kind, but he was afraid of involving our country in a war. Mr. G. observed that, when he said it was our duty to prohibit the fitting out of armed merchant vessels, he thought he owed it to our own security to do so; and as the President had told them that he had prohibited the fitting out of any such vessels until the will of Congress was known upon the subject, he saw no danger that could arise from vessels still remaining unarmed. And if there were any merchant vessels arming, he believed it would be the best for the Government to remain silent on the subject; for their, if merchants proceeded to acts of hostility, Government might disclaim the act, and they alone would have to answer for them. Mr. G. concluded by saying, that this being a new subject, he should be glad to hear what could be said in favor of it, or of any historical fact which could throw light upon it. [H.OF R. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SWANWICK) had objected to the arming of merchant vessels because of the expense. He believed the merchants of the United States in general thought differently, though there might be some merchants in this city who would be averse to the measure. As to the expense, he believed the expense of fitting out the vessels would be more than saved in the insurance. But there was a further consideration-by this means the vessels and seamen would be preserved to the United States; whereas, if it were not adopted, we not only lose our vessels and men, but they go to strengthen the power of a nation which may use them against us. And unless France knows that this Government will afford protection to its vessels, we might expect that she would take advantage of our remissness, by spinning out the negotiation, and plundering our property. Something had been said about the conduct of Mr. Corr complained of the proposition when other neutral nations. He believed they had first introduced, and now amended, being very in-armed their merchantmen, though he did not definite. He thought the provision should be made, but he wished the object to be defined. He could not say that he could so modify the resolution that he could himself vote for it; he had not made up his mind upon the subject as to what cases restrictions should be made; but, in order to take the sense of the committee, he would move an amendment, in order to bring the subject before them. It was to strike out "certain cases," and to insert at the end of the resolution "bound to the East Indies and to the Mediterranean." Mr. HARPER proposed to amend the amendment by adding the word "West," after "East," so as to read "East and West Indies." pledge himself to prove it; but if this were not the case, they had fleets to convoy their trade. We, on the contrary, had no fleet, nor did gentlemen seem desirous that they should have any, since they have expressed their wishes that the frigates now building were burnt. He asked what was to become of the commerce of this country, if we refused to protect it? If we were to resort to an embargo, what would be the consequences? You would not, said he, suffer your vessels to lay up forever. After a time, they would be sent out again, and they would be taken again. In case of an embargo, what, he asked, would become of our seamen? They would wander about the country, discontented, and perishing for want. What would become of our produce? It would rot upon our wharves. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GALLATIN) had not said neutral nations had not a right to arm their merchant vessels, and he had no doubt, if he could have done it he would. Was it, then, right for us to sit still and see the property of our merchants spoliated? Was it not our duty to protect our commerce, our merchants, our revenue? If we were to suffer these to be laid waste, when that state of things arrived, which he believed was not far distant, in what a situation should we be! Nay, he believed that the conduct of gentlemen on that floor would have the effect to increase the demands of France upon us, by contrasting her means and our weakness. Mr. W. SMITH did not think it material whether West Indies was inserted, or the amendment rejected altogether. It was his wish that the committee should first have decided upon the abstract principle. Presuming it to be the existing law of this country that merchants have a right to arm their vessels, he wished to know whether it was their wish to interfere in regulating and restricting that right. He believed the modification of the subject might very well have been done in the bill. He would have risen before to have given his reason for this, had he not been prevented from doing so by gentlemen who had complained that he had not done it. He was in favor of the amendment to the amendment; but if it was not carried, he should be against the amendment. It would be in vain to take into consideration the East India and Mediterranean trade, when spoliations were principally committed in the West Indies, when, indeed, the object of the present meeting of Congress was principally to take into consideration the protection of the West India and European trade; he presumed, therefore, if they meant to do anything effectual, they should take into consideration the West In- But he was surprised that that gentleman should dia trade. Gentlemen were very ready, he said, have treated so cavalierly our good ally, the Dey to object to every plan brought forward, but they of Algiers, who had behaved so very politely and themselves proposed nothing. All they did was generously to us. He thought much more reto hold out alarms of war, though every one ex-spect was due to the Dey than to Victor Hugues, pressed a desire for peace. The gentleman from Pennsylvania had justified our right to arm merchant vessels to the East Indies and the Mediterranean, but had introduced some nice distinctions to show that the same reason did not exist for arming our West India vessels; but he could see no reason for it in one case, which did not also exist in the other. though that gentleman did not seem to speak of 5th CoN.