Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856, Vol. 1 (of 16)

by United States. Congress

Friday, March 28.

Sequestration of British Debts.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and took up Mr. Dayton's resolutions for the sequestration of debts due to British subjects.

Mr. Giles commenced his remarks by observing, that he had intended to have given a silent vote upon this question before the committee, and probably should not have altered that intention, if it had not been from the solicitous requests expressed yesterday by several gentlemen in the opposition, that the favorers of the proposed measure should furnish the committee with the reasons upon which it was founded. Although it appeared to him to be rather unreasonable that some gentlemen should be expected, not only to possess reasons for their own opinions, but to furnish reasons for others; and, although he did not conceive that the favorers of the measure were under any obligation to disclose the reasons inducing it, provided they thought proper to hazard its fate upon a silent vote, yet he was willing to indulge the gentlemen with presenting to them the general course of reflection which the subject had produced in his mind, and which had strongly suggested its propriety. He had, however, a more powerful inducement to disclosing his opinion, since the subject has become matter of discussion and its propriety doubted.

The measure is deemed a bold one, and pregnant with the most serious consequences; in all such cases, he was desirous that his responsibility to the United States in general, and to his immediate constituents in particular, would at all times be tested by the real motives which should influence his conduct.

Several gentlemen in the opposition had earnestly admonished the committee against the indulgence of their passions upon this subject, and recommended the exercise of cool and deliberate reasoning. He should not pretend to say how far such an admonition was necessary, or justified by the temper of the committee, but he believed it applied as strongly to the gentlemen who suggested the caution, as to those to whom it was addressed; and he hoped, in the course of the future discussion, the gentlemen would show an example in themselves of the precepts they had prescribed to others.

As to himself, Mr. G. declared that, impressed with the awfulness of the present crisis, he had never reflected upon a subject with more coolness; and, if he understood his own situation, his mind was never in a state more susceptible of conviction.

The proposed measure is expected to eventuate in a final explanation of the relative state of things between the United States and Great Britain. It will probably result, therefore, in an open hostility, with the usual appeal to arms, or in a peace, with all the rights of neutrality attached to it. For this purpose, the resolution proposes a sequestration of the debts due to the subjects of Great Britain, to be held as a pledge for the indemnification of the losses sustained by American citizens under the orders of the British King, in contravention of the laws of nations, and violation of every rule of morality and justice. In the course of debate, this subject seems to have resolved itself into two questions. First, as it respects the right of one nation to sequester the property of the individuals of another in any possible case. Second, the policy of exercising this right at this time, under the existing circumstances of the United States.

He presumed that a state of things might exist between two nations in which reprisal would not only become the right but the duty to the nation sustaining the wrong. This happens where one nation, without cause, forcibly seizes upon the effects of another, or of its citizens, and withholds them without restitution or compensation, and when the nation, whose effects shall be so seized and detained, shall possess no other means of indemnification. The right of reprisal in the injured nation, in such a case, grows out of its injury sustained, and its inability to redress itself in any other way.

The duty of the injured nation to make reprisals, is founded on self-preservation; and in case of the losses of its citizens, upon the promise of the protection of property sacredly made by the nation to its individual members.

This he believed to be the doctrine of the laws of morality and reason, and he knew it to be the doctrine of the laws of nations, which were, in fact, nothing more than the laws of morality and reason systematized and reduced to writing.

Believing this principle to be a just one, he would apply it to the existing state of things between the United States and Great Britain. Almost as soon as Great Britain had taken part in the iniquitous war against France, the Executive of the United States manifested their regard for peace, by proclaiming their existing state of neutrality, and recommending to their citizens, not only the observance of neutrality, but of impartial neutrality—although the partiality of the American people for the cause of France was well known—although, at that moment, their affections for the French nation were addressed by the most honorable and powerful considerations that ever existed between two nations. The peculiar similarity between the existing French cause and that which had just given birth to American liberty and independence; the material agency which the French nation had exerted in bringing about that event; and the existing principles of Government here, the product of the Revolution, which are the great object of attack by the combination against France.

A pure and laudable regard for peace, and a detestation of war, however, had overcome all these sensations, and produced a neutrality, which he believed, on the part of the United States, had been rigidly observed; at least, he was sure, that such was the intention of Government. In this state of things, Great Britain commenced an attack upon this state of neutrality, which it was certainly her interest to preserve, and which she ought to have deemed a favor to obtain. Great Britain continued to keep possession of posts upon the acknowledged territory of the United States, to carry on a contraband trade with our savage enemy. She, shortly after our proclaimed neutrality, proceeded to interrupt our lawful trade with our allies. She seized, condemned, and sanctioned the complete transfer of the property of American citizens to her own subjects; and, as if there could be no limits to her iniquity and resentment, she has contrived to open upon our Eastern frontiers a barbarous enemy to aid in making depredations upon our commerce.

These acts constitute injuries which amount to war, and they are infinitely aggravated, both by the perfidy which attended the execution of some of them, and the total want of provocation for the commission of any of them.

If, then, Great Britain shall have committed acts towards the United States which furnish just cause of war, the United States possess the right, consistently with the laws of nations, to exercise any act towards Great Britain which would be justifiable in a state of war. The United States having received the injuries, are authorized to select such measures and means as they may deem the most expedient for self-preservation and indemnification. Reprisal is within their power. All other means of redress are without their power. In such a state of things, reprisal is a right—reprisal is a duty. An objection, more plausible than solid, has been made to this course of reasoning, that the individuals who will be the immediate objects of the reprisal, have not been the immediate agents of the aggression. The laws of nations state, that the property of individuals is as much a subject of reprisal as the property of the aggressing nation; but, as the nation is the immediate agent in the wrong, the individual who sustains an injury thereby, becomes entitled to recompense from his nation. The nation which commits the wrong, by this process, will ultimately sustain the loss. Hence, in the present case, the innocent and unsuspecting victims of the United States, have received losses from the lawless aggressions of Great Britain, and the question is, whether they shall finally sustain those losses, without any clear claim of indemnification upon the Government of the United States? or, whether the losses shall be transferred to British subjects, who will thereby possess the clearest claim for recompense from the British Government? He thought the laws of God, the laws of morality, the laws of reason, the laws of nations, would all pronounce that the British Government which had done the wrong, should afford the recompense.

Mr. G. said, that if the losses were to be ultimately borne by the individual subjects of Great Britain, the remedy would seem to be a harsh one; but, even in that case, the only alternatives left to the United States would be to say whether their own citizens, to whom they have promised protection, should finally sustain the losses, or the British subjects, to whom they have promised no protection. But the situation of the individuals who may be the subjects of reprisal, is greatly meliorated, by the consideration of their just claim to recompense from their own Government, which he had no doubt but they would ultimately obtain, if they were put into a situation to demand it; but if they should ultimately be denied justice, it would be a consolation to reflect, that it was the injustice of their own Government, not of the United States.

