Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

H. OF R.]

Foreign Intercourse.

[MARCH, 1798.

gentleman from Pennsylvania wishes to substitute tral rights; so that he may be enabled to take the in the place of our present diplomatic appoint-proper steps for obtaining redress. ments. The Consuls, in order to perform the duties, which he says ought to be assigned to them, must be turned into Ministers, equally expensive with the present corps, but far less efficacious.

In the third place, we should have a multitude of these new-fashioned Consul Ministers, for we have a variety of Consuls in each of the great maritime nations of Europe. There is one in every considerable trading town. In France, for instance, we have six or seven; perhaps a much greater number. Each of these, upon the plan of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, must reside at Paris; for it would be impossible for them to be perpetually running backward and forward between their respective seaports and Paris, as often as any affair might occur requiring an application to the Government. If any gentleman should doubt of this, let him look at the list now on the table, of between four and five hundred American vessels carried into the different ports of France, or detained there, contrary to the Treaty, and redress for the capture and detention of which must be obtained, if obtained at all, from the French Government by means of either a Minister or of Consuls. The Consuls, therefore, if they are to do the business, must all reside at Paris; and, instead of one Minister, we should have nine or ten; perhaps a greater number. These observations will apply, with a greater or less degree of force, to every other country with which we have a considerable commerce. And yet the gentleman from Pennsylvania tells us that our commercial relations ought to be left to Consuls!

Having seen, Mr. Chairman, what the duty of Consuls is not, let us now inquire, for a moment, what it is. We shall find them very necessary agents, though wholly inadequate to the business usually committed to Ministers.

In the first place, it is their duty to settle disputes which may arise between seafaring people of their own nation, arriving in the foreign ports where they respectively reside. These disputes, we know, are apt to arise between the masters and crews of ships; and these the Consuls are usually empowered to terminate in a manner less tedious and expensive than could be done by the local laws of the country.

In the next place, they are to assist seafaring people of their own country, who may happen to have any disputes with the people of the place; they are to make advances to them when in distress, and to procure redress for them in all cases where it can be afforded by the local authorities of their respective ports.

And lastly, they are to act as agents between the people of their country and the Minister; to inform him of cases which require his interference with the Government, and to facilitate to the sufferers the means of applying to him. They are to be his agents in all the seaports; while he is the general and immediate agent of his country with the Government. They are to keep him informed of all the cases, which occur in their respective ports, of violations of treaties or of neu

The duties of these agents, whom we call Consuls, are, therefore, distinct from those of a Minister. so necessary in themselves, and so incapable of being performed except by persons residing in the seaports, that were all the present Consuls, according to the plan of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, to be immediately sent to the capitals, and converted into Ministers under a new name, their place must instantly be supplied by other agents, whom, perhaps, the gentleman would not choose to call Consuls, but who must be invested with the same powers and perform the same duties. Such is the wise and notable scheme of the gentleman from Pennsylvania; and thus it is he is to rid us of the expense of Ministers!

Let me be permitted, Mr. Chairman, to propose another question to the gentleman from Pennsylnia. If Ministers have nothing to do with commercial relations except making treaties of commerce, how comes it to pass that the gentleman is willing for us to have Ministers of the highest grade with those two nations with whom we have treaties of commerce, and where, according to him, Ministers can have nothing to do?—I mean France and England; with both of which nations we have commercial treaties, and where the gentleman consents to our retaining Ministers Plenipotentiary. To be consistent with himself, he ought to attempt the recall of these two Ministers, by refusing an appropriation for their salaries, and to leave untouched those of Lisbon and Berlin, who may possibly have something to do. But this is not the gentleman's object. He has another; which is to establish the principle of controlling the Executive in the exercise of this part of his Constitutional functions, and thus effect a breach in the intrenchments of the Constitution; and he will pardon me for considering this doctrine, about which he has discoursed so much, and with such ingenuity, as a mere pretext to cover his attack.

