The language is plain; public ships are not interdicted. There is but one question to be decided in disposing of this bill, and that is respecting public ships; for I believe all will agree to renew the non-intercourse act as respects France. The question is, what regulation shall we make respecting public ships, and one of three courses is to be pursued? Shall we exclude both, admit both, or discriminate?
There are many who would be willing to exclude the armed ships of every foreign power from our harbors and waters. And considering what we have suffered by admitting them, it may be well questioned whether it would not be the best policy of this nation to interdict them by a permanent law. Yet many gentlemen object to this, as being inexpedient at this period. It is said, and it is the principal argument urged against it, that it might embarrass our impending negotiations with Great Britain to interdict her public ships by this act. As I feel as much disposed for an amicable adjustment of our differences with that nation as any member of this House, and would be as unwilling to embarrass the negotiation, I would not insist on this interdiction.
It is also said that England has made reparation, or agreed to make reparation, for the aggression which caused the interdiction of her public ships, and that as the cause no longer exists the interdiction should cease. Be it so; and may we never have fresh cause to renew it!
But, say gentlemen, we must not now recede from the ground we have taken with respect to France, we must discriminate. Let us for a moment view the ground we have taken—not only as relates to France, but England also.
We are not at war with either of the belligerents. Our Ministers at their respective Courts are endeavoring to negotiate, and by negotiation to obtain redress for the injuries of which we complain, and whatever precautionary measures we might adopt would not be deemed a violation of our neutral character, so long as those measures were equally applicable to both the belligerents. We could not be deemed to have taken part with either to the prejudice of the other, while no other was benefited by our measures. While British public ships were interdicted, and our embargo existed, an offer was made to both the belligerents to resume our trade—the same equal terms were tendered to both. The nation refusing is left without a cause of complaint against us, for resuming our trade with the nation accepting the offer.
Before either nation does accept, America changes her position. The embargo is abandoned, and a general interdiction of the public ships of England and France, and a non-intercourse with these nations and their dependencies, is substituted. By this non-intercourse act, the particular interdiction is merged in a general regulation. This was to exist until the end of the next session of Congress only. This was virtually saying, that the proclamation interdicting British public vessels from our waters for a particular aggression shall be revoked; and a general municipal regulation, over which the President shall have no control, shall be substituted in its stead. It was then, in order to preserve our neutral character, necessary that this rule should embrace both the belligerents. It may be said, and has indeed been frequently said, that the reason of extending this restriction to France, was her having burnt our vessels and imprisoned our seamen. But never, at least in the history of diplomacy, have cause and effect been more distant and unconnected. France, on the high seas, burns our vessels, and in her own territories imprisons our seamen. We, at the distance of three thousand miles, interdict our ports and waters to her public ships, which do not or dare not come within five hundred leagues of the line of our interdicted territory, and this is to retaliate for the aggression. Can this interdiction be defended on this ground? It cannot. There must have existed some other reason. It was to preserve our relations with the belligerents in that state that should be consistent with our professions of neutrality.
Had the interdiction been confined to British vessels by this law, what would Great Britain have said to this discrimination? In vain might we have told her that we meant to preserve our neutral character, and not to take a part with her enemies in the war against her. Our acts would have been directly opposed to our professions. With this discriminating, permanent, municipal law, could we expect Great Britain to treat with us as a neutral? If we did, we should be disappointed. If, then, it be inexpedient to make this discrimination against Great Britain, how is it less so, when directed against France? We are to admit British and exclude the French. And, are we to endeavor to negotiate, as neutrals, with France, upon this ground, with any reasonable prospect of success? It is desirable that the commercial intercourse between this country and France should be restored. Peace and free trade is the interest and the object of America. While we throw wide open the door of negotiation to England, why should we shut it against France? While we facilitate negotiations with the British, why should we embarrass and prevent the same with the French? I wish to leave the Executive and treaty-making powers of our Government free and unshackled, to enter on negotiation with both these Governments, under every advantage of success which we can give. On what ground can this discrimination be defended? You adopt this measure. Our Minister at Paris is requested to explain it. Is there any advocate for this discrimination in this House, who can conceive the grounds upon which our Minister or our Government are to justify this measure with our relations of neutrality? It cannot be defended. I am not for yielding to either nation, but, let our conduct be consistent, impartial, and defensible. If then, we are to be involved in a war with either, the resources of the country and the hearts of our citizens will support the Government, and we need not be afraid of the world. But those men, or that Administration that will, upon a mere useless, punctilious point of etiquette, commit the peace and happiness of this country to the ravages of war, will meet the indignation, and feel the vengeance of the intelligent citizens of the country. This temerity would meet its merited punishment. The people of America can see, and will judge for themselves; they can readily discern the difference between shadow and substance; they are neither to be deceived or trifled with, especially on subjects of such immense moment to their liberties and happiness.