He observed, that a reprisal in the way proposed, stood upon the same ground as the invasion of the property in every other case did, and was justified upon the same principle, to wit, self-preservation. He presumed, if there existed an acknowledged state of war, letters of marque and reprisal, commissions to privateers, &c., would be deemed justifiable and expedient, and that no discrimination would be made between the property of individuals and the property of the nation; yet the invasion of the rights of property in that case would be as palpable as in the case of the reprisal proposed, with this aggravation; that, in that case, the individual sustaining the loss would not be entitled to ultimate recompense from the Government—in the case proposed, he would be entitled to recompense. He observed, that the British nation had not discovered this delicate discrimination between national and individual property, in their late instructions given to their privateers and ships of war, although they had sustained no wrong; and he thought their conduct an example in point for the United States, who had received the injury and committed none.

A gentleman (Mr. Smith, of South Carolina) yesterday attempted to make a distinction between vessels at sea and other property; although he acknowledged that, at the first blush, he could discern no distinction in principle.

Mr. G. said, that every species of property stood on the same principle—the promise made by the Government to afford protection to all property—the same rights are attached to every species of property, and the Government is bound to afford an equal security to all. A sentence read yesterday, by a gentleman, (Mr. S. Smith), from a writer upon the laws of nations, clearly shows the right of a nation to make reprisal upon all the effects of individuals of an aggressing nation indiscriminately, except stock in the public funds; which has been exempted, under the idea of its being a pledge in the hands of Government; the withholding of which would be a breach of public faith. He believed that the practice and policy of some nations might have given rise to this distinction, but he doubted whether the practice had been uniform and universal, and he was clear that there was no rational distinction in principle. The idea that the public funds are a pledge in the hands of Government, and ought not, therefore, to be touched, is equally applicable to every other species of property. In the case of contracts between individuals, the Government guarantees the performance upon the refusal of one party to pay, or comply. In the case of lands or personal chattels, the Government guarantees the exclusive enjoyment to the proprietor; it would be equally a violation of faith for the Government to deny its obligation in the one case as in the other, and nothing could justify an invasion of the rights of property, in any case, but self-preservation—the first of all rights, and the highest of all duties.

He positively denied that any pre-eminence was due to one species of property over another. He said, however, that this discussion was not immediately necessary, as the resolution under consideration did not embrace the stock in the funds of the United States.

Mr. G. observed, that it had been said, and repeated in the committee, that the proposed measure was war. He denied that the measure in itself was war, or that it furnished a just cause of war. He believed, however, that it was problematical whether it would eventuate in peace or war; indeed, he remarked, that the crisis of affairs is already such, that, whether the measure be adopted or not, he viewed war as a probable event, peace as a possible event; but the point he contended for was, that if the aggressions towards the United States be sufficient to justify reprisal, the exercise of the right does not furnish a just cause of war. The exercise of a right by one nation can never involve the absurd consequence of giving another nation the right to exercise a wrong. He said, that gentlemen on one side of this question seemed to act upon an imaginary, instead of the real, state of things. He was not, therefore, astonished at hearing the committee cautioned against the violation of neutrality. He did not conceive that the present state of things between the United States and Great Britain would justify the use of the term neutrality. Neutrality is a term used to signify the relation in which two nations stand towards each other. Neutrality, therefore, requires parties—either party may destroy the relation between the parties. It therefore appeared absurd to him to say that Great Britain was in a state of depredation and war towards the United States, and the United States in a state of neutrality towards Great Britain. It has been said, that the United States have not abandoned their neutrality; this is true, but it is no evidence that neutrality exists. Great Britain has abandoned it for them.

He said, however, that this was disregarding the substance and entering into a mere cavil about names. It was not material, in his opinion, what name ought to be given to the existing relation of things between the United States and Great Britain—whether it was called a state of peace, a state of war, a state of neutrality, a state of reprisal, a state of retortion, or a state of very uncivil conduct on the part of Great Britain. Nor did he conceive it material to ascertain whether there was any intermediate stage between a state of peace and a state of war, or in which state the depredations of Great Britain should technically be classed; but one thing was certain and material—that the United States had sustained substantial wrongs, which required a substantial remedy. Gentlemen who have regarded names and disregarded substances have also been extremely alarmed at the idea of a discrimination of conduct by the United States towards foreign nations. A gentleman (Mr. Boudinot) observed yesterday, that the United States had sustained injuries from France and Spain as well as Great Britain, and asked why there should be any discrimination in their favor? Mr. G. said he was extremely hurt that the conduct of France should be so unnecessarily and inopportunely arraigned in that House. He submitted it to the gentleman to say, if the United States should be compelled to enter into the war, which was at this moment not an improbable event, why then it would be wise to irritate the only nation in the world who could afford them any substantial assistance! He said that this conduct was the less justifiable, from the recollection that the conduct of France was the result of necessity, and there was every reason to conclude that the conduct of that nation would be explained in a satisfactory manner. But a consideration mentioned by a gentleman, (Mr. Smith, of Maryland,) yesterday, was a conclusive answer—the United States owe to France a pecuniary obligation, as well as one of a more sacred nature. This is at all times sufficient for their indemnification. With respect to Spain, if the gentleman would show the injury sustained, and point out a fund for indemnification, Mr. G. declared he would not hesitate a moment to apply it to that object.

But will the gentleman conclude, that because one nation has injured us, in a degree against which we have no redress, that therefore we shall not indemnify ourselves from a nation which has injured us in the extreme, and against which we have the most ample redress?

