Слике страница
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

solution as to lessen the evil, without any danger of offence to other nations. He thought they might. Attempts had been made to terrify them with the cry of war; and that they must not pursue that or the other plan, for fear of offending the French Republic or the British nation. He thought, when they were considering the best mode of defending our merchants against pirates and bucaniers, no nation had a right to take offence at them; and, if masters of vessels transgressed their orders, they must be accountable. Mr. GILES reprobated the idea of masters of vessels being accountable, and of placing the peace of the United States at risk upon a merchant's bond. The gentleman might be very bold about war; he could not help saying he dreaded it. Why, he asked, did they all at once feel this ebullition? They had all the information last session which they had at present, except as to the insult offered to our Minister; yet he believed, if any man had come forward with a proposition like the present at that time, he would have been deemed a madman. And now commissioners are appointed to settle our differences, and they were about to lay the foundation for a thousand fresh disputes. He found himself much alarmed at this, because he knew this country had all to lose, and nothing to gain, by war; and nothing increased his apprehension more than the language of gentlemen on that floor. The proposed scheme, he said, was a visionary one, and pregnant with mischief. They all knew there were complicated difficulties with respect to the law of nations, and it would be the height of folly to arm our vessels to contest the point with any foreign Power.

[H. of R.

advantage, but that it would produce great evils, modify it as they pleased.

If the power of self-defence was employed against search or capture, it would transgress the law of nations. To prove that resistance to a search was ground of capture, he read passages from Vattel and Marten. If resistance could be used at all, then it must be to resist illegal search. This would depend upon Treaties of Commerce which might be in existence. By our treaties with France, Holland, and, he believed, Spain, the modes in which searches shall be made have been pointed out. No vessel of war was allowed to come nearer to our vessels than gun-shot, and were not to oblige our vessels to send out their boats, but were themselves to send their boat, with a certain number of men, on board.

If one of their vessels should attempt to search an American vessel contrary to these stipulations, it might be called an illegal search, and the provision of self-defence might be carried into effect, and in this case alone. And he wished to know whether any advantage was to be derived from being authorized to resist in such case? It might produce an engagement, but could never prevent a vessel being taken; because one of two things would happen-the privateer would either comply with the regulations, or go on to fight and take the vessel. He said it was not possible to prevent the vessel from being taken. The gentleman from South Carolina had pointed out a number of restrictions under which it would be proper to place vessels thus armed; but suppose the vessel to be in none of these situations, what was then to be done? Our vessels, he said, might be loaded with papers and regulations; the fact was, that we had no right to judge of the fact. We say no privateer has a right to take this vessel, because engaged in a legal trade; but, if a privateer, on inspecting the vessel's papers, suspects the contrary, he may take the vessel, and the cause must be tried in the admiralty court of the captor. To prove this, he referred to sundry doc

Nor did Mr. G. think our present situation so calamitous as some gentlemen had affected to state it. He believed it was as good as it ever would be in any time of peace. The best criteri on was the price of produce. Much mischief, it was true, had been occasioned by spoliations upon merchants' property at sea; but he believed much greater had been occasioned by wild specu-uments. lations on land. And it was no wonder, that when individuals were out of humor from their losses, that extravagant measures should be thought of; but that they should be seriously urged in a legislative body, was surprising. He trusted there never would be a House of Representatives so lost to the interests of its country, as to agree to a measure like the present.

Mr. GALLATIN said, that the question having been so frequently called for, he would not again have troubled the committee, had he not considered the present amendment to be of as great importance as any question that was likely to come before them during the present session. It was nothing less than to declare that our merchant vessels, armed in the West India trade, should be under certain restrictions. It had no relation to whether the right existed or not; but whether they should give the power, if it did not exist, or restrain it, if it did.

He meant to contend, that if the measure was adopted, it could not be productive of one single

This being the case, he did not see a single advantage to be derived from arming, for a privateer might not only deny the cargo to be a legal one, but that the vessel was American, as had been the case of a capture of a vessel going out from this port last year-[Mr. G. alluded to the ship Mount Vernon]-and as no suit had been instituted, he supposed the ground was a good one. Indeed, he was informed that the vessel and cargo was consigned by power of attorney to the consignee in England, to be delivered up on her arrival, and that a person on board was in possession of the consignment. If there were any other advantages to be derived from arming, he wished to hear it.

It was not, Mr. G. said from a fear of offending this or that Power, that he was against this regulation, but because it was calculated to draw us into hostility; because, if our vessels either resisted search or capture, it would certainly lead to war; it would not only lead to war, but it was war!