So much, Mr. Chairman, for the utility of Ministers in general, who appear to me essentially necessary, not merely for making commercial treaties, but for protecting the rights of our citizens in foreign countries, according to treaties where there are any, and under the law of nations, where there

are none.

But gentlemen point particularly to the mission to Berlin, and triumphantly demand what benefit is to be expected from sending a Minister to Berlin? What have we to do, say gentlemen, with the King of Prussia, or the politics of Ger-. many? To me, Mr. Chairman, let me repeat it, it is enough that the President has judged it proper to send a Minister to Berlin; for to him and the Senate, in my belief, and not to this House, has the Constitution confided the right to decide on this subject. But to gentlemen who are not satisfied with this answer, I will give another, and one which, I promise myself, they will find satisfactory. Have gentlemen, who object to this motion, adverted to the peculiar situation of Europe at this moment? Have they adverted to our own peculiar situation? We have a most disagreea

[blocks in formation]

ble dispute with the French Republic. France has made peace with the Emperor; and a Congress is now sitting, if not already terminated, to settle the affairs of Germany, and adjust the balance of Europe. In this Congress interests of the utmost magnitude in themselves, and in the highest degree important to France, are to be discussed; no less than to determine whether France shall extend her borders to the Rhine, or be restricted to the Meuse; whether more than two millions of souls, formerly subjects of the German empire, shall become citizens of the French Republic. In this Congress the King of Prussia is mediator; a youthful monarch, enterprising, warlike, and ambitious, at the head of three hundred thousand of the finest troops in Europe, and with a treasury replenished by four years of peace, while the coffers of his neighbors are in a most exhausted condition. With these advantages, joined to his local position, he holds in his hands the balance of France and Germany. Prepared to strike in every direction, he is dreaded and courted by all parties; and especially by France, who feels that after Austria, now exhausted and desirous of repose, he is the only Power capable of checking her ambitious designs. Hence she has the greatest possible interest to soothe and conciliate him. This monarch possesses all the finest ports in the Baltic, and a great extent of maritime territory. His predecessor, the great Frederick, sensible that commerce alone can supply money, the sinews of military strength, always felt the greatest solicitude to render his States commercial; and one of the means by which he hoped to effect this purpose, was to form connexions with commercial nations. This was the spirit of his Government, and became a standing maxim in his system of policy. Accordingly, having discovered that the United States must speedily become a great commercial nation, he was among the first to form a treaty of commerce with us.

Is there not reason to expect that the same views may be entertained by his successor now on the throne? And was it not wise to do every thing in our power for keeping up a good understanding with a monarch who has it in his power to serve us so essentially? How is this to be done? By sending a Minister to his Court, renewing our treaty with him which is about to expire, and holding out to him the prospect of commercial arrangements, not injurious to us, but perhaps highly desirable to him, and sufficient to procure his good offices and interference in the adjustment of our differences with France. Would this interference be unavailing? I apprehend not; for France has too much interest in keeping well with this monarch to refuse attention to his mediation. His interference, if he should choose to interfere seriously, would, on the contrary, be more efficacious, in all probability, than fifty ships of the line.

[H. oF R.

ought to have been deterred by the paltry consideration of saving nine or ten thousand dollars.

But gentlemen constantly repeat that we ought to have no political connexions with the nations of Europe. This is about as wise as to say a man ought never to have a fever. A fever, no doubt, is a very bad thing, and political connexions may also be bad things; but we already have them, and the question is not whether they are good or bad, but how we shall get rid of them. We not only have political connexions, but disputes of a most disagreeable nature, growing out of those connexions. This is attested by all the papers on the table, by various acts of the House, and, more strongly still, by the universal capture and condemnation of our property. It is vain and foolish, therefore, to repeat continually that we ought not to have foreign connexions; but our business is to inquire how they may be best got rid of. How is this to be done? I answer, by settling our present differences, and avoiding new ones. Unless gentlemen mean to submit, and if they do, I have nothing to say to them, having already had opportunities, on former occasions, to say all that seemed necessary on that subject. Unless they now mean to submit, I repeat, that the only method of getting rid of those foreign connexions, about which they so loudly exclaim, is to settle our present differences in the best manner we can, and avoid new ones. For this purpose we must employ Ministers; and none could be more wisely employed than the one to Berlin.

This diplomatic intercourse, therefore, about which gentlemen raise so great an outcry, is perfectly consistent with a wish to get rid, as fast as we can, of foreign connexions; and if gentlemen were sincere in that wish, it appears to me that, instead of opposing these appointments, they would applaud and support them. Gentlemen must excuse me if I say I do not think them sincere; that, in my opinion, foreign relations are merely a stalking-horse, behind which they advance to attack the Administration, and the system of policy which it has adopted. To foreign relations and foreign intercourse, in my opinion, gentlemen have no objection, provided those relations can be such as they wish, and conducted in the manner which they desire. It is against the nature of these connexions, and not to foreign connexions in themselves, that the hostility of gentlemen is directed. For the proof of this position, I appeal to the history of the measures pursued by those gentlemen since the commencement of this Government.

I ask gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, who think with me that the present attempt ought to be resisted, whether they can separate it from that system of measures which its supporters have so zealously and perseveringly pursued since the commencement of the war between France and England? I cannot. I am compelled to view it in I do not know, Mr. Chairman, that this inter- connexion with that system, and it is this conference will be obtained, or ought much to be ex-nexion which makes me dread it. Viewing it in pected; but I am fully persuaded that it was wise to use the means, to send the Minister, and make the attempt; from which I have no idea that we

this connexion, the time which is chosen for making the attempt is, to me, its most alarming feature. This extension of foreign intercourse, which

[blocks in formation]

is made the pretext for the present attempt, is not a measure of this day. It was adopted in May, 1796, and that was the time for opposing it, if the reasons for the opposition were really such as gentlemen allege. But no opposition, or at least none of any consequence, was made at that time. have looked over the debate which took place on that occasion, and I find that, although some objections were made, they rested on a ground wholly different from that now taken. They were confined to the expediency of the measure; but not one word was said of the danger of Executive influence, or the necessity of checking Executive patronage. Among others, I was most struck by the observations of a gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. FINDLEY,) which agree precisely with our present doctrines, and appear to me so solid and important, that I cannot forbear presenting them to the committee. They are found in the debate of May 30, 1796, on the extension of foreign intercourse, and in these words:

[MARCH, 1798.

cert with those on the other side of the water, the impression that gentlemen are playing into the hands of a foreign Government, which is pursuing every hostile measure against this country? This impression I wish to resist; but I fear that the pubIlic mind will not resist it; nor can I easily resist it, when I advert to that system of alliance with France and war against England, which was at an early period imported into this country, and has been ever since pursued with so much activity and perseverance in this House.

When I say this system of alliance and war was imported into this country, I have no allusion to any member of this House. I have no doubt that it was imported by a member of this Government, but not of this House; and it was a part of the system adopted by the revolutionists of France, when they resolved to wage war against all their neighbors, especially England, for the purpose of subverting the Government of their own country, and gratifying their own personal ambition. This war, we know, was resolved on long before it was declared; and it was then determined that the United States should engage in

"Mr. Findley said that he had voted against this measure, in the Committee of the Whole, and he thought he was right in doing so; but he was now of opin-it on the part of France. A regular scheme was ion, that except the House had information sufficient to convince them that the appropriation was necessary, they ought to grant it. He wished as much as any one to save the money of the public, but he believed our Government was, in some degree, obliged to conform to European practices. If we had Ministers Plenipotenti ry at one Court, he did not know where to draw the line. He believed they should do best in leaving the Executive to settle this matter."

The committee, Mr. Chairman, will doubtless be struck, as I have been, with the contrast between these sentiments and those which the same gentleman, and those with whom he acts, have expressed on the present occasion. The gentleman, no doubt, has good reasons for his change of opinion, but as I do not know them, I must seek for them in the change of our situation. I should be sorry to say, or believe, that it is to be found there; but the appearance of the thing to my mind is so singular, and so alarming, that I cannot conceal it. At that time we had no dispute with France; now we have. At that time the French Government had not declared us to be a people divided from our Government; now it has. At that time we were not on the eve of a conflict in which it was to be proved whether the people of this country shall be governed by France, or themselves; now it is to be feared that we are. In this awful, this momentous situation of our country; when we know that France, in her hostile measures, proceeds on the persuasion that our people are divided from our Government, and this House against the Executive; when we see measures here introduced and prosecuted with unequalled zeal, whose plain and direct tendency is to set this House at war against the Executive; to degrade the President, and hold him up to public view as the enemy of liberty, and unworthy of confidence; can we avoid observing how exactly these attempts are calculated to promote the views of France? Can we avoid the impression of a con

concerted, according to every appearance, for drawing them into it. The missionary arrived, who was to convert us to this new faith; and this missionary was a citizen of our own, who was recalled from a public employment in that country, to fill a high official station here.* Not long after, a French Minister was sent over to second his efforts, and he came furnished with ample instructions, and fortified with ample means of seduction.

Before this Minister arrived, accounts reached us that the war between England and France was commenced. As we had extensive and important relations, both of a commercial and political nature, with these two nations, it immediately became a question of the greatest importance and solicitude, how we should act in this critical situation. In the deliberations which took place on this subject, in the cabinet of the Executive, two very opposite opinions immediately appeared; one for war on the side of France, and the other for a firm neutrality: and there were two men at that time in the councils of the President, who supported these two opinions. The advocate of the war system did not venture openly to oppose the system of neutrality, which he knew to be the

*For avoiding mistakes, Ideclare, that in this and the succeedStates, whom I consider as the author and secret mover of this sysing passages, I allude to the present Vice President of the United tem of war against England, and alliance offensive and defensive with France-a system which, far from being abandoned, is, in my Hence all their efforts to keep the country disarmed, to deprive the opinion, now pushed with more zeal than ever, by the same party. Government of the public confidence, and to compel it, by those France. For when this breach is once made, they know that a war means, to break anew with England, in obedience to the orders of must be the next step, and then the alliance with France, or rather and these gentlemen would rule the country under the orders of a subjection to her under the name of an alliance, follows of course; French Minister, as is now actually the case in Holland. I con

sider the letter to Mazzei, and Genet's charge about "a language

official and a language confidential," joined to the general tenor of this gentleman's conduct, and the book of his friend, Mr. Monroe,

as full proofs that my opinion is well founded. for war, the second for neutrality.

These two men were Jefferson and Hamilton. The first was

MARCH, 1798.]

Foreign Intercourse.

[H. OF R.