He believed the gentleman's coolness, his wisdom, and his deliberation, could not possibly lead him to such a result. With respect to discrimination in the conduct of the United States towards foreign nations, it necessarily grew out of the character of the conduct of other nations towards the United States. Some gentlemen appeared to him to have carried their ideas upon this subject to the most fanciful absurdities. To keep France out of the comparison, let this indiscriminate conduct, so much applauded, be applied to Great Britain and Holland. Great Britain destroys our trade, plunders our property, and, to her injuries, adds insult and contempt. Holland, engaged in the same cause, fosters our trade, and respects us as a nation. Under these circumstances, do gentlemen contend that an indiscriminate conduct is due to Great Britain and to Holland? Or do they mean to carry this delicate indiscriminate conduct so far as to refuse to themselves all redress from one nation, because they would wish to deal out the same conduct to all others, whether they had offended or not? He said, that discrimination was stamped in the front of the conduct of foreign nations towards us, and to make an indiscriminate return would be the worst and most unjust of all discriminations. He hoped gentlemen would pardon him, but he could not help thinking that they had carried their ideas upon this subject to the most fanciful absurdities. A gentleman (Mr. Smith, of South Carolina) yesterday remarked, that of late the condition of war had been much ameliorated as it regards the rights of property, and he thought the amelioration ought to be extended rather than abridged. Mr. G. declared, that he heartily joined him in his wishes that the condition of war would ere long be ameliorated, both as it regards property and persons. He hoped that mankind would soon learn more wisdom than to butcher each other for the amusement or security of the privileged orders of the world. From that source he believed all wars arose, and until the cause was banished from the earth, he feared the fatal effects resulting from it would continue to exist. He declared, that he should view the banishment of the privileged orders from the world as the surest harbinger of the approach of the millennium. But this is not the happy period of the world; for, although the United States are free from this pest of the human species in their internal organization, yet the evils they at this moment experience arise from their external intercourse with that part of the world which is less fortunate. The attack made on the United States at this moment, is an attack upon property. If there should be a war between the United States and Great Britain, it will be a war of property. Unless there should be a species of madness in the nation not to be calculated upon, they cannot think of invasion and subjugation. It is known that the United States cannot make an attack upon Great Britain, and territory and conquest with them are no objects. Hence the war will be confined to depredations upon property. This is the most dishonorable species of warfare, and therefore the more to be regretted. There is this obvious distinction, however, between the United States and Great Britain. With Great Britain, at least with the privileged orders, it is matter of choice; with the United States, it is matter of compulsion. The United States despise this mode of warfare; they covet not the property of any nation upon earth, but self-preservation demands it. They are under the strong hand of a powerful nation, despising their rights, and regardless of justice. In this state of things, there is but little hope of strengthening the sacred ties of property; for, in the example of Great Britain, her late conduct can furnish no consolation for these theoretic speculations; and however the United States might be inclined to practise upon them, yet the British depredations will forbid them—for submission will be an invitation to new acts of aggression. He most ardently wished the state of things were otherwise; but, exposed to these inconveniences, the most effectual means ought to be adopted for their resistance.

Mr. G. proceeded to observe, that having shown the right of reprisal to be conformable to the laws of nations, and clearly justified by the existing relation of things between the United States and Great Britain, he would now submit a few remarks upon the policy of exercising the right at this time. Under the existing circumstances of the United States, he thought the policy of the measure was recommended by the clearest and most obvious principles. The relation of things between the United States and Great Britain is such as to demand a final and unequivocal explanation, whether the proposed measure be adopted or not. In all parts of this committee, in all parts of the United States, a definitive explanation is called for. The present state of things between the two nations cannot long exist.

It is to be hoped that, the tone of language to be used by the United States will be adjusted to the nature of the injuries they have sustained. Acquiescence and submission are no longer recommended. Hence, matters are already reduced to extremities, and all the irritations already exist which can grow out of an extreme state of things. The proposed measure can add nothing to these irritations. The question, therefore, appears to be reduced to this—whether, in demanding an explanation and attempting negotiation, we shall use all the means in our power to compel a favorable issue? or whether we shall tamely supplicate for justice, and suffer the most effectual means of compulsion to elude our grasp? He did not mean here to recapitulate the conduct of Great Britain towards us; he hoped it was sufficiently impressed upon the mind of every gentleman in the committee; but, after the recent experience of her conduct, it would be madness, it would be folly, to address our complaints to her justice or moderation. He thought it would be wise to lay hold of every thing in our power, and hold it as a pledge for her good behavior. This measure would put us in the best possible situation for negotiation. It would authorize an appeal to her interest, which she could not resist. He begged the committee to reflect upon the argument which had been used here, to prevent a late measure which had been adopted, and which had been renewed upon the present resolution, that a great value in property, belonging to the citizens of the United States, was in the power of the British, and that any counteracting measures would place it in extreme hazard. This seemed to him to have been the most prevailing argument which had been urged, and for some time was irresistible. If, then, the argument shall have been applied with so much force here, with how much more force will it be applied in Great Britain, when they find that the property of the individuals of that nation is placed in jeopardy here, and that it greatly exceeds in value the whole of the property which they have infamously detained and condemned? Besides, if, in the event of a war, it should be a war of property, as is every where contemplated. Great Britain will find that the war will be commenced upon very unequal terms. Viewing this measure, therefore, as to its probable tendency to peace or war, he thought the probability greatly in favor of its producing peace. When Great Britain shall find that she is entering into a contest upon unequal terms, when she shall find that it may terminate in a permanent loss of the advantages of her commerce with the United States, when she shall see before her a precipice, into which if she should once enter she never can return, she would pause before she acted, she would take time to count the probable loss and gain, and peace would be the infallible consequence of such deliberate calculations. This measure will convince Great Britain that the United States possess a knowledge of their rights, a confidence in their ability, and a determination in their disposition to assert and support them.

A gentleman (Mr. Smith, of South Carolina) observed yesterday, that a pacific system would probably attach the people of Great Britain to the United States, and detach them from their own Government. The gentleman ought to recollect, that a pusillanimous conduct will not. It is with nations as it is with individuals—to be respected by others, they should respect themselves. The same gentleman remarked, that a change of Ministry might be expected, and advised waiting for the event. The idea is as undignified as it is chimerical.

Mr. G. said, he knew nothing of the change of the Ministry—the principle was unknown here. The people here were their own governors. It was immaterial to them who the Minister was. Even in the country where the people were less fortunate, where Ministers govern, a change of Ministers never produced any solid advantage to the nation. It was merely an expedient of the moment, to smother a popular clamor. But, even proceeding upon the gentleman's hypothesis, which Mr. G. thought wholly inadmissible, he submitted to the gentleman to determine, whether a positive submission by foreigners to the avaricious regulations of a Minister, be the most likely mean to render him unpopular at home? On the other hand, whether it was not the most effectual mean of preserving his popularity, and of keeping him in office? He presumed the people at home would never complain of injuries abroad, if those who sustained them refused to complain. It is but by resistance, and throwing the burden upon the people of England, that they can be brought to complain. But, in cases of such extremities as the present, all appeals to the people of England are futile and degrading. Our only resource should be in our own exertions. They would be abundantly sufficient, if we could be brought to believe it.

Mr. G. remarked, that the people of Ireland had lately afforded an instructing lesson upon this point. They had arms in their hands for the purpose of asserting their rights; under the idea of acquiescence and submission they had surrendered them to the Government; perhaps, under the expectation of a change of Ministry. Did this act of submission render them more respectable in the eyes of the people of England? Did it encourage the hopes of those who wished the establishment of Government upon the principle of equal rights? Did it not rivet the chains upon the people of England? Did it render the people of Ireland more respectable in the eyes of the people of the United States? To these questions it was unnecessary to give an answer. The people of Ireland reaped the usual merits of submission—imposition and insult.

There was another consideration strongly in favor of the policy of the proposed measure. Applications have been already made from different parts of the United States by the immediate sufferers from the British depreciations, for an indemnification of their losses. These applications will, probably, be increased, repeated, and continued; the agricultural and other interests of the United States will, probably, never consent to equalize this burden. The claims of the sufferers upon the Government will gain additional weight, unless this fund should be offered to them for their indemnification. This is the obvious, the natural and the rightful fund for their indemnification; and he thought it was, at least, the duty of the Government to hold it as a pledge for their security. If this measure should not now be adopted, the refusal will lay a foundation for further parties in the United States, which may ultimately have a serious effect upon the Government.