-9 him with equal respect. The Dey of Algiers had lent forty thousand dollars to our agent for the purpose of making a treaty with Tunis. Victor Hugues, on the contrary, took all. that he could get from us. Unless some means of protecting our vessels was determined upon, our coasting trade would be lost, since the picaroons had been off the Capes of the Delaware. And if they were to know that Congress had adjourned without doing anything for our protection against them, our coast would swarm with them. But gentlemen were afraid, if our vessels went to the West Indies armed, war would be the consequence. He did not think so. He believed France considered all that part of the country as outlawed, and that it had little connexion with the Government of that country. Indeed, he knew it as a fact, that the French Minister had assured our Government, before he left Philadelphia, that the spoliations committed in the West Indies were unauthorized; and, therefore, if no means of defence were taken against them, we could have no ground upon which to expect redress from France. But gentlemen said, why take these measures at present, since they may be looked upon as hostile, while our negotiation is pending? He believed, that after the present dispute should be adjusted with France, it would be necessary to arm our vessels trading to the West Indies, as he believed, for some years to come, these bucaniers of various colors would continue to infest those seas. And if this were the case, why ought they not to go into arming our vessels at present, when they were met for the purpose of taking effectual measures for the defence of our country? Mr. S. SMITH conceived that Congress were called together to adopt such measures as were best calculated to preserve the peace of the country, by means of negotiation, and to fix upon such means of defence as would not be injurious to the country. It was his opinion that the President was not authorized by law to prevent the vessels of merchants being armed; but the merchants of the United States would readily submit to any loss rather than go to war. He knew that this was the opinion of the Philadelphia merchants: he had seen many of them. Nor had he met with one native American who wished to go into this arming plan; they believe it would infringe our neutrality, and throw us into a war. When he came here, his mind was scarcely made up on the subject. He did not like to give up his right to defend his property; but he had found this to be the general opinion, and therefore he brought forward the amendment, which had been well amended by the gentleman from Connecticut. The gentleman from South Carolina had since added West Indies, and this brought them to an issue; for it was war or no war. If the latter amendment was agreed to, he should be for striking out the whole, leaving it general; because, with West Indies in it, it would be particularly pointed. They had been told of the loss sustained by spoliations, and where it fell. He believed it fell [JUNE, 1797. upon the great body of the people of America, and that the fall in the price of produce had been occasioned principally by the British Admiral having forbidden the carrying our provisions to Hispaniola. The British fleet in the West Indies, he said, was supplied with provisions from Ireland, whilst the French depended upon this country for supplies; so that they were our best customers there. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. W. SMITH) Supposed the cry of war would have no effect in the country; but let us refer back to the British Treaty, said he, when that gentleman was so loud in his cry. But that was a war with Great Britain, and not with France. At that time there was not a British tear which was not called forth by the appeals which were made on this ground. But, Mr. S. said, he did not then fear war, nor did he now, if they took prudent measures. The gentleman said his plan was to prevent war, and yet he proposed to go to fight and sink the vessels of a particular nation. This was a way for preserving peace peculiar to himself. If merchant vessels were armed, they would serve the purpose of privateers, which might be used against our own vessels. This was a risk he did not choose to run. But it was a curious fact, that at the same time that we are proposing to permit the merchants to arm, they express a disinclination to it, because they love their country better than their own interest. But the gentleman had said the expense of insurance would be lessened by this arming. On the contrary, he (and he was an underwriter) should consider the risk greater from their having guns. Indeed, he found the insurance offices were all against the measure. Let But the gentleman says, let the French know we are preparing. He trusted we should prepare a defence which could not offend any one. us do all we can to promote peace-let the negotiations go on. It would be a fine story, indeed, when a reconciliation was about to take place betwixt our negotiators and the French Government, that they should hear we were sinking her privateers at the West Indies! They would doubtless send them about their business. The gentleman from South Carolina seemed to think it was right for our vessels to go into rebelports in the West Indies, and had told them of our men being taken by Victor Hugues, considered as pirates, and hung. [Mr. W. SMITH denied having said our citizens were hung.] Mr. S. read Victor Hugues's proclamation, (though he said he had no more respect for him than that gentleman, as he had lost 6,000 or 7,000 dollars by him,) and showed that those persons were only considered as traitors who sailed out of rebel ports, and not citizens of the United States. Nor were those ports considered as rebel ports which were taken by the English. (Cape Nichola Mole was one of those,) but merely those which were in a state of rebellion, to which, if we were determined to trade, it would certainly lead to war. Mr. S. said he was surprised to hear the gentleman from South Carolina make one concession, viz: that the French Minister had assured our Government