Mr. Burwell said he deemed it in some degree his duty to make some remarks on the bill before the House. He intended to vote against both the amendments proposed to the bill. I think (said Mr. B.) that if my colleague who moved the first amendment, (Mr. Sheffey,) had taken that view of this subject which might have been presented to his mind, he would not have found such error in the course proposed to be pursued. He seems to have taken another ground, when by the clearest demonstration it might have been shown that the system proposed is one of impartiality to the belligerent powers of Europe. It will be recollected by gentlemen of this House, that at the time the exclusion of French armed ships took place, it was upon the express ground that the British Government objected to come to an accommodation with us, because we excluded her vessels and nominally admitted those of her enemy. On that ground I venture to say that the exclusion took place; because, at the time that it took place, it was considered a measure absolutely favoring Great Britain, yet not injuring France by a nominal prohibition of the entrance of her vessels. It was stated that there was not perhaps in the course of a year a single French public armed vessel in the harbors of the United States. Have we any French frigates now in our seas? None. Is there any probability that there will be any? No, sir; for France having now lost her West India Islands, if her vessels are freely admitted, it is probable that there would not, in the course of five years, be a single French vessel within our waters. As the exclusion would be perfectly nominal, I would not adopt any thing to prevent a settlement of our differences with France. I am not now sanguine in my belief that we shall settle our differences with her; for every one acquainted with that Government knows, I fear, that it is not to be diverted from its object by any arrangement we may make. But I would do away every possible justification that could be urged by France for not meeting our overtures for peace. This conduct would produce at home more union among our citizens; and, when our rights are attacked without a pretence for their infraction, there can be but one sentiment in the nation. I have always determined to admit British vessels as far as my vote would go; and should the House determine to exclude French vessels I should still vote for the admission of English vessels, because their former exclusion has been so artfully managed by the British Government, and the doctrine has been so admitted by the presses in this country, as to give rise to the most unjustifiable conduct ever pursued by one nation towards another. As to the idea advanced by the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Taylor,) that, if we do admit them to take possession of our waters, they will take advantage of the privilege to our injury in negotiation, it has no force with me, for this plain reason; that, although the exclusion of them from our waters was not carried into execution by physical force, yet they did not enter our waters, which they might have done, in defiance of the proclamation. And why did they not? Because, I presume, they had no desire to rouse the indignation of this nation by an open violation of the laws of the land.
If, sir, you wish to gain the advantage of union at home, take away every pretext for the violation of your rights. Let me ask if it be not better to admit them? By so doing you give up a principle which does not benefit you, and receive an accession of physical strength by union at home. I do not say that every one will be satisfied, because I have no doubt England has agents in the country, but so few in number as to be unworthy of notice. If Great Britain, on the other hand, attacks us when we have taken away every possible ground of collision and violates her promise, the people in every part of the country will be satisfied that her deliberate object is to destroy our commerce. We should have no more of those party divisions which have distracted us for some months past.
It cannot be said that we are bound by any part of the negotiation to admit English vessels. I have seen nothing of the kind, if it exist; and I call upon gentlemen to point it out. Why do it, then? It may be considered a concession; and certainly manifests that disposition which we feel to settle all the points of difference in agitation betwixt us. And here I beg leave to say that, according to the most explicit declarations of the British Minister, you would not give the smallest umbrage by pursuing that course. On this subject Mr. B. quoted a speech of Mr. Stevens in the British Parliament. If we were to be governed by reference to expressions which existed in that country of our partiality to France, it did appear to him that this speech was entitled to weight, because it justified the course proposed by the bill, and stated a position which the British Government admitted was all that could be required from a neutral State. From this speech it appeared that placing the two belligerents on an equal footing was all that was required. Did not this bill completely come up to their wishes? Did it not interdict all trade with France under the most severe and heavy penalties? Mr. B. said he did not wish it to be understood that he would shape his conduct by the wishes of the British Ministry; but, as it had been said that the bill was somewhat hostile to that country, he had quoted the speech of a ministerial member to show that no such inference could be drawn. The same person, in his speech, also states, said Mr. B., that the reason why our offer in August last was not accepted, was, that, if it had been accepted, such was the situation of the law, that a commerce might always be carried on with the enemy; that, through the ports in Europe, her enemy might be as efficiently supplied as if the embargo did not exist in relation to him. But, sir, what is now the state of things? If it is possible to operate on France by commercial restrictions, let me ask if this bill will not accomplish that object? Let me ask if an American vessel under it can go to any port of France? It not only cuts off direct intercourse, but prohibits the importation of the products of France; and any attempt to carry on a circuitous commerce must be ineffectual, inasmuch as the produce will be liable to seizure when it comes into the ports of the United States.