An objection, of a very delicate and influential nature, has been made to the proposed measure, which required some consideration—that it would affect the character and credit of the Government. He had viewed this objection with the most deliberate attention, and felt the whole force of its imposing delicacy; but was at length perfectly satisfied that it was unfounded. This objection relates rather to the right than the policy of the United States to adopt the measure. If the United States possesses the right of reprisal upon an honest and sound interpretation of the laws of nations; if the conduct of Great Britain towards the United States be sufficient to justify the excess of the right, he believed the policy of exercising the right could never tarnish the American character, nor lessen the credit of American citizens hereafter. The world of nations, as well as individuals, will easily see, that it was a measure of compulsion, not of choice; that, although the United States believed, they regretted the necessity; that they were not the authors of the original wrongs; that they had borne them with patience, had used their endeavors to prevent the commission of them; and that, when these wrongs were committed and repeated, the United States possessed no other means of redress.

Under these circumstances, in the exercise of a substantial right, he did not believe there could flow any consequential wrong.

The motive would be looked at, and it would furnish a complete exoneration from blame, whilst the original aggressors would become justly responsible for all the consequences.

Mr. G. said, he could not sit down without making some remarks upon the fruits of the conduct heretofore observed by the United States. The most pacific system has heretofore marked the character of the Government. All America looked upon the late proclamation of neutrality as a competent guarantee for peace. He had no doubt but that it was dictated by the purest regard for peace. But what have been the fruits of it? He did not mean to condemn the conduct of the Executive. Perhaps it was suggested by the then existing state of things. He only intended to show, that it had not met with the return it merited, and which was reasonably expected from it.

It has not produced peace. A regard for peace has been construed into a fear of war. A resistance of the feelings of the people for the cause of France has been a palatable food for British arrogance and presumption. Submission to aggression has invited new aggressions; appeals for justice have been deemed testimonies of debility, till at length the United States, after having been stripped of their citizens and property, are upon the eve of a war, because they have not exerted their rights at an earlier period. If this conduct should have been heretofore wise and pacific, experience has taught us that it is no longer so; nothing can be expected from the justice, the honor, or the moderation of a court which has proved itself equally a stranger to them all; but, before such a tribunal, acquiescence will beget injuries, injuries will beget insults, and insults will beget contempt, degradation, and war.

Mr. Swift remarked that, on the first view of the subject, he had been inclined to favor the proposition, not having attended minutely to the distinction made by the laws of nations respecting the property of an enemy liable to reprisal; but on a full investigation of the subject, and mature deliberation, he was convinced that the proposition under consideration would be a direct and manifest violation of the laws of nations; he was, therefore, clearly and decidedly opposed to its adoption. Gentlemen have said much respecting the insults and the injuries which we have received from the British nation; but Mr. S. conceived it to be unnecessary that gentlemen should describe their insults and injuries in the highest colors to inflame our passions, and to animate our resentment. He believed that every gentleman in the committee deeply felt the indignity which had been offered to their country, and was convinced that Great Britain had been guilty of a violation of the laws of nations; but, under such circumstances, it was our duty to conduct with coolness, candor, and moderation. He thought that the heat and passion which had been manifested in the course of the debate were inconsistent with that dignity and propriety which ought to mark the deliberations of the Legislature.

Mr. S. observed, that the conduct of the British Court in regard to their concealing in such a singular manner the Order of the 6th of November, and the equivocal terms in which it was expressed, was greatly to their dishonor. But he thought that the words legal adjudication, would fairly admit of a construction that no American vessel that should be taken pursuant to that order, could be liable to be condemned, unless warranted by the laws of nations. There was reason to apprehend that such was the intention of the British Cabinet; and that the Courts of Admiralty in the West Indies, in their condemnations, had exceeded their jurisdiction, and contradicted the design of the Court of London. Recent intelligence confirmed the idea. No information of these illegal transactions had yet been communicated to them. It was possible that when that court were made acquainted with the injuries we had sustained that they would award restitution or compensation. Mr. S. remarked that, by the laws of nations, no nation had a right to make reprisal for any injury till all other means of obtaining justice had failed; that it was our duty in the first place to represent to the Court of Great Britain the spoliations that had been made on our commerce by the illegal condemnation of our vessels; that, till we had done this, the laws of nations would not warrant us to make reprisals on the goods and effects of the British nation. That there was a possibility of obtaining a satisfactory explanation of their conduct and reparation for the injuries we had suffered. It was, therefore, a proper subject of negotiation. But, he said, if that nation will not do us justice, then we are authorized to make reprisals.

Mr. S. then observed that, when we had taken such steps as would authorize reprisal, we should be precluded by the laws of nations from adopting the proposition under consideration. He said that a gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Mercer) had yesterday asserted that Burlamaqui was the only authority among the writers on the laws of nations against the measure; and that the opinion of Vattel was in favor of it. Another gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Smith) had read a passage from Vattel, which he considered as an authority in point, to justify the seizing of private debts; but not debts due from the public. But if these gentlemen had thoroughly examined Vattel, they would have found, instead of his being an authority in their favor, he had in the most direct terms maintained a contrary opinion. He then read a passage from Vattel, that showed that the effects of an enemy in a country at the time of a declaration of war cannot be seized, but that the owner is entitled to a reasonable time to remove them; and another passage, which expressly declared that, by the usage and custom of modern nations, public and private debts are not the subject of reprisal. Mr. S. conceived that these rules were founded in the highest wisdom; that all debts were contracted under a sanction of public faith, and an understanding that a war should not render them liable to seizure or confiscation; that a moral obligation existed between the contracting parties for the payment of the debts; and that no government could ever have a right to violate a moral obligation. That, therefore, by the law of nations in all instances where property comes into the possession of a nation by a confidence reposed in their honor and faith, as in case of public or private debts, such property can never be the subject of reprisal, because this would be to authorize a breach of public faith; but reprisals are always to be made on property in possession of the nation who has done the injury, and which may be taken without any violation of those principles, which ought to be held sacred in time of war.

Mr. S. remarked, that it had been suggested that the British nation had been guilty of a violation of the laws of nations in their treatment of us; and that, therefore, we were not bound to govern ourselves by that law in our conduct towards them. This argument, however plausible, he said, would not bear the test of examination; that all reprisals were justified only on the principle that the nation on whom reprisal is made has been guilty of a previous violation of the laws of nations. When a nation disregards that general law by which the conduct of all independent communities towards each other is to be regulated, the same law points out the mode of redress. If there has been no violation of that law, there can be no reprisal. If there has been a violation, then the reprisal must be pursuant to the law, for it is the highest absurdity to say, that because there has been an infraction of a law which authorizes a certain mode of redress, that we may pursue a different mode of redress in violation of the law which gives us the right. This would be at once to renounce the whole system of the laws of nations, and throw mankind back into a state of savage barbarity and ferocity.