H. OF R.]

Defensive Measures.

[JUNE, 1797.

any armed merchant vessel, whilst a merchant vessel would be equal to cope with any vessel which now annoyed our trade in the West Indies. If merchant vessels armed at all, he thought there was as much necessity for it to the West Indies as to any other part. He contended that the

In addition to what had been said, it might be observed, that when the British exclusively committed depredations upon our commerce, nothing was said about arming our merchant vessels; and if they had done it, he believed it would have been considered as an infraction of the law of 1794. He, therefore, submitted it to the commit-construction put upon Victor Hugues's proclamatee, whether a provision like the present would not be considered as an act of partiality. From this opinion, and that the measure would be immediate hostility, he should oppose it.

tion was a good one. He said he had examined into the practice of the neutral nations, and he found that Sweden was in the habit of arming her merchantmen.

Mr. HARPER charged the gentleman last up He called the attention of gentlemen to the with building his superstructure upon a sandy consequences of rejecting the present amendfoundation. He insisted that the power of carry-ment. He believed, if the restrictions were coning vessels into port on suspicion, was done away by treaty, and that if a vessel had a regular sealetter and passports on board, there could be no plea for carrying her in. Mr. H. complained that many American vessels were taken by small privateers without any authority whatever. The Mount Vernon, he said, was taken by one of these, and there could be no ground of offence to any Government to resist the attacks of such marauders. The spoliations of 1794, and the present, were wholly different; and, therefore, there could be no ground for a charge of partiality. At that time our vessels were taken by large authorized privateers; now they were principally attacked and taken by small unauthorized vessels.

Mr. GALLATIN maintained his ground, and denied that a show of regular papers was sufficient to secure a vessel.

Mr. W. SMITH said, if the construction given to our treaties by the gentleman last up was a good one, it would go to nullify several articles in our treaties whose only tendency was to prevent vessels being carried into foreign ports as prizes, and therefore, as they were certainly meant to have some meaning, his construction could not be a good one.

fined to the East Indies and Mediterranean, that the bill would not pass the Senate, if it passed that House. The right of arming would then be sanctioned, and they would have determined not to restrain it. The consequence would be, that merchants would arm their vessels incompetently, go and trade with what were called rebel ports, which would cause bloodshed; their vessels would be taken and they would be hanged; whereas, if the restriction passed, the arming might be confined to large vessels, which would be able to defend themselves. He hoped, therefore, the principle would be agreed to.

Mr. MACON was surprised to hear the gentleman from South Carolina introduce the opinion of the Attorney General in the way he had done. That gentleman was to give his opinion when called upon by the House; but it was extremely irregular to introduce it in the way he had produced it, as given to an individual. He was opposed to the resolution, and said, if large bonds were to be taken, none but men of property could find the security, and it would of course destroy all the small vessels trading to the West Indies.

The call for the question was loud, and also for the committee to rise. The question for the committee to rise was put and negatived.

The question was not whether we should authorize our vessels to arm to protect themselves; Mr. WILLIAMS said he was as desirous of takbut whether, in the first place, our citizens have a ing the question as any one, but he wished to give natural right to arm and defend themselves, and his reasons for voting in favor of the amendment. if they have the right, whether the Legislature He was far from thinking that the adoption of ought to restrict it, and in what cases. Though this resolution would amount to a declaration of some gentlemen had denied this right to exist, no war; if so, he should be the first to oppose it. proof had been adduced in support of that opin- The measure was recommended to them in the ion. The question then was, whether the right Speech of the President, and he wished to go should be restricted in voyages to the West In- into a consideration of it. He wished the princidies as well as to the East Indies and Mediter-ple to be agreed to, and referred to a special com

ranean.

mittee, that they might have a plan reported before them. But, in doing this, he should not consider himself as pledged to support the bill, except he approved of it.

There could be no doubt, Mr. S. said, that if a search was attempted in any way contrary to the mode directed by treaty, such search was illegal, and warranted resistance. That merchant ves- The question was then taken on inserting the sels had a right to arm in their defence, in addi-"West Indies." and negatived, there being 35 tion to their authorities, he had the opinion of the Attorney General of the United States, which he trusted would have due weight with the committee. [He read it; it was dated June 1.]

It was said this power was not exercised in 1794; but he said they were now only about to restrict a right which was then unrestrained. Indeed, the privateers which then took our vessels would have been more than an overmatch for

votes in favor of it, and against it 46. A motion was then made by Mr. HARPER for the committee to rise, which was negatived, there being only 32 votes in favor of it. The question was then taken on the first amendment, to insert "East Indies and the Mediterranean," and carried, 41 to 40.

The question was about to be taken on the resolution as amended, when Mr. DAYTON said he had an amendment to introduce, but that as it

[blocks in formation]

was then past four o'clock, he should move that the committee rise. He would just say that his amendment was intended to change the principle of the resolution altogether; it was to strike out "restricting," and insert "authorizing under certain regulations." He could by no means agree to give his countenance to a resolution that should convey an idea that the merchants had a right to arm their vessels without the previous consent of the Legislature.

The committee then rose, and the House adjourned.

FRIDAY, June 9.

STEPHEN BULLOCK, from Massachusetts, peared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

[H. of R.

the Executive to interfere in preventing vessels to arm under any circumstances. Members who were in favor of arming merchant vessels to all parts of the world, could not be against this proposition, because it could be so modified, if a majority should think it desirable; but he did not think it safe to establish the principle, that merchant vessels have a right to arm, without an act of the Legislature to sanction the practice. If this amendment was carried, a bill might be brought in accordingly; if not, he should give his decided negative to the resolution.

Mr. DANA thought this measure tended to arraign the conduct of Government. The President had not supposed it to be his duty to prevent ap-armed merchant vessels from sailing to the East Indies and Mediterranean. The instructions given to the custom-houses seemed to be founded on the ground of a right to arm; but, if they went on the idea that the merchants had no right to arm without permission, it seemed as if they

The bill for preventing privateering was read the third time and passed.

RETURN OF ARMS, &c.

Mr. BLOUNT proposed a resolution to the fol- ought to have been prevented from arming. lowing effect:

[ocr errors]

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be laid before this House a return of all the arms, ammunition, accoutrements, and other military stores, owned by the United States, specifying their condition, and the place or places of their deposite."

The resolution was taken up the next day and adopted.

DEFENSIVE MEASURES.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union; when, the fifth resolution being under consideration

Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) rose to make the motion which he yesterday proposed to make. It was to strike out "restricting," and to insert "authorizing under certain regulations."

Mr. D. asked the committee if they had attended to the consequences which would follow the passing of a resolution like this, for restricting armed merchant vessels bound to the East Indies and Mediterranean? What would be the consequence, if this elementary proposition did not pass into a law? And if it was now carried, the bill, if the detail was not approved, might die in that House or the Senate. In that case, this proposition would be different from all other original abstract propositions, because it would go to establish the principle that merchants had a right to arm their vessels, to all parts of the world, if not restricted. And it even had been hinted by the gentleman from South Carolina, for what purpose he could not tell, that in the entering upon this discussion, the right to arm was in some degree admitted. This had excited some degree of alarm in his mind. He was willing that a committee should be appointed, and that a bill should be reported on the subject to authorize merchant vessels to arm under certain regulations. When that bill was before them, such restrictions might be introduced as should render it agreeable to the House; but he never could agree that a resolution should pass which should go to deny the right of

Mr. DAYTON showed the reverse of the position of the gentleman who had just sat down, to be true. He thought the restriction which the President had lately put upon arming vessels, was lawful and commendable.

Mr. VENABLE Supported the amendment. It was put and carried, there being fifty-one votes in favor of it.

An amendment to add the words, "and for restricting," was moved and carried.

Mr. POTTER was against this resolution, because he thought to pass a resolution allowing our merchants to do what they already did, that is, to go armed to the East Indies and the Mediterranean, would be doing nothing.

Mr. W. SMITH said he should vote for the amendment, because it would not take away the right of merchants to arm, if it already existed; it would, on the contrary, sanction it, in the same way as the inserting of a known law of nations in a treaty, sanctioned that law. It might also serve as the foundation of other useful regulations.

Mr. OTIS believed this resolution would be a narrowing of the present ground; because he did not know that the word East Indies would include Africa. He thought it would be better to leave the resolution a blank. He moved to strike out the words which defined the places to which the regulations should extend.

The CHAIRMAN declared this motion not to be in order.

Mr. DAYTON said, a division of the question might be called for in the House.

The question was then taken on the resolution as amended, and negatived; there being 37 for it, and 45 against it.

REQUISITION OF MILITIA, &c.

Mr. BLOUNT proposed the following resolutions to the committee:

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

"Resolved, That provision ought to be made by law for procuring, by purchase or otherwise, thousand stand of arms, with accoutrements complete, to be deposited in the several States, in proportion to the whole number of effective men in each."

DEFENSIVE MEASURES.

Mr. W. SMITH said, he had waived a consideration of the third and fourth resolutions, in order to pass to the fifth, because he thought it was probable the committee would have determined upon arming our merchant vessels; and if so, it might have influenced the votes of members on those; but, as the committee had just decided against arming merchant vessels, he should propose another resolution to the committee. It was well known that the three frigates which had been agreed to be manned, would not be ready for sea for several months; in the mean time there might be occasion for some armed vessels; he should, therefore, submit to them the following resolution :

[JUNE, 1797.

he was correct in saying, in reference to this de-
fence, that gentlemen opposed every thing, and
proposed nothing. Gentlemen, he said, were very
ready to propose things which would cost the pub-
lic nothing: the militia measure proposed would
cost no more than the passing of the law; but, if
opposition.
ever any expense was to be incurred, then all was

The commerce of the country could not be defended, without calling upon the people for revenue; and he thought those gentlemen who stepped forward to advocate such measures as involved expense, and which were consequently in some degree unpopular, deserved the gratitude of their constituents. He had never hesitated to do this, when he thought it necessary. He should not, however, object to the passing of this proposition; he only rose to say, he did not think it immediately necessary.

Mr. THATCHER objected to the phrase requisition. However fond that gentleman might be of the French phrases, he did not wish to imitate them in their expressions in our legislative acts. He had no objection to the holding such a number of men in readiness. He hoped the sentiment would be expressed in American language.

"Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee, that the President of the United States ought to be authorized by law to provide a further naval force, whenever, in his opinion, the circumstances of the country shall require the same; and that Mr. BLOUNT Supposed he should be told, belars be appropriated for that purpose." cause he used the word requisition in his resoThe CHAIRMAN said the resolutions of the gen-lutions, that he was one of the factious. He betleman from North Carolina were first in order.

[ocr errors]

dol

Mr. W. SMITH said he had no objection to the proposition of the gentleman from North Carolina, as a part of a plan of defence, but he thought it also necessary to attend to the protection of our

commerce.

lieved if the gentleman looked over the old Congressional proceedings, he would find that the demands made upon the States were called requisitions. He had, however, no objection to any other word which had the same meaning. He thought the objection a trifling one, and such as the gentleman ought to be ashamed of making.

Mr. THATCHER replied, that he did not often say any thing of which he was ashamed; that he had said nothing about French factions; but, it was an old saying, "That a guilty conscience needs no accuser."

Mr. BLOUNT (with a good deal of warmth) said he should take from no man, with impunity, such language as that. [There was a loud call to order.]]

Mr. LYON said, perhaps, if the gentleman from Massachusetts could be persuaded that requisition was plain English, he might be satisfied.

Mr. BLOUNT said, it was perfectly indifferent to him whether the gentlemen from South Carolina considered his plan as a part or the whole of a system. That gentleman had accused those who voted against his proposition, with being unwilling to place the country in a posture of defence. Now, he had voted against, and should continue to vote against, his proposition-but he was willing, notwithstanding (as he believed all those who voted with him were) to put the country in a state of defence. It was his opinion that internal defence only was necessary. He thought the system which he had proposed would be sufficient. When they had adopted this resolution, it might Mr. W. SMITH called for the reading of a simibe considered whether any thing more was neces-lar resolution passed in 1794; which being read, sary. He had no idea of creating a naval force for defence; on the contrary, he believed it would be the means of plunging us into fresh difficulties. For this reason, if the resolution he had proposed were passed into a law, he should go home satisfied, with a belief that he had done all that was necessary. And he was convinced that his constituents would believe that he never wanted a disposition to defend his country when in danger. Mr. W. SMITH did not think these propositions could be of any use at present; they would be very proper in case an invasion was apprehended. He thought the principal object, at this time, was to defend our commerce, and thereby secure the revenue arising from it, either by an effectual na-lution. val armament, or by an embargo; and he thought

and a wish expressed that the present might be made conformable to it, Mr. BLOUNT gave his consent; and, after a few observations from Mr. WILLIAMS in favor of the resolution, though he denied that it could be carried into effect without expense, the resolution was agreed to.

The resolution respecting the arms was passed over for the present, until information should be received as to what quantity of arms Government have. Mr. B. wished to make up the quantity eighty thousand, and to have them distributed in the way proposed; but upon several gentlemen expressing opinions that there would not be a want of arms, he consented to postpone the reso

Mr. W. SMITH called the attention of the com

[blocks in formation]

mittee to the resolution he had proposed respecting an additional naval armament.

Mr. VARNUM Could hardly suppose the gentleman serious in proposing this resolution, as the power of judging and determining of whatever related to the army or navy was assigned by the Constitution to the Legislature, and this being the case, they alone had the right to exercise it, and could not delegate it to another. If a further naval armament were to be provided, he trusted they should provide it, as he should not he willing to delegate the power (if it could be done) to any man, however great and good he might be.

Mr. W. SMITH said, if the gentleman last up had not appeared very serious, he should not have supposed he had really been so. What was his argument? It was, that because Congress was empowered to provide a navy, yet they could not authorize the Executive to do it during the recess of Congress. As well might he say, that because that House had only the right to borrow money, they could not authorize the President to do the business for them. The authority, he took it, emanated from that House, but they could empower the President to act in their behalf. For, if the gentleman's construction was true, in whatever danger this country might be involved, the President could not call out the militia. Mr. S. mentioned several other instances in which this power was exercised by the President, and particularly the power of laying an embargo in the year 1794, during the recess of Congress; and this power, he said, must be given again, except some means for defending our commerce was determined upon; for he believed, when it should be known that there was no disposition in that House to defend our commerce, the picaroons would swarm upon our coasts. He wished to leave it to the Executive to procure a small number of merchant vessels, and convert them into vessels of war, to be placed either at the entrance of our rivers, or to cruise on our coast. If this were not done, our coasting trade would be cut up. What was then to be done, provided this should be the case, after the House shall have broken up? Was the President again to call them together to determine what was to be done? He trusted they did not wish this, and yet gentlemen came forward and desired to defeat the business at the threshold by a Constitutional scruple. Mr. S. concluded with reading an extract from a newspaper, giving an account of an armed American vessel having taught the picaroons civility, and from thence enforcing the necessity of arming.

Mr. VARNUM defended the construction he had put upon the resolution, as the President was left to determine the propriety of the naval force.

Mr. NICHOLAS defended the construction of the gentleman from Massachusetts, though he acknowledged, in cases of necessity, the House had thought it prudent to delegate their powers to the Executive for special purposes. It became a question whether the necessity existed at present. If the gentleman from South Carolina thought there was danger to be apprehended on our coast, he should

[H. of R.

have no objection, provided it was confined to that particular object, to agree to the proposition.

Mr. W. SMITH declared he had no other object in view, nor did the Speech of the President allude to anything more.

Mr. NICHOLAS then moved to add the words, "if circumstances hereafter arise which shall make it necessary for the defence of our seacoast." Mr. WILLIAMS moved to add, "during the recess of Congress."

These amendments were agreed to.

Mr. McDOWELL said these modifications did not make the thing more acceptable to him. The President had told them this armament was necessary; but they had the facts before them, and he wished that they might themselves determine the propriety of the measure. The gentleman from South Carolina talked to them about great danger from picaroons; but he knew that gentleman had a great desire to increase our naval force. He doubted not the Executive had the same desire, because it would increase his power; but he did not wish that House to give the power out of its own hands.

Mr. WILLIAMS thought this resolution was calculated to meet the ideas of the gentleman, as its object was to save expense; for the power was only given to the Executive to be exercised in case of necessity. If this power were not to be thus placed, they would doubtless think it necessary to provide some additional vessels for the protection of our trade. In June, 1794, a similar measure to this was agreed to. If they could do the business themselves, he should wish it, because it was laying an unpleasant business upon the Executive.

Mr. SWANWICK thought the force should be designated. The Senate had proceeded with a bill of this kind, in which the number of vessels was stated. He thought it would be best to see their bill before they proceeded. Mr. S. did not think the provision would be effectual, and he thought there was some weight in the objections to the transferring the power of that House into the hands of the Executive.

Mr. HARPER observed it was not said that the present circumstances of the country required this armament, but that such a state might arise during the recess of Congress. If this state now existed, doubtless the House would go into the measure itself; but as it did not, (and there was at least a possibility it might,) he thought the measure a prudent one.

Mr. McDOWELL supported his opinion, and declared he did not think the coasting trade of sufficient importance to warrant so expensive a measure as that proposed.

Mr. GALLATIN allowed that the modification of the resolution introduced by the gentleman from Virginia, had rendered the proposition much less exceptionable than it was before; but he was against it in any shape in which it could be brought before them. In the first place, the modification of the vessels being confined to the seacoast, was not a very clear idea. If it only meant to protect our neutrality within gunshot, or within nine miles

« ПретходнаНастави »