Mr. Griswold said, if he understood the state of the business, the question was, whether the committee would agree to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Virginia? If it contained sentiments accordant to the feelings of the committee, it would of course be adopted; if not, it would doubtless be rejected.
He supposed it would form an objection to this amendment, if it were found to be inconsistent with the other parts of the report. He believed this to be the case; but he would not make objections to it on this ground. He would examine the paragraph itself, and see whether it contained sentiments in unison with those of the committee. He believed this would not be found to be the case, and that when the committee had taken a view of it, it would be rejected.
If he understood the proposition, it contained three distinct principles, viz:
1. To make a new apology for the conduct of the French Government towards this country.
2. That the House of Representatives shall interfere with and dictate to the Executive in respect to what concessions ought to be made to the French Republic.
3. It depends upon the spirit of conciliation on the part of France for an adjustment of the differences existing between the two Governments.
The apology, he said, was a new one, and one which the French had not thought of making for themselves; for they tell us, as it appears from Mr. Pinckney's letter to the Secretary of State, "they will not acknowledge or receive another Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States, until after the redress of the grievances demanded of the American Government, and which the French Republic has a right to expect from it." We say (or rather the gentleman from Virginia says in his amendment) they rejected our Minister because he had not power enough; therefore, for the apology now made for the French Government they were indebted to the ingenuity of the mover.
Now, said Mr. G., I do not wish that the House of Representatives should undertake to make apologies for the conduct of the French Government towards this. It was true they needed apology; but he did not think it was proper for us to make it for them. Further, as this apology was not made by themselves, but wholly different from their own assertions, it was not likely that they would fall into it. They say, "Permit us to sell our privateers in your ports; annul treaties and repeal laws, and then we will tell you on what terms we will receive Mr. Pinckney, and peace from you." After this declaration, he did not think it would be proper to attempt any new apology for them. He therefore supposed, that so far as this proposition offered a new apology for the French Republic, it could not meet with the approbation of the committee.
The next proposition contained in the amendment was, that the House of Representatives should interfere with the Executive power of this country, and dictate to it what sort of steps should be taken towards reconciling the French Government. He asked whether this was consonant to the principles of the constitution? Whether the constitution had not delegated the power of making treaties to other branches of the Government? He believed it had, and that therefore we had no right to dictate to the Executive what should or what should not be done with respect to present disputes with the French Government. On this ground, therefore, he considered it as improper.
In the next place, the amendment contained another proposition, viz: that we rely upon a spirit of conciliation on the part of France for an accommodation of differences. And, said Mr. G., do we really rely upon this? Have we such evidence as should incline us to rely upon it? Have the French Government expressed any inclination to settle the differences subsisting between them and us? The communications which were received from the Supreme Executive, do not bear this complexion. The communication from the French Minister to this Executive does not wear it. Our proclamations are called insidious; our Minister is insulted and rejected; and attempts are made to divide the people of this country from their Government. Is this conciliation? Does it not rather appear as if they intended to alienate the affections of the people from their Government, in order to effect their own views? He was convinced it did, and that they could not rely upon a spirit of conciliation in them. For his own part, he did not rely upon it; he relied upon this country being able to convince the world that we are not a divided people; that we will not willingly abandon our Government. When the French shall be convinced of this, they will not treat us with indignity. Therefore, he trusted, as the proposed amendment did not contain such sentiments as were likely to accord with the feelings of the committee, that it would be rejected.