Mr. S. then adverted to the policy of the measure. He said, upon a fair calculation, it would be found that the adoption of the proposition would be productive of far greater injury to this country than the amount of the losses sustained by our citizens in consequence of the spoliations committed upon our commerce. It is evident that this country, even admitting that a war should take place, would wish to renew their commercial connection with Great Britain. But if, in contempt of the law of nations, we seize on private debts, we shall for ever forfeit all credit; no trust can be reposed in our citizens, and no faith in our Government. No foreign merchants will ever deal on credit with our citizens, from a well-guarded apprehension that, in case of a war between the countries, the sacred nature of private contracts will not protect them against the hand of a Government which has exhibited the example of a deliberate violation of the laws of nations. When we consider the immense advantages that can be derived from private credit and national honor, it will be easy to imagine the infinite mischief that must result from a disregard of those principles.

Mr. S. objected to the measure on the ground that he considered it to be a declaration of war; and he did not think that the circumstances required or justified our taking that step. He said that notwithstanding the unwarrantable proceedings of the British nation; yet, no act had been done by the British Court that clearly indicated an intention to make war directly upon us, or that could be considered as direct and intentional war, though we might consider many of their acts as just causes of making war on our part.

The revocation of the Order of the 6th of November, the new instructions of the 8th of January, and the explanation given to the merchants of London, clearly evidenced that a war might be avoided with that nation. While there was the remotest possibility of preserving our peace we ought not to do an act which might endanger a war. While then the conduct of the British Cabinet would admit of an explanation, while there was a prospect that we might obtain by negotiation restitution of the property of our citizens or compensation for the losses they had sustained, we ought to pursue that mode; but if we proceeded to make reprisals by adopting an illegal measure, it must certainly be deemed a declaration of war.

The omission of the regular means of obtaining satisfaction by negotiation, and an unwarrantable mode of reprisal, would certainly be just causes of war. If we must be driven into a war, it would be of the highest advantage to us to conduct it in such a manner as to convince the people of Great Britain that we sincerely wished to avoid it, and that the unjust and illegal proceedings of their own court have been the sole cause of the war. In such a case we have reason to think, that so great is the interest of that nation in preserving our commercial connection, that a powerful party will be formed in our favor to oppose the injustice of the Government. The sentiments of the people will be against the war, and the court will find it extremely difficult to maintain it under such circumstances.

But if, without demanding an explanation, we proceed to adopt rash, violent, and unwarrantable measures, the spirit of the nation will rise against us, and the people will join the court in prosecuting a war which will be then deemed just and necessary.

Mr. S. then observed that we ought to take into consideration the present situation of Europe; that the late successes of the French nation had materially changed the political prospect. It was possible that these successes had been the cause which had produced an alteration in the views of the British Court. If events had happened which had rendered the disposition of that nation less unfriendly and hostile, we ought to take advantage of that circumstance, and not do any thing to check the progress of that favorable disposition. He most sincerely hoped that these successes would convince the combined powers of the impossibility to conquer France, and produce a general pacification.

While such were the prospects, he ardently wished that a measure repugnant to the principles of common honesty and common justice might be rejected; and he hoped that no gentleman in the committee would vote in favor of a proposition which would fix an indelible stigma on our national character.

The committee now rose, and had leave to sit again.

Thursday, April 10.

Non-Intercourse with Great Britain.

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, on the motion of the 7th instant, to prohibit all commercial intercourse between the citizens of the United States and the subjects of the King of Great Britain, so far as the same respects articles of the growth or manufacture of Great Britain or Ireland.

Mr. Sedgwick said he was sorry to rise, unprepared as he was, as he had yesterday occupied as great a portion of the time of the committee as perhaps he was entitled to. He had hoped some other gentleman would have risen, who, having better arranged his ideas than himself, had a preferable claim to the attention of the committee. Unprepared as he was, he could not permit a question so important as that under consideration to pass, without entering against it his solemn protest: a question involving the dearest interests of our country, and threatening to exchange the unexampled prosperity it had for some years enjoyed, for all the horrors of war. He said he the more regretted the part he was obliged to take on this occasion, because he feared he should, in his vote, divide from many gentlemen whom he much respected; but as his opinion had been formed on mature deliberation, neither his honor, his conscience, nor the duty he owed to his country, would permit him to be silent. If the evils he foresaw should result from the measure under consideration, he wished it might be known that no part of them could with justice be imputed to him as their author. If, therefore, he should be so unfortunate as to stand single and alone, he would not fail to oppose, as far as he could, the measure before the committee.

That injuries unprovoked and inexcusable had been inflicted by Great Britain on this country, was acknowledged by all. No man felt stronger indignation than himself at the insults which had been offered to our country, and the wrongs which had been done to our citizens; no man was less disposed tamely to bear the haughty and unprovoked aggressions of any foreign nation; no man would go further to procure redress for our wounded honor, and indemnification for our injured citizens. If, after seeking reparation in the way dictated by prudence and humanity, happily prescribed by the modern usages of civilized nations and commanded by the principle of religion; if fair negotiation should be tried, and justice not obtained, he would then seek redress by the means which God and nature had given us. He remembered well the miseries and vices of war, a war in which he had taken a part. It was a war of honor and interest: he well remembered its circumstances and effects. He had lived to see the wastes of that war repaired; to see a state of order and security; to see his country progressing in all the means of happiness. No man who loved his country, and rejoiced in its prosperity, would consent, but from inevitable necessity, to see it again plunged in the horrors of war.

Although all combined in opinion that our injuries were great, that they must be redressed, yet no one had suggested that war should precede negotiation. Respecting this, there was happily but one opinion. On every side of the House, it was acknowledged a duty indispensable in our present situation, to state our complaints of injuries to the authors of them, and to demand redress. We were only divided as to the manner of our application, and the circumstances under which our demand should be made. He had already, on another occasion, taken the liberty to declare his opinion of the line of conduct which was dictated by our present situation; that we should manifest that we are averse to war; but, should it become inevitable, we should encounter it with that undaunted spirit which became freemen, insulted in their honor and injured in their rights. He had the most perfect confidence in the bravery of our citizens. At the same time that he knew they would never surrender their rights, he was sensible that they would avoid, if possible, an unnecessary and wanton effusion of blood.

Gentlemen had disclaimed any intention to adopt any measures tending to war; they had said this measure had no tendency to such an event. This assertion he could not believe, because this measure contained a threat of inconvenience; and every threat of inconvenience was a cause of irritation, and every irritation between nations who had already differences to decide, undoubtedly tended to widen the breach, and of course to produce war. If gentlemen were sincere in their declarations, that all differences between America and Great Britain should be terminated by peaceable negotiation, (and he would not call their sincerity in question;) if Great Britain was proud, haughty, and insolent, as she had been repeatedly denominated, was it probable, he asked, that she would be more inclined to do us justice, by enlisting her pride and insolence against us?

