Haying completed the reading, Mr. R. resumed his remarks. I have, said he, to ask pardon of the House for detaining them with the reading of so lengthy a document. That it contains perhaps the only correct historical detail extant of this truly curious transaction, must constitute my apology.
I will now ask, Mr. Speaker, who ever have been, and still are, the unshaken friends of the navigation of the Mississippi, and of the Western interests of this Union? It is not my wish, sir, on this occasion, to cast gentlemen opposed to us into the shade—to throw them into the background. All we ask is an equal share of confidence in our zeal to assert this great right, until we shall have proved ourselves unworthy of it. What is there then exhibited from the earliest period of our history? What fact has transpired which renders us undeserving of that confidence, or which entitles gentlemen on the other side of the House exclusively to it? Shall we then silently submit to the intolerant assumption on their part of all feeling for this important right, involving the vital interests of our country? Shall we sit down contented under the imputation of lukewarmness in this cause? or, shall we tell those gentlemen that under every circumstance, and in all situations, with closed doors, as well as with open doors, we have been, are, and ever will be, the unalterable supporters of the free navigation of the Mississippi?
The sentiments which have been displayed in the course of this proceeding, present a phenomenon in the history of what are termed regular Governments. When an Administration have formed the design of subverting the public liberties—of enriching themselves or their adherents out of the public purse, or of crushing all opposition beneath the strong hand of power—war has ever been the favorite ministerial specific. Hence have we seen men in power too generally inclined to hostile measures, and hence the opposition have been, as uniformly, the champions of peace—not choosing to nerve with new vigor (the natural consequence of war) hands, on whose hearts or heads they were unwilling to bestow their confidence. But how shall we account for the exception which is now exhibited to this hitherto received maxim? On the one part the solution is easy. An Administration under which our country flourishes beyond all former example—with no sinister views—seeking to pay off the public encumbrances, to lessen the public burdens, and to leave to each man the enjoyment of the fruits of his own labor, are, therefore, desirous of peace, so long as it can be preserved consistently with the interests and honor of the country. On the other hand, what do you see? Shall I say an opposition sickening at the sight of the public prosperity, seeking through war, confusion, and a consequent derangement of our finances, that aggrandizement which the public felicity must for ever forbid? No, sir, my respect for this House and for those gentlemen forbids this declaration, whilst, at the same time, I am unable to account on any other principle for their conduct. Mr. R. concluded by saying, that he had forborne these observations until they were extorted from him. He had hoped that gentlemen would have let the business take its course, after the decision of yesterday, and that the House would have gone into committee on the confidential Message; but gentlemen had insisted on discussing the merits of the navigation on a preliminary question. The business having taken that turn, he thought it due to himself and friends to repel the odium which it was endeavored to attach to them.
Mr. Dana thought it was not necessary on this subject to enter into a history of political parties in this country. And when the gentleman from Virginia undertook to give a history, he had no idea that he was about giving details of secret history. He had supposed he was about offering a general view of the subject. He did not know that it was to be stated who were friendly or unfriendly to the rights of our Western citizens, much less that there was an established hereditary hostility to them. He had supposed that all the gentlemen on that floor had expressed the wishes of the people; he had supposed there was but one opinion; he had heard of no insinuation of difference. The only difference which he had thought existed was as to the means to be used, and the time when those means should be carried into effect. But as to the natural right, and the ultimate enjoyment of the nation to the free navigation of the Mississippi, he asked what gentleman had charged another with any doubts on that? And when we all agree in this, whence the necessity of calling up the animosities of party? May not gentlemen express their opinions in favor of decided measures, when the voice of the nation had been so audibly expressed, without such expression being construed into a censure upon others? When, too, the opinions of other gentlemen on fundamental points coincided with your own? Is it necessary, when the whole nation is alive, to be moderate in the expression of our ideas? If we do not come from that part of the Union more immediately affected by the late measures at New Orleans, are we therefore to be indifferent and unconcerned spectators of events? If, standing here as Representatives of the United States, we are not at liberty to attend to any thing not confined to the trifling district of country we may each of us represent, miserable is the ground on which we stand, and humble indeed our condition! But let me say, even on this ground, the ship-owners and the merchants on the Atlantic are deeply interested. Our Western citizens are certainly more deeply interested in the freedom of the Mississippi; but it goes to the great interests of navigation generally. They feel it most; but we feel it much.
This is all I deem it necessary, said Mr. D., to observe on the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia on his historical detail. Sir, this ought not to be made a party question. With respect to the motion before the House, my colleague has drawn it in terms the most respectful. Gentlemen propose to refer it to a Committee of the Whole. To this we object, because we want the information promptly. But the votes of gentlemen prevail, and it is referred. Our next step is to refer it immediately, to avoid delay. To obtain information, full and prompt, is the end of our endeavors. Why are we told of the inconsistency of our means? The course we pursue is plain and direct; that which carries us steadily to our obtaining information; and if the House will not give it to us in the way we wish, we are for taking it in the best way we can. Let it be remarked, that, if no obstacles had taken place at New Orleans, the subject of the cession of Louisiana is referred to in the Message of the President. Is not the information, we ask, important, in the general view, of who are to be our neighbors; where, from the dispersed population of our citizens, the Union is most vulnerable? And in this light it would have been proper to get the information, even if the measures at New Orleans had not occurred. It makes no difference whether those measures are the measures of Spain or of France. The two points were not necessarily connected, though I admit that the proceedings at New Orleans have a bearing on the general subject. With regard to the measures at New Orleans, we have information, and have obtained it. That information has been referred to a Committee of the Whole. We now ask information respecting the cession; and having got it, let us refer that also, and deliberate on the measures proper to be taken. Cannot the logical talents of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Bacon) distinguish between information and measures? Will he say that premises and conclusions are the same thing? This information is that on which we are to deliberate. I had supposed facts necessary to legislate on. I had thought there was, to be sure, a connection between one step and another which follows. But will the gentleman say, that whenever we ask information, we conclude upon measures?
The yeas and nays were then taken on the call of Mr. Griswold, on going into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, which was lost—yeas 38, nays 48, as follows:
Yeas.—Phanuel Bishop, Thomas Boude, John Campbell, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Thomas T. Davis, William Dickson, William Eustis, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Seth Hastings, William Helms, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer Mattoon, Samuel L. Mitchill, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Morris, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, John Cotton Smith, John Stanley, John Stratton, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, Thomas Tillinghast, George B. Upham, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.
Nays.—Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus Bailey, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William Butler, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard Cutts, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Joseph Heister, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Michael Leib, David Meriwether, Thomas Moore, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jun., Joseph H. Nicholson, John Randolph, jun., John Smilie, John Smith, (of New York,) John Smith, (of Virginia,) Josiah Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jun., John Stewart, John Taliaferro, jun., David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, John P. Van Ness, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, and Thomas Wynns.
Mr. Griswold said, that notwithstanding the unfortunate situation they were placed in by the refusal of the House, he still deemed it his duty to move other resolutions, which he would read, and move to be referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Mr. G. then moved the following resolutions: