H. OF R.] Answer to the President's Speech. [MAY, 1797. the present case, there was no reason to conclude this country makes any part of the system of that the grievance arising from "the inequality of existing treaties," which was the only one mentioned by the mover, was the principal source of our disagreement with the French, or that removing that alone would effect our object. Did he therefore mean to pinion the Executive down to that single concession? Or would he enlarge his motion, and direct the Executive to say that our laws should be repealed, and the judgments of our courts vacated? Was it wise or politic to publish to the world, at the outset of an embassy, the ultimate terms that were to be offered, and to send an Envoy with open orders to accede to every demand of the French nation? If he was to be despatched under these auspices, let him be decorated, not with the cap of liberty, upon which our former motto was "liberty or death," but substitute in its place "humiliation and submission to your will." He may then, perhaps, be admitted to the honors of a sitting. Mr. O. then proceeded to the last division of his subject-the means of defence recommended in the Speech. It was, he said, unfair to connect with an approbation of such measures a disposition for hostilities with the French. War was the greatest of all possible calamities into which the pride of kings, or the ambition of rulers, could plunge and provoke an unoffending and neutral nation. He did not presume that any member in that House could derive a benefit from so deplorable a condition of society. But a small portion of them would probably go into the army; and of that portion, few could expect to make fortunes by their commissions. A desire of war was, therefore, entirely out of the question. He never understood that when controversies of a threatening aspect subsisted between nations, preparatory and defensive measures were construed into acts of hostility, or into a determination to make war. On the contrary, the usage of all nations sanctioned such a mode of conduct. He would not, however, resort to monarchies, or to great and formidable nations, for examples, but to the little Republican canton of Basle. That independent territory was exposed, like our own country, to the unfounded criminations and unmerited outrages of hostile and belligerent nations. But in reply to the requisitions of the French, it bravely insisted upon the right of remaining neuter, and announced its design of augmenting its military establishment for the protection and maintenance of its neutrality. Perhaps this canton may be compelled to depart from this system. Possibly it has no longer the power of exercising its own will; but it will not be pretended that this defensive conduct evinced on their part a willingness to be engaged in war. It was then a simple inquiry, whether, under the present aspect of our affairs, war might not be brought home to our doors, contrary to our wishes, and prior to a state of preparation? Gentlemen were willing to say, that if negotiation failed, there would be an end to every friendly relation between the two countries. Our posture then would be unfriendly; and who can say it will not fail? If a war with French aggrandizement, we should probably have it without the forms of consultation. Do gentlemen suppose that when negotiation shall have absolutely failed, the French will give us time to equip our vessels, fortify our ports, and burnish our arms, in order to show us fair play? Let gentlemen consider our defenceless situation in such circumstances; let them not pause until it shall be too late. The tide of conquest had deluged Europe; it might swell the great Atlantic and roll towards our shores, bringing upon its troubled surface the spirit of revolution, which might spread like a pestilence, possibly in the Southern States, and excite a war of the most dreadful kind, of slaves against their masters, and thereby endanger the existence of that Union so dear to his constituents, and the separation of which would be painful as the agonies of death. He concluded with many other observations, having for their object the preservation of the Union, the necessity of forming and displaying a national character, and a demonstration of the absurdity of supposing that the President of the United States, at this period of his life and reputation, could feel an interest in promoting a rupture between France and this country, by any measures he might adopt. Mr. GILES said, that as the committee appeared divided on the Address, and as he had attended the discussion, he submitted to the consideration of members whether it would not be advisable, in order to produce a spirit of unanimity and cool deliberation, to recommit the report and send the amendment also to the committee with an addition of members. He wished the last gentlemen up had been more delicate on a subject that he had touched; if he infers that because one part of the members may think a rash measure just, that those who think differently must not exercise their judgments in thinking the contrary, he thought the gentleman had overstretched his reasoning. He was one of those who felt a strong apprehension of a war; he thought one means would be more likely than another to prevent it, and he was using that preventive measure because he thought it both just and honorable and wise. We all concur in our declarations at least of a love of peace; he was sorry to hear language which betrayed a very different disposition. He was for showing our ultimatum, and taking the consequences, but he would not agree to be either silly or insolent in the proceeding, because nothing was so unbecoming of a wise man, or a wise people, as anger or petulant irritation, when their happiness and that of millions was at stake. He wished the report to be recommitted, that we might proceed thus wisely, after we had determined well; and if the issue should disappoint our fair and just expectations, he should not be one of those that would ask others to support his opinions. He would stand by his country in the storm, and share its fate. Prove then, by a recommittal, that you do not aim at the triumph of a party. He therefore moved the recommittal. Mr. HARPER was against the recommitment. MAY, 1797.] Answer to the President's Speech. He saw nothing that was effected, or could be effected by it. He never would submit to the terms of France. This is the last stand that we have to make. He never would agree that the two plans, viz: the report and amendment, were capable of concurring. They were like two lines diverging from the same point. To the common eye they seemed as if they were upon the same course; but the mathematical eye saw that they were growing farther and farther from each other. We have nothing to do but as we did in the Revo lution-just to go through it. He could see no benefit arising from concession. Mr. BROOKS was against the amendment, for that and the report never would agree. To recommit was nothing but wasting precious time. If the amendment was lost, we might then bring in another; and so on till we finally met. It was too late in the day to go through the matter now. Refering to something which fell from Mr. GILES about American prospects of futurity, he asked whether the member had the power of divination? [H. OF R. it than that proposed by the mover. Stripped of the more exceptionable matter with which it was then connected, it might very well be adopted as an amendment in one of the latter paragraphs of the report, and would not at all vary the principle, or be inconsistent with the general tenor of it. At this point, the committee rose, and had leave to sit again. And the House adjourned. WEDNESDAY, May 24. WILLIAM SMITH, from Pinckney district, South Carolina; SAMUEL SMITH, from Maryland'; JOHN ALLEN, from Connecticut; and WILLIAM FINDLEY, from Pennsylvania, appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats. ANSWER TO PRESIDENT'S SPEECH. The House again went into a Committee of the Whole on the Answer to the President's Speech, and Mr. NICHOLAS's amendment being under consideration, Mr. SWANWICK opened the debate. He lamentMr. GILES, in reply, said that, while we were ed the loss of time. which was generally experiso loudly denying ourselves to be a divided peo-enced at the opening of every session in debating ple, the very debate proved that we were so. The the Answer to the Speech of the President, when, gentleman had charged him with assuming the perhaps, business of the first moment called for power of divination, and at the same time assumed immediate attention. It was much to be wished it to himself, by distinctly asserting that the re- that committees appointed for this purpose would port and amendment could never be made to confine themselves to the instructions which were agree. Mr. G. feared not, but it would be bet- given to them on the occasion, which were in ter to try. As for the waste of time, the select general terms, viz: "to prepare a respectful Adcommittee might be ready with their report by dress, assuring the President that the House will to-morrow morning. He had always been a friend take into their serious consideration the various to deliberation. He never knew any thing lost by important matters recommended to their attenit; though indeed the fury with which his pro- tion." If Answers were drawn in general terms, posal had been commented on, did not promise conformably to these instructions, he thought much good. very many of the embarrassments which they now experienced would be avoided, and every member would be left at liberty to pursue such measures as appeared to them right, when they came before him in the ordinary course of business unclogged by any creed which he might have been called to assent to before he had an opportunity of considering the subjects it contained. It also often occasioned much warmth in debate, and served to divide the House into two parties. on the very threshold of their business. This could not possibly have any good effect, but the contrary; he should therefore be happy to see the practice simplified or abolished altogether. Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) said, that he hoped the motion of the gentleman from Virginia, which had for its object a recommitment of the Answer, would not prevail. It was certainly very desirable that the select committee, appointed in the first instance for the purpose, should have reported such a draught of an Answer as would have united in its favor all parts of the House. He was not the only one who had expected it. Disappointed, however, in such an expectation, they were forbidden to indulge a hope that any good could be derived from sending it back to a committee before one vote at least was taken, and the sense of the House thus far ascertained as to the style and tenor of their reply. If this proposition for amendment should succeed, then the business would be ripe for reference to a committee, who would take such amendment as their guide, and so modify the report as to render the whole correspondent with it. As to the motion more immediately under consideration, he could not give it his unqualified vote, more especially when it was considered and acknowledged to be in its operation a complete substitute. Candor, however, compelled him to declare that it contained one feature, and that too an important one, which attracted his attention, and would certainly have his approbation. There would, however, be a more proper place for introducing The effect at present has been, that no sooner had the committee appointed to draught an Address made a report, than the gentleman from Virginia proposed a substitute, which, according to his idea, was more proper. A warm debate had taken place, and he believed that either might be adopted without effect, as they were merely a form of words leading to no conclusion. Suppose a majority of one was obtained on the report, what end would be produced? None; for it might be that the very persons who voted on this general question, might vote against particular subjects when they came under consideration; as every one would recollect the difficulties which had been experienced in getting three frigates H. OF R.] Answer to the President's Speech. built, and this difficulty, he doubted not, would again occur. Since, however, these two forms of an Answer were before them, and they were called upon to say which they would adopt, it might be proper to go into some consideration of the subject. The difference between the two productions seemed to be, that the one reported seemed to express great indignity on account of the injuries received from the French Republic, and a determination to repel them; that produced by the gentleman from Virginia was of a more conciliatory tone, recommending to the President to begin his negotiation with placing the French Republic on the same ground with the other belli gerent Powers; so that the difference was simply as it respected a few words. What were the arguments in favor of the warm tone? They were told it would have a great effect on the French Republic, because if a spirited Answer were given to the President's Communication, signifying (as his colleague Mr. SITGREAVES had strongly expressed it) that we were determined to die in the last ditch, it would strike them with terror. If he thought this effect could be really produced, it might be some inducement for him to agree to it. Mr. S. remarked, that they were told by Mr. Pinckney, in his letter to the Secretary of State, that it was probable that two events had contributed to his dismissal from the French Republic, viz: one, the victories of Bonaparte in Italy, the other, the Addresses of the Senate and House of Representatives in answer to the Speech of the President at the last session. With respect to the Answers alluded to, no opinion could be formed from this assertion, because though that of the House of Representatives was tolerably moderate, yet that of the Senate was as warm as any thing could be produced. He read extracts from both, and compared them with each other, giving the credit, which, in his opinion, was due to the most moderate. The first and most necessary step to be taken was, to put all the belligerent Powers upon the same footing, which could not be an offence to any. But it was said that to recommend this measure to the Executive, was to dictate to him; that it was carrying humility on the front of the Minister who should be employed. What! said Mr. S., would it be to carry humility in his front to say, "I come to place you on the same footing with the most favored nation ?" It certainly could not; since it was the language of right reason, of justice. As to dictating to the Executive, could it be called dictating when we merely express our opinion and advice to him, on points which he has himself laid before us; and, in order to deliberate on which we were thus unusually called together? Very low and debasing, indeed, must be the situation of this House, if they were to be muzzled and prevented from laying their sentiments before the Chief Magistrate of the Union! When treaties are made, we are told they are laws over which we have no power. If we dare not speak on [MAY, 1797 the subject before they are made, is this House reduced merely to the odious task of laying taxes, without being allowed to exercise its sense on any other public measures connected with them? Why does the President communicate these things to us, if we are not allowed to express any sentiments about them? Why do the people elect their representatives all over this widely extended empire, if, when they are convened, they are not allowed the privilege of expressing their opinions on the dearest interests of their constituents? But is stated that this will create division among the branches of the Government, who ought always to act and think alike. Were this the case, there was no use to divide the Government, as our Constitution does, into three branches; they might all have been left in one, and then no accident of this kind would have happened; but the fact is, this very division of the branches was devised in order that they might operate as checks on each other. The people thought it better that a division of this kind should prevent acting at all, than that we should act hastily and unadvisedly. Thus when a law, after mature deliberation, passes this House as wise and good, the Senate were not obliged on this account to see it in the same light; they judge for themselves, and, if they see cause, reject it, and no complaint takes place on our part because they do so. In another Government, indeed that of England, all the branches have been contrived into the most perfect union, Kings, Lords, and Commons, all agree, but has the Government been the better for this? Happy had it been for that nation, had this not been the case. Many an unwise measure they have gone into, might then, fortunately for the nation, have been totally prevented. But it has been said we ought to express the highest indignation at the conduct of France. Let us examine for a moment on what this is founded. Three grounds have been mentioned; the dismission of our Minister, the spoliations on our ships, and the interference with our Government, in attempting to divide the people from it. As to the first, the dismission of our Minister, said Mr. S., nobody can feel more sensibly than I do, this indignity; but it only leads me to regret, as I have often already expressed my regrets, at our sending so many diplomatic gentlemen to Europe. Wretched will be our case, if we are embroiled whenever these gentlemen shall be refused, or uncivilly treated. All history is full of instances of wars, founded on such points of etiquette as these, and they admonish us against employing embassies, as much as possible, to avoid these dangers from our foreign connexions. But it seems, the Directory, by Mr. Pinckney's letter, at the same time sent away thirteen other foreign Ministers; yet we do not hear that these nations went to war on this account. One of them was Sweden, a very powerful maritime nation, possessed of a considerable fleet; her Minister was dismissed; she contented herself with sending away the French Minister also, and here the dispute ended. But, surely allowance ought also to be made for the present revolutionary state of MAY, 1797.] Answer to the President's Speech. France. If all things do not proceed there with the order they ought, it is perhaps because of their