Mr. S. said, that the late violences by which the property of our citizens had been plundered, were the immediate and avowed cause of the present measure; that as yet no representation of these injuries—no demand for compensation had been made; that such representation and demand should precede hostility was conceded by all. It only then remained to be considered, in what terms and manner such claim should be exhibited. In terms, he said, doubtless firm and decided; but if it was intended to produce the desired effect of peace, and to prevent hostility, the language should be decent and conciliatory. He called on gentlemen to show an instance, in modern times, where a nation complaining of injuries, but desirous of peace, had accompanied their demands of justice with threats of inconvenience? The opposite practice was universally established, and on the known principles of human nature. He appealed to the feelings of every honorable man in the committee, whether demands for justice and reparation for injuries were enforced by threats? whether repugnance to a compliance with such demands was not created by such means? If every man felt the operation of this principle, how much more powerful would it be on the minds of the governors of a nation styled proud and insolent? He said he would charge no man with an intention to involve this country in all the horrors and desolating scenes of war. He could not, however, help declaring, that war or amicable negotiation evidently must decide the controversies between America and Great Britain, and that were his mind determined on the former, he should recommend those measures which gentlemen had brought forward to the consideration of the House, as the most operative means of rendering the event certain, and of banishing every prospect of accommodation. To seize on British property, to confiscate or sequester British debts, to annihilate as far as in our power her commerce, to starve her manufacturers, and to humble her pride; these were infallible means of defeating negotiation, and of uniting, as one man, that nation against us, in all the views of her administration.

It had been said, that a principal benefit to be expected from the institution of Republican Government was, that cool and temperate reflection would direct the conduct of nations. How far our conduct on this occasion had verified such an expectation, he wished gentlemen to reflect. He had himself fondly hoped, in the Government of this country, to have seen these principles exemplified, and all intemperance of expression, and all the heat of passion, banished. It had been said, that a statesman should be all intellect: never, surely, was a time or a country, which more required than the present time, and by this country, the exercise of cool temper, to the exclusion of passion, to conduct with safety the political machine through surrounding dangers. He well remembered a former non-importation agreement; he remembered, too, its effects: they were such as might have been expected; they were such as to convince every cool and considerate man, that the measure itself was impolitic and unwise. It immediately raised the price of all articles of importation to an exorbitant and extravagant height. Hence it was immediately beneficial to importers and shopkeepers, and hence it may be easy to understand why this measure was said to be so popular in Philadelphia and other great towns. But as the Representatives of the whole people of America, the Legislature ought to reflect, that in proportion as this measure would operate beneficially to the dealers in imported commodities, it would become burdensome and oppressive to those who are best entitled to our regard—the substantial yeomanry of the country—on whom we must principally depend for support, in the arduous conflict which we had too much reason to apprehend. If we must eventually support our claims by arms, the more property we could import before the commencement of war, the more beneficial would it be. In that case, the most wise and prudent policy would be, that which would give the greatest extent to our credit; and, on the contrary, the most unwise and wretched, that which would tend to deprive our people of the ordinary means of supplies.

If this system should prevail, were we to receive British productions through other countries? This would be injuring ourselves, without affecting Great Britain. Was there any other country which could give us the same supplies we wanted? There certainly was none. Were we to depend on ourselves alone, the inconvenience would be great, if not intolerable. What, he further asked, would become of our produce, in the event contemplated? Without entering into a minute detail, he said, he would venture to pronounce that a great part of it would perish on our hands.

It was, he said, doubtful, how far at any time the proposed system might go to distress Great Britain; but, at this time, it would afford facility to her in recruiting her fleets and armies. Were manufacturers and laborers thrown out of employment, and thereby deprived of bread, they would be alike stimulated by want and despair to fight the battles of their country against those who had reduced them to necessity. In short, he saw nothing which should stimulate the Legislature to adopt this measure, but passion without, and resentment within, these walls. He saw nothing in the system itself, as it respected Great Britain, but vain and ineffectual irritation; nothing in relation to our own country, but defeat, wretchedness, and want.

He said he had taken the liberty to suggest to the committee certain constitutional considerations. The answers which had been given had been by no means satisfactory. It was incumbent on gentlemen who had so frequently warned us of the danger of usurping power—who had so frequently, and in language so animated, charged us to avoid grasping power, by implication and construction; it was incumbent on those gentlemen, would they preserve consistency of character, clearly to demonstrate the authority which they assumed, that it might not be supposed that their construction of the constitution was a convenient accommodation to the existing circumstances. It was not now a question whether the people had made a wise or prudent distribution of the powers of their Government: they had declared their will, and that will we were bound by every consideration of honor and duty to execute. In the instrument under which we acted, they had declared that the President, under certain modifications, should be their organ, to treat exclusively with foreign powers. This authority, thus exclusively delegated, includes all the terms on which a treaty could be formed. What was the present measure? Prescribing the terms of treaty, and restraining the constitutional power from treating on any other terms. If the Legislature could prescribe those terms, in this instance, it may then prescribe all the terms, in every instance; and of course control, in all things, the exercise of that power.

To this reasoning two answers have been given; the one by a gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Smilie,) that the Legislature might make such a law, because the Executive could repeal it. He really could not comprehend the force of the reasoning; he was glad, however he could, with perfect confidence, contradict the assertion, which he was sure would be a very disgusting one to the people of America. There was, in fact, in no instance, an authority given to the Executive to repeal a constitutional act of the Legislature. The other answer was that given by a gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Nicholas,) that there could be no objection to the exercise of this power, if it should be assented to by the President and Senate. This was a still more extraordinary and unsatisfactory answer than the other. It implied that the President and Senate could make grants of power to this House not contained in the constitution. To this he would answer, that all the powers which the House could legally exercise, were expressed in the instrument under which we acted; that those powers could be neither enlarged nor abridged, by any man or body of men on earth, but in the way pointed out by the instrument itself.

Mr. S. said these considerations he had expressed without any previous preparation, as they occurred to his mind. Should gentlemen who viewed the subject in the light he did remain silent, he would, in the further progress of this measure, he pledged himself, with more orderly arrangement, and he hoped with more perspicuity and force, address himself to the consideration of this committee, or of the House. It would avail little to tell him that his opposition would be unpopular; no man more than himself wished the good opinion of his countrymen, but no personal inconvenience, no loss of fame or popular affection, should ever induce him to see his country threatened with evils incalculable in number and duration, without warning her of her danger; a country which he loved, and which he might, on this occasion, be permitted to say, he had long served with honest fidelity, and without a single instance of sinister or mere personal regard.

The committee now rose, and had leave to sit again.

Friday, April 11.

Non-Intercourse with Great Britain.

