, that those laws contemplate a _present possession in a foreign Power_; but he further says, they contemplate an eventual possession by the United States. But, sir, let me ask what sort of possession? A possession _by force_? No, sir, not a single provision can be shown to justify such a construction. But a possession to be obtained _by a friendly negotiation_. I am warranted in this construction, not merely by the letter of those laws, by the lapse of time since their enactment, by the express official declaration of Mr. Madison himself, while Secretary of State. It is a notorious fact, that when the act of the 24th of February passed, the Marquis D'Yrujo, then the Minister of his Catholic Majesty in the United States, in a solemn form protested against that law; and that Mr. Madison, by a letter dated on the 19th of March, assured the Marquis that the provisions relating to Louisiana "would not be extended beyond the _acknowledged limits_ of the United States, until it shall be rendered expedient by _friendly elucidation and adjustments_ with His Catholic Majesty."

Upon the whole, sir, I have not been able to discover the shadow of authority, on the ground of which the President issued this proclamation. He has recited none, amidst all his recitals, and none appears to me but his own mere will and pleasure.

The act I therefore cannot view in any other light than an unwarrantable assumption of power and a violation of the constitution.

Considering then, sir, this act of the Executive as illegal and unauthorized, we are fully at liberty to enter into the discussion of the great questions of title and expediency; a task which I will proceed to discharge to the best of my ability.