the captures made in the West Indies were unauthorized; because, when he had asserted the same thing, on a former occasion, that gentleman denied it. Mr. S. insisted that the French trade carried on to the West Indies was a productive one, and that payments were in general made as punctual as in any other parts, and referredto Major Mountflorence's letter for an act of generosity never shown by the British; nay, he thought there was a better chance of getting money owing from France than there was of getting it for any spoliations committed by the British, and now under adjudication. Mr. S. concluded by saying he had another reason for opposing this measure. Two-thirds of his constituents were farmers, and one-third citizens, and they enjoined him to do all in his power to keep this country out of war. He thought the rejection of this resolution as tending to this end, and therefore he opposed it. Mr. HARPER observed that it did not seem to him necessary for members to preface their observations in that House with accounts of themselves, or declarations about their motives; much less could it be necessary to talk about the motives of other people. He believed that gentlemen were, for the most part, far better known to others than to themselves; and, as for their motives, they would best be judged of by the nature and tendency of their actions. He would, therefore, content himself with stating his own reasons, and endeavoring to controvert those of gentlemen who opposed him, without saying anything about his motives or theirs. He could have wished that other gentlemen had acted thus. They had, however, chosen to pursue a very different course. They had constantly and loudly attributed to him, and other gentlemen who thought with him, the very worst of motives-a desire to bring their country into war; and this in contradiction to their express and repeated disavowal of such intentions. When he, and gentlemen with whom he had agreed, had made the most solemn asseverations that it was their whole desire to preserve the peace of this country, in every manner consistent with its true interests, and that they advised certain measures because they, in the best of their judgment, thought them best calculated to produce this effect, they had been repeatedly told, though not always with the same rudeness, that they were not believed. The accusation of intending to draw the country into war had been extended to all who differed in sentiment with certain gentlemen, and every measure which they did not like was imputed to this intention. The charge had been extended to the Executive; and it had been said, both on that floor and elsewhere, that proofs of this hostile intention were to be found even in the pacific measures which he had resolved to pursue. On this head, Mr. H. said, he did not know how gentlemen were to be cured of their incredulity, How did he know whether it was desirable that they should be cured? He certainly should take no further pains to do so. Of one thing, however, he could assure gentlemen: that the fear of their [H. OF R. censure on his motives, or the desire of averting it, should never induce him, in any degree, to alter his conduct. It was the public good he sought; and the public esteem, in addition to his own, was the reward he desired. As to the good opinion of certain gentlemen, if it came in his way, he should not reject it; but he could not say that he would go out of his way to obtain it. If, therefore, it was an effect on him they meant to produce, they might spare themselves the trouble in future. If it was an effect on the public, still their labors would not affect him, for he was very willing to let his motives be laid before the public, on his own sincerity, weighed against the accusations of those gentlemen. He had been led into these remarks, not only by the course constantly pursued by gentlemen in general, but by the assertion of the gentleman last up, from Maryland, (Mr. SMITH)-that this motion, for excepting the West India trade from the prohibition to arm for defence, was a motion for peace or war! In this opinion he could not agree. He was persuaded, and he should endeavor to show, that the right of arming merchant ships for defence in the West India trade might be so regulated and restricted, as to become in no degree dangerous to the peace of this country. He said, merchant ships had the right of arming for defence; for he took this to be a right inherent by the law of nations in every neutral State. He had not, he confessed, made researches into the law of nations on this point, but the general course of his reading had led to this conclusion. It was also confirmed by history, and the practice of neutral States, whose merchant ships did very frequently sail armed in time of war. It was a natural right to carry arms for defence, as much on the water as on the land. The offence lay in either case, not in the arming, but in the improper use of the arms. If a man on his journey should carry arms for his defence against robbers, this would be proper; but, should he use them to rob others, he becomes punishable as a felon. So it is at sea. The arms may be carried,. and may be used properly. If used improperly, punishment ensues. This he had, morever, understood to be the result of the best legal opinions in this country, and, indeed, it had not been denied. It must, however, be admitted that the abuse of this right was far more easy, and far more dangerous, at sea, than on land. It was, therefore, proper to lay it under much stronger restrictions, and some nations had thought fit to restrict it altogether. Whether we should do so in the present circumstances was the question. This question, he would repeat, was not about the giving of a right, but about the restricting or taking away entirely of one which already existed. to reg When this proposition was first brought forward by his colleague, it was presented in the most general and abstract form. It was ulate the arming of merchant ships for defence." Afterwards, by the consent of the mover, it had been expressed differently: "To restrict