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the motion of the 7th instant, to prohibit all commercial intercourse between the citizens of the United States and the subjects of the King of Great Britain, so far as the same respects articles of the growth or manufacture of Great Britain or Ireland.

Mr. Boudinot first rose this day, and said: Mr. Chairman, in a question of so much national importance, there needed no apology from any member of the committee for claiming their attention, while he gave the reasons for his vote. The impatience shown by his colleague, (Mr. Clark,) or any other gentleman, for the question, ought not to influence any member of the committee. When the fate of a nation of as much consequence as the United States, appeared to be suspended on a vote, the least to be expected from gentlemen was, to act with freedom, deliberation and independence. He supposed he should be among those who, at the taking of the question, would probably be found in the minority. That this would be his vote, if he was convinced that he should be single and alone. He felt himself deeply and seriously affected with a view of the precipice on which, in his apprehension, his country seemed to stand, and he wished, for his own part, to take a full and deliberate view of it, before he joined in precipitating a leap, that might not add to her safety or happiness. Reasoning and not declamation should be expected from gentlemen in favor of the measure under consideration.

He said, he would address himself to the judgments, and not to the passions of the committee. He acknowledged it might fall to his lot to mistake the true and essential interests of his country; but, if this should be the case, he had the satisfaction of knowing that it would arise from the most honest and upright intentions. It was, therefore, on these principles, that he should proceed in giving his opinion on the important resolution on the table.

But, before he went further, he could not forget the respectful compliment paid yesterday by his honorable friend from Maryland (Mr. Smith) to his moderation and gray hairs; indeed, he should not have taken it to himself, as he had the honor of having white, instead of gray hairs, had not Mr. S.'s attention been immediately fixed on him. If either age or moderation would command his worthy friend's close consideration of this subject, he besought him, as well as the other gentlemen of the committee, to join in attending to it calmly and seriously for a few moments, before the die was cast. He said, he owed much, on behalf of his country, to that gentleman for his services in the field during the late war, when both his zeal and his passions were rendered so eminently useful, that he could with pleasure apologize at all times for his warmth and animation on any subject when their common country was not to be affected. But would he permit him, earnestly, to request that, with other members, he would call to mind, that they were now the Representatives of four millions of people? That perhaps the lives of thousands of their fellow-citizens were depending on a single vote. That the welfare of a country dearer to them than life was at stake. Gentlemen must, therefore, agree, that the question was a serious one, and deserved to be treated with the most serious and deliberate consideration. Judgment, and not resentment, should direct the final determination, let it be what it may, and give a sanction to all their measures.

He observed, that gentlemen against the question had been accused of want of propriety, in looking calmly, and without the exercise of their passions, on the sufferings of the unhappy prisoners at Algiers, and the piratical spoliations of our fellow-citizens in the West Indies. Yes, sir, said he, when he knew that it was neither passion nor declamation that could afford effective relief to these suffering members of the political body, he should continue to persist in that steady, serious, and deliberate line of conduct, that, in his estimation, was only calculated to produce that permanent and efficient aid and relief, which their extreme distress so loudly called for; but, in his turn, he asked gentlemen to give up their warmth on this occasion, that they might also reflect, even without passion, on the number of their fellow-citizens that must fall a sacrifice in the most successful war. Will not gentlemen weigh well that vote, that may possibly increase the number of mourning widows and helpless orphans?

These considerations had led him to consider the measure now proposed, as of great moment and importance, and to wish it might be reasoned on and considered in a manner becoming Legislators and Representatives of United America, who have been sent here as her counsellors and trustees, and to whom she has committed her best and most sacred interests. He said, for argument's sake, and to simplify the debate, lest he should be drawn into unnecessary disputation, he should concede for the present: the constitutionality of the resolution proposed; the right of the committee to originate and determine on the measure; the unprovoked aggressions of Great Britain to warrant and justify the prohibition.

These arguments had been repeated and urged with great apparent force, by gentlemen in favor of the affirmative side of the question; but, were the principles arising from these facts sufficient to justify a determination in favor of so harsh and unprecedented a proceeding, without previously demanding an explanation and full indemnification, agreeably to the customs and usages of other nations?

Would arguments of this kind satisfy our constituents, if they should find themselves suddenly plunged into an expensive and ruinous war? Would it not very naturally be asked, why were not the true interests of the United States under these existing circumstances carefully inquired into, and made the principal and leading object of attentive consideration? In his opinion, this should peculiarly be the sum of their present inquiry—was it not the duty of the committee critically to examine into the preparation they were in for a step, that, in the imagination of some gentlemen of character and reputation, at the last, might precipitate our country into an immediate war? Were our ports and harbors in any tolerable state of defence? Were our magazines and arsenals properly supplied? Were our citizens in a state of organization as militia? In short, did not the measure threaten a sudden transition from a state of profound peace and happiness, unequalled by any nation, into a state of war and bloodshed, without taking those previous and prudent measures that might probably lead to an avoidance of this national evil, or at all events enable us to meet it with decision and effect?

Gentlemen had referred the committee to the conduct of America in 1776, and the success of the late war has been urged for our encouragement. The non-importation agreement has been recurred to as a precedent in point. He said, he was well acquainted with most of the events of the late Revolution. The first motions towards it, found him engaged in the common cause, and his best endeavors to complete and secure it had never since been wanting. He well remembered the consequences of the non-importation agreement, and the sufferings of our brave fellow-citizens from that imprudent measure. He had tracked them over the frozen ground by their blood, from the want of shoes, and was sensible that many had perished by the inclemency of the season, for want of tents and clothing: that agreement was universally reprobated, as a measure imprudently entered into on the principle of expecting to be involved in a war, which had it been then contemplated, nothing could have justified. Mr. B. appealed to the knowledge of many men who heard him, that this agreement had often been urged to Great Britain, as a conclusive evidence, that at the time of its adoption, America had not the least intention of independence, or a separation from the mother country; otherwise, she could never have been guilty of so impolitic a resolution. He asked, then, if the committee would now repeat the mistake with their eyes open, and expose our country to the same misfortunes, and our fellow-citizens to a repetition of sufferings, by a measure that promised not one important advantage to the Union that he had heard of? In the late war, America had all the ports and harbors of the other European nations open to her, but now circumstances would be altered; in case of a war the very reverse would be our position, excepting as to those of France.

Mr. B. confessed, that his arguments were founded on his conviction that the resolution was a measure that would necessarily produce war, immediate, inevitable war.

His reasons were drawn from the present state of Great Britain, being in alliance with the principal powers of Europe, and under treaties to make all wars, arising from the united opposition to France, a common cause.