present warlike and revolutionary position, which cannot but mend every day, and should induce us to make some allowance for them. [H. OF R. ourselves, who, perhaps, according to their different interests, would, under pretext of defending commerce, only be committing spoliations on each other at sea. War might increase the quantity of depredations, but I doubt if, by this measure, we could safely repress or control them; sooner or later it must lead us to the calamity we all wish so ardently to avoid, the positive evils and misfortunes of war. As to the spoliations, they doubtless are also just causes of complaint from America ; but while they are equally continued to this day by England, Spain, Holland, and France, we ought to go war with all these Powers, if we mean to attack But it is stated that France wanted to divide any on this score; for surely the groans of our the people from the Government, and to influence seamen, so emphatically heard by the gentleman it unduly: and this has been compared to dividup before me, from Massachusetts, are heard as ing us from ourselves; as if she wished to tear distinctly from Cape Nichola Mole as from Cape the arms from the shoulders, the legs from the Francois, and ought to rouse equal indignation, thighs, or the head from the trunk. This is sureunless we have ears to hear injuries from one ly too absurd for any Government to have intendquarter only. He thought, indeed, it would evince ed, and could never be expected to succeed, unless our spirit to go to war with them all, and by that indeed measures were to be taken by the Govmeans retaliate upon each the injuries we have ernment oppressive and injurious to the people ; received from each. But nothing was said about in which case we have often seen this effect prothe spoliations of the British. The British take duced in other countries, not so much however property bound to France in pursuance of the from foreign faction or influence as from domestreaty; and the French, taking advantage of the tic oppression or discontent. A general clamor stipulation made in the British Treaty, that "free was indeed raised against France, in Europe, as if ships do not make free goods," take our property she were the enemy of all social order and govbound to English ports. So that this is the ground ernment; but the fact is, their Governments upon which all of our difficulties rest. Upon the would never have been affected but in proportion admission to take, lies the evil; for, a French as they were intrinsically bad and oppressive. In privateer meeting an American merchantman this country the people love the Government besays to him, "You have English goods on board." cause they are happy; keep them so. keep them He answers "no;" but the vessel is taken into a as free as possible from taxes, embark them in no French port to undergo a trial, and in the mean unnecessary wars or troubles, and you need never time the engagements of the merchant become fear the effects of any foreign influence on them. due, which being unable to meet, from this fail- Alarms of this kind may do well for hungry ure in the arrival of his vessels, he is ruined. The pamphleteers and greedy scribblers, whose writfact is, that while the war lasts, so will the spolia-ings, it is to be lamented, are so greedily purtions, in spite of every thing we can do to the contrary; not because the nations at war are just, but because they are powerful, and use that power as suits their own interest, without reference to our grievances or complaints. For this there is no remedy but an embargo, since nothing short of this can prevent the captures complained of; and this remedy has been thought worse than the disease, since it puts a stop to all commerce and must tend to lower the prices of our produce. We must, therefore, he presumed, leave trade to regulate itself in this respect; although, it may be incidentally observed, that our European, and China, and East India trade have been hitherto preserved pretty free from violation. We have suffered most in the West Indies; but here, it is to be remarked, the French Republic have no decided power; their islands are governed by a provisional agency, who are obliged to keep the blacks and mulattoes in good humor in order to preserve those possessions, and who are so little under the control of France that they have frequently shipped back to them the Generals and Commissioners they have sent out to them. In the West Indies, in fact, all is plunder, the age of the buccaniers is revived, and even exceeded, and those who go thither must trust for safety only to their heels; for as to arming them, I doubt much whether we could prevent this being made a pretext of for fitting out more privateers from among chased and read among us, but never ought to be admitted within the limits of these walls; all the noise of British and French parties in this country being merely terms of abuse bandied about, and at best but empty nonsense. But it is said our independence is menaced, and we must make a second edition of it. By whom is it invaded? Does France want to govern us? She would bave but poor encouragement in this from the fate of her predecessor. Can England desire it? She makes more by us in the silent but productive operations of trade. Let us not then deceive ourselves by this empty declamation. If France finds fault, it is not at our laws or Constitutions as they relate to us at home; surely, if by any effects of them abroad they operate to her disadvantage, she has a right to complain, and we ought to inquire into the complaint, and if well founded, to redress it as far as in our power. But a gentleman from Massachusetts apprehends the Atlantic will not be able to restrain the tide of French victories; that they will land and revolutionize the Southern States and free the negroes. I confess, said Mr. S., I have no apprehensions of this kind; but if we really have such ideas, how much the more careful ought we to be to avoid a war which has been so desolating to other nations, and especially now, when they are getting so tired of it and anxious to put an end to H. OF R.] Answer to the President's Speech. it; for it is plain their exhausted resources must soon compel them to do this, and it would be an unlucky moment for us to get into the scrape as others were getting out of it. It has been often observed that the people and the Government are one; but if the Representatives are compelled to divide even to carry an Answer by a majority of one or two votes, will this carry an idea of unanimity? Had we not better modify the Answer in such a way as may produce a more general acquiescence in it? This will give more true dignity to our proceedings, and give a proof that we are governed by reason more than passion, by the love of our country rather than by any other consideration. [MAY, 1797. perils and the errors in which that report would involve us; he could not consent to so hasty, so precipitate, and inconsiderate a step. The question properly before the House at this time is, whether we shall continue to express so perfect a reliance on all the acts of our own Government; whether we shall say obstinately to France that there is no possible case in which our judgment could have been misled or mistaken in our conduct towards her; and, by determining to adhere to our former conduct, preclude every possibility to an amicable adjustment; or leave a reasonable opportunity open for an effectual discussion and adjustment of differences, wherever they may subsist. Mr. LIVINGSTON said that, having listened to the The scope of the Speech of the President to gentlemen who had preceded him with the most both Houses, it must be confessed, goes to bind us respectful attention, and heard their ardent ex- to the former conduct; and it is too evident that pressions of patriotism and the lively sense which the report, in strict coincidence with the sentithey entertained of the true dignity of our Gov-ments of several, but not all its supporters, bears ernment, he should not attempt to follow them into a field which had been exhausted, but would leave it to the consideration of the committee and his country to determine upon his sentiments and the measures which he should suggest whether he was not equally disposed with others to promote the peace and honor, the happiness and security of his country and Government; he would leave it for his measures to speak for him; he would not be led away by any idle or extraneous vanity from objects so solemn and important; he should speak freely as became an American at a crisis so very pressing. First, then, he should notice the Address that was before the committee, and the amendment which had been proposed to be made to it; he was sorry to observe the manner in which they had been discussed. It had been considered, on one side, that to adopt any language in reply to the Address but that which has been laid before the committee in the report, would amount to a surrender of all our rights, privileges, and independence, as a nation, to France; on the other, it has been held that the differences between us and France are distorted, and that we should at least not shut up every avenue to negotiation by an obstinate and blind assertion of our own infallibility. If he believed, with those of the former opinion, that we should in any shape incur the stigma of degrading ourselves, or if he suspected even that we should sacrifice one right of our country or Government by an adoption of the amendment proposed, or he thought we should not endanger our national character and safety by the adoption of the report, he should most certainly reject the amendment and adopt the report; or if he believed, with the gentleman from Massachus'ts, (Mr. Oris,) that the demands of France now were any wise analogous to those of Great Britain on a former occasion, sooner than consent to a dereliction of independence and national character he would not stop short of the language of that report: but as he could not force his judgment to so outrageous a misconstruction, as he saw on the contrary numerous reasons to entertain a very different opinion, he would not consent to incur the that same dangerous tendency. From which line of conduct are we to expect the most beneficent issue, to treat with a complaining Power by a determination to show that its complaints are groundless, or by examining the complaints and the evidence in amicable negotiation and deciding afterwards? Let us examine the complaints of France, and then determine whether they are all so frivolous as to excite irritation at the mere mention of them; unless we are so convinced, unless we are thoroughly satisfied that they are so, we cannot vote the Answer as it is reported. Should we discover in such an examination that some of our measures have been founded at least in mistake, would it then be proper to adopt the language of the Address? But should we persist under such a possibility of mistake, what do we risk? an evil much more fatal than the worst that could follow the most sober resolution which we can now adopt; we risk the alternative of abandoning it after a war in which we may be sufferers, and after we may have retarded the increasing prosperity of our country half an age. We have an example before us in a nation that was eager to snatch at a remote pretext for an assumed interference in her Government; we have seen that nation, among the most powerful and haughty in Europe, the most vain of her dignity, (real or unreal,) the most apt to interfere in the government of others; we have seen her enter into a war, and we have seen her driven to the lowest state of humiliation; we have seen her obliged to pursue the most abject means of solicitation to obtain a peace from that very nation whom she had irritated to a war; and we saw her more humiliated still, by the rejection of those propositions which she had made to obtain peace. Have we a better prospect than that nation? Are our means equal to hers? Are we, indeed, ready to embark in a war-with France, too-and present such a lesson to the world as America at war with France, after France has defeated the efforts of all the world? He again asked, have we the means? Let gentlemen who are willing to plunge us into that dilemma make the reply; but let not gentlemen indulge in so hateful a picture. But, although we |