the arming of merchant ships for defence to particular H. OF R.] Defensive Measures. [June, 1797. cases." A gentleman from Connecticut (Mrcially by those gentlemen who contended that the Corr) had moved to amend it so as to read: "To French Government is not accountable for the restrict the arming of merchant ships," &c., "to hostile acts in the West Indies, though avowedly the trade to the East Indies and the Mediterra- founded on one of their decrees, and done by their nean." It had then been moved to insert before public and acknowledged agents. If, under these the word "Indies" the words "and West," so as circumstances, the French Government be not to make the proposition stand, "to restrict the answerable for these acts, because it has not esarming of merchant ships," &c., "to the trade pecially authorized them, how, he would ask, of the East and West Indies, and the Mediterra- could the American Government be accountable nean." That was the motion then under discus- for acts done, not only without its authority, but sion. The question was, whether merchants' against its express and public orders? For acts ships engaged in the West India trade should be which, instead of being able to avow, should it prevented entirely from arming for defence? And think fit, as the French Government do with rethis the gentleman from Maryland had declared spect to the depredations in the West Indies, it to be a question of peace or war. would be bound to punish. He would exemplify this general position as to the manner of modifying this measure, by some particular cases, not in order to point out all the modifications whereof it was susceptible, or to declare that he would support all that he should mention, but to show how it might be modified so as to remove every objection. But how, he would ask, was it a question of peace or war? Was it not practicable to leave the merchants possessed of this right, but under such regulations and restrictions as would take away the danger of abuse, or, if abuses should happen, would save the nation from responsibility, would take away cause of offence from other nations? He believed it was practicable, and he In the first place, Britain exercised the right of should now endeavor to show it. The question taking the goods of her enemies, if found on had now been presented to us in its abstract form. board of our ships. This France alleged was a In this form it was proper first to discuss it. The right given to the English by our treaty with modifications would come afterwards, when it them, and that she also had become entitled to it. should assume the form of a bill. Gentlemen She therefore declared that she would take the had complained of this mode, and called for the goods of her enemies whenever she could find modifications in the first instance; but they had them in our ships. This point we do not conthemselves proved that this mode was proper. cede; but neither do we mean to resist the right They had not only proved by the tenor of their by force. We intend to negotiate, and perhaps to opposition, that they meant to vote against the yield it, if found expedient. It would therefore measure under any possible modification, but had be improper, and contrary to the spirit of this neexpressly declared it. One gentleman from Vir-gotiation, to permit our vessels to arm in this ginia, (Mr. GILES,) had even declared that he would vote against every proposition on the table. Why, then, spend time in modifying a measure, which, however modified, gentlemen were resolved to oppose? The proper way was to see whether it could be carried in its general form, and let the modification come afterwards. Though, however, he thought it improper to propose any modification at present, he would tell gentlemen and endeavour to show the committee how, in his opinion, it might be modified so as to strip it of all its dangers. trade; and consequently every vessel which shall take on board goods the property of the enemies of France, must be prevented from arming. Every vessel, before she arms, must give sufficient proof that she has no such goods on board, and sufficient security not to take them. So also as to contraband, about which there is a point in dispute between us and France, which we mean to settle by negotiation. The French Treaty limits the contraband list. In the British, it is more extended, and the French declare that they will extend it in the same manner. Here is a dispute, which, like the former, we mean to settle, if possible, by negotiation. We must not, therefore, permit our citizens to contest it by arms, and accordingly, no vessel should be permitted to arm without proving that she had none of these articles on board, and giving security to take none. If she did so, it would be contrary to her instructions, and at her own risk. The bonds would be forfeited, the act disapproved, and the There were, he said, three kinds of trade, as between us and France. There was one kind prohibited either by treaties or the law of nations; one kind in dispute, and one kind neither prohibited nor in dispute. To this last kind the right might be, and in his opinion ought to be restricted. These restrictions should be expressed in the law, and in precise instructions, and heavy penalties, under good security, should be exacted for the observance of these instructions. Thus, as the in-nation saved from all responsibility. structions would be confined wholly to a trade The same observations, he said, would apply neither prohibited nor in dispute, they could not to the case of a place blockaded or besieged. By be complained of, and if they were infringed, it the laws of nations, provisions could not be carwould not be the act of the nation. The nation ried to a blockaded or besieged place. What would have only to disavow the act, and show would constitute a siege or blockade, was a questhe instructions whereby it was forbidden; it then tion of the law of nations; but the existence of became the private act of parties, for which they the siege or blockade must, in the first instance, were punishable, but the nation not