The necessity she would have of employing her supernumerary hands, if not in manufactures, in her armies and navies, to prevent trouble at home, added to her old grudge against us on account of principles that promise much trouble to all the monarchs of Europe: her late conduct with regard to our trade, founded on the instructions of the 8th of June, and 6th November last: her withholding the posts, contrary to every principle of justice and good faith, and against the most positive assurances: and lastly, from the anxiety to regain the territory between the Lakes and the Mississippi;—he agreed that neither of these singly, nor even the whole together, could justify her in her own opinion, in making an open attack upon us, but might tempt her to construe the measure before the committee into an act of hostility on our part, as contrary to our professed neutrality. He said, it was a point conceded in the laws of nations, that granting to one of the belligerent powers advantages in your ports which were refused to another, was a breach of neutrality.

The object with Great Britain would be, to convince her allies, that the aggression arose on account of the war with France, to prevail on them to make it a common cause; and in this they would not want plausible evidence. It was not sufficient, he alleged, that we knew ourselves innocent of the charge. We should be prudently careful not unnecessarily to give reason to justify the construction. If the previous steps of negotiation, used by all civilized nations, were neglected, they would have the advantage of the argument, and we should injure ourselves. He asked if any gentleman would say that a prohibition of commerce at the eve of a war, or even the apprehension of it, was wisely calculated to clothe an army, replenish our magazines, supply our arsenals, or provide a revenue by which to support a war?

He wished every member had taken the trouble he had done, of looking into their stores, inquiring what was on hand, calculating what would be absolutely necessary, and reflecting seriously and dispassionately on the sources of supply. If they had, he doubted not but that they would find something more than passion and resentment necessary, to meet the probable consequences of so premature a determination.

It was no uncommon thing for gentlemen to differ on important measures; and he would not even insinuate, that he might not be found wrong in these ideas, and wholly mistaken in his conjectures on this occasion, but he begged members to consider the different ground on which the two sides of the House stood. If the minority, of whom he expected to be one, should in the end be found to have been alarmed with consequences altogether unfounded, and that the issue proved successful to the peace of our common country, they would have the happiness of rejoicing with the majority in their superior wisdom and foresight; and though even they should suffer in character, yet their country would be saved. But if the minority should in the end be right, and our country should be deluged in a destructive war, and her best interests be endangered by the discovery of the mistake too late for redress, gentlemen in favor of the resolution, would seriously regret that they had not at least used more caution.

He said, as at present advised, he should give his vote against the resolution. It would be from a thorough conviction, on the most careful examination, that the resolution was against the interest and welfare of the United States, all circumstances considered. And this he should do, wholly regardless of the malevolent insinuations, that Britain had an influence in that House. He felt a conscious dignity of mind, a virtuous pride of heart, in believing that it was not all the wealth of that opulent nation could purchase his influence to a single measure injurious to his country; and under that conviction, he could not believe there was a member of the committee in a different predicament.

He again repeated, that he should most sincerely rejoice, if this measure should be adopted, to find, in the end, that his mind had viewed it, as productive of consequences that were wholly unfounded; and, although under his present view of the subject, considering it as inimical to his country, he was bound in conscience to vote against it, yet the councils of America were directed by superior wisdom, and that this country had reaped the rich harvest of peace and happiness. But it might now be asked, if it was meant passively to submit to the injuries acknowledged on all hands to have been sustained by the imperious and overbearing conduct of Great Britain? He answered no, by no means.

He would follow the examples and pursue the measures of other nations in like circumstances—examples and measures founded in policy and sound understanding. He would, by a special envoy, make known to that court our sense of her unwarrantable aggressions; he would demand immediate indemnification for the present, and security against future sufferings of the like nature—insist on a categorical answer, after applying to her justice and best interests; and if at last a war must be the only means of obtaining justice, he would then (being previously prepared) meet it as became a free and independent nation, trusting to the righteousness of her cause.

By this means, the other nations of Europe would be made acquainted with our complaints—become witnesses to our love of peace, and bear testimony to the justice of our appeal to arms. He said, he had fully considered the question—he had viewed it in every point of light—he had endeavored to consider the consequences which most probably would arise from it, and he could not convince his mind, that the measure would be productive of any good to the United States, while it offered many reasons to conclude, that it might be fraught with the greatest evil. In case of the most successful war, America had nothing to gain, while her loss of blood and treasure was sure and certain. He had once flattered himself that this was the only country on the globe, whose interest it was to be at peace with all the world, and at the same time the interest of all the world to be at peace with us. But he feared we had been so much actuated by a resentment of injuries received, as to lose sight of our true interests under existing circumstances, and, therefore, should be hurried into measures we might hereafter have reason seriously to lament.

The committee now rose.

Monday, April 21.

Non-Intercourse with Great Britain.

The House resumed the consideration of the resolution reported by the Committee of the whole House on the fifteenth instant, to prohibit all commercial intercourse between the citizens of the United States and the subjects of the King of Great Britain, or the citizens or subjects of any other nation, so far as the same respects articles of the growth or manufacture of Great Britain or Ireland; and the amendment and modification thereof, which was proposed on Friday last, being further considered and debated, the said resolution was amended to read as follows:

"Whereas, the injuries which have been suffered, and may be suffered, by the United States, from violations committed by Great Britain on their neutral rights and commercial interests, as well as from her failure to execute the seventh[50] article of the Treaty of Peace, render it expedient for the interest of the United States, that the commercial intercourse between the two countries should not continue to be carried on in the extent at present allowed:

"Resolved, That, from and after the first day of November next, all commercial intercourse between the citizens of the United States and the subjects of the King of Great Britain, or the citizens or subjects of any other nation, so far as the same respects articles of the growth or manufacture of Great Britain or Ireland shall be prohibited:"

And then the main question being put, that this House doth agree to the said resolution, as amended, it was resolved in the affirmative—yeas 58, nays 38, as follows:

Yeas.—James Armstrong, Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, John Beatty, Thomas Blount, Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel Christie, Thomas Claiborne, Abraham Clark, Isaac Coles, William J. Dawson, Henry Dearborn, George Dent, William Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Nicholas Gilman, Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, George Hancock, Carter B. Harrison, Thomas Hartley, John Heath, John Hunter, William Irvine, Matthew Locke, William Lyman, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, Joseph McDowell, Alexander Mebane, William Montgomery, Andrew Moore, William Vans Murray, Joseph Neville, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Josiah Parker, Andrew Pickens, Francis Preston, Robert Rutherford, Thomas Scott, John S. Sherburne, John Smilie, Israel Smith, Samuel Smith, Thomas Sprigg, Thomas Tredwell, Abraham Venable, Francis Walker, Benjamin Williams, Richard Winn, and Joseph Winston.

Nays.—Fisher Ames, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Lambert Cadwalader, David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Joshua Coit, Samuel Dexter, Uriah Forrest, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Daniel Heister, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, John Wilkes Kittera, Henry Latimer, Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee, Francis Malbone, Theodore Sedgwick, Jeremiah Smith, William Smith, Zephaniah Swift, Silas Talbot, George Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, John E. Van Allen, Peter Van Gaasbeck, Peleg Wadsworth, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Artemas Ward, John Watts, and Paine Wingate.