bound to be notified to neutrals by the party forming it. answer. This must be admitted by all, espe-It could be known in no other manner; for the JUNE, 1797.] Defensive Measures. [H. OF R. neutrals must be unacquainted with the circum- | forfeit these bonds." And thus all justifiable stances, and the besieged party would not testify cause of offence would be taken away. against themselves. Indeed, access could not be had to them, and, of course, their opinion could not be known. The besiegers must therefore make the declaration in the first instance, and neutrals must believe it. Whether false or true, becomes afterwards a question in the Courts of Admiralty, or between the Governments; but for neutrals to dispute it in the first instance, at the mouths of their cannon, would be an act of hostility; therefore, if a French squadron should place itself before an English port in the West Indies, and declare it in a state of blockade, our armed ships must be instructed to abstain from any attempt to enter. Even if half a dozen French privateers were to station themselves off Portsmouth, and declare it in a state of blockade, our ships must not dispute the point or attempt to go in by force. If they do not think it blockaded, they may attempt to enter peaceably, if they please, and, when taken, dispute the point in the Courts of Admiralty, or leave it to the two Governments to be settled by negotiation; but they must be prevented from clearing out for such ports with arms, and forbidden, under strong | penalties, to attempt to enter by force. Should they make such attempts, it is at their own risk, and not an act of the Government. He said "justifiable cause of offence," because it was, and always would be, impossible to take away pretexts of war from a nation that has resolved on it. Such pretexts, it was well known from the history of all nations and ages, had never been wanting, when one Power was resolved to attack another. All that could be done by a State desirous of peace, was to avoid real cause of offence, justifiable cause of quarrel. This must be our conduct. We must avoid justifiable ground of complaint and offence; this would be done by the measures recommended, and we could do no more. If France were so determined on a quarrel as to attack us under so flimsy a pretence, she would find others were we to deprive her of this. War we should have, if war was her desire; and the only possible chance of avoiding it would be by letting her see that it was not her interest. Mr. H. was not afraid to pronounce the word war. He was neither afraid of the thing, nor alarmed at the sound; and he could conceive easily of circumstances in which all the interests of this country would call for war. These circumstances he did not believe now to exist. He believed they might be averted, and that to adopt this measure, would strongly tend to produce that effect. Much had been said So also as to places declared to be in a state of about a clamor of war which had on former occarebellion. There are several ports in the West sions been raised. If such a clamor had been Indies which the French authority there has raised, the justice would be done him to acknowdeclared to be in this state. The truth of this ledge that he had never assisted it. He had declaration will be a matter of controversy when never resorted to the alarm of war. It was an any of our vessels shall be taken in the attempt event which he had never apprehended, nor did to enter those ports peaceably; but, in the mean- he now apprehend it. It was an event always time, they must not be allowed to attempt to possible, and for which every country ought to enter by force. They must be prohibited in the be prepared, and this constant state of preparation same manner as if the place were declared by the was the best means of averting it, which was commander of a squadron to be in a state of not to be done by temporising measures. A blockade. At least, Mr. H. said, this appeared to country which acts justly towards others and him to be proper, according to his present view shows a desire of peace, and, at the same time, a of the point. He might hereafter think other-resolution to defend itself, will always be the wise, for his mind was not fully made up. But most safe from injury and aggression. the adoption of the proposition demands serious consideration; it was certainly practicable, and, if done, would save the Government from any responsibilty, and that was sufficient for the present purpose. These modifications, Mr. H. said, and as many more as might be thought necessary, it would be practicable to introduce into a bill. The provisions of this bill would be digested into a set of instructions, and owners of vessels applying for permission to arm defensively, would be obliged to conform to the law, and to give large bonds with sufficient security for conforming to the instructions. Resolves, by way of indictment, might also be added for masters of vessels who should contravene the instructions. If they should still be contravened, the Government would have nothing to do but disavow the act, show the instructions, and say to the other nation, "punish these persons if you can catch them; they have disobeyed our orders, and if they come here we will punish them. In the meantime, we will When Mr. H. sat down, there was a loud call for the committee to rise (it being past three) when Mr. LIVINGSTON rose, and hoped the question would be taken. The question was put for the committee to rise, and carried-42 to 40. CORPS OF ARTILLERISTS, &c. A bill was received from the Senate for raising and organizing an additional corps of artillerists and engineers, which was read the first time; when Mr. MACON moved that it be rejected, as he saw no necessity for increasing our army. The motion was opposed by Mr. W. SMITH, who said the men would be wanted for supplying the garrisons; and in order to get rid of the question, he moved the House to adjourn. Carried. THURSDAY, June 8. EXPORTATION OF ARMS, &c. The bill for preventing the exportation of arms and ammunition, was read the third time; when |