wish of the country. To have opposed it openly; the British Treaty, which was justly considerto have declared, in plain terms, that we ought ed as a part of the same system of neutrality. not to remain neutral, but to engage in the war, The efforts of the friends of war, and their chief, with finances so deranged, a Government so im- were, however, unavailing. The people of Amerperfectly established, and a condition of affairs so ica, indeed felt a warm, an almost enthusiastic, unsettled, would, as he well knew, have disgusted partiality for France, whom they considered as and alarmed the people, and ruined the project. contending for liberty, and on this partiality the He therefore acted with more art and address. He party founded strong hopes of success. But the labored to the utmost to induce the President not good sense of the people enabled them to discern to decide, himself, upon the question of neu- that, whatever might be their wishes for the suctrality, but to convene Congress, and refer the cess of France, the interest of their own country decision to them. Why? Because it was known lay in preserving peace; and they gave, throughthat a popular body, like Congress, was infinitely out the Union, the most unequivocal proofs of more susceptible of enthusiasm, more easily approbation to the proclamation of neutrality. wrought on by management and intrigue, more When Congress met, this sentiment had become obnoxious to the influence of popular clamor,so strong and universal that the war party did not mobs, and venal presses, than the cool, deliberative councils of the President. It was also known that in case of a reference to Congress, the neutral system would lose the aid of its author's talThough a second time disappointed, they did ents, who was precluded, by his official station, for not, however, lose courage, nor abandon their a seat in that body. To this point then the author schemes. But, as a system of neutrality had now of the war system directed his whole force. He been adopted, it was too late to talk of war; and labored to convince the President that it did not the next step, therefore, was to explain this neubelong to him to decide the question of neutrality, trality in such a manner as would render it, in but to Congress, to whom the Constitution re-effect, an alliance with France, and a state of hosquired it to be referred; and in this effort, it is well known that he was aided, to the utmost, by that description of people who have, since that time, omitted no opportunity in their power of hurrying us into a war against England.

dare to oppose it. The proclamation was approved of by Congress, and the party and their chief once more had a hook put into their nose.

tility against England. This was attempted accordingly; but, as the author of the war system held an official station under the Executive, he could not openly appear in it. The French Minister came forward, and advanced the pretensions, Fortunately, however, the President saw and which it was the part of the other personage to avoided the snare. His sound judgment, and pen- second and support in the President's Council. A entrating discernment, enabled him to perceive all right was claimed on the part of France to arm, the hazards of such a reference; his good sense fit, and commission ships of war in our ports; to prevented him from entertaining a doubt about his exclude British ships of war under pretences Constitutional power to decide this question; and which would have applied to every possible case; his firmness enabled him to make and support the to enlist crews among our citizens; to raise ardecision. The Proclamation of Neutrality accord-mies in our country; and to preclude our courts ingly appeared.

It no sooner made its appearance, than the war party and their chief raised an outcry against it from one end of the continent to the other. The French Minister, (Genet,) who arrived soon after, remonstrated; the popular societies formed under his auspices, published resolutions; and the venal presses, the principal of which was under the immediate direction of the author of the war system, poured forth abuse against the Proclamation of Neutrality, the Minister who advised it, and the President by whom it was issued. In short, Mr. Chairman, no expedient which disappointed intrigue and an artful, enraged spirit of party could devise, was omitted for raising a universal popular indignation against this proclamation of neutrality, and for preparing Congress to condemn and reverse it. The changes were rung from town to town, from State to State, and from one end of the Union to the other, on pusillanimity, on national degradation, on ingratitude to France, on servile submission to England. And this proclamation was furiously assailed with the very same weapons which we have since employed against

*The National Gazette, whose editor, Philip Freneau, was a confidential clerk of Mr. Jefferson. This paper was the vehicle of all the most violent attacks against the Proclamation of Neutrality.

of justice from all cognizance of prizes taken and brought in by vessels acting under French commissions. It was contended on the part of France that we ought to resist, by force, the right claimed by England, and clearly acknowledged by the law of nations, to take the goods of her enemies when found on board of our neutral vessels. It requires no discernment, Mr. Chairman, to see that these pretensions, had they been agreed to, would have placed the direction of our affairs in the hands of France, and must instantly have induced a state of war between us and England. This was well understood by the war party; and, therefore, as everybody recollects, they aided and supported the French Minister to the utmost of their power. These pretensions, indeed, were repelled by the President, who adopted a system wholly differenta system of national independence and fair neutrality; but it was well known to have been adopted contrary to the opinion, and in spite of the efforts, of the chief of this party. When it was adopted, he did indeed defend it, in his official character; but he has taken care to declare* his abhorrence of it, and the French Minister did

In the letter to Mazzei, where he stigmatizes this very system, as a system of ingratitude and injustice to France

[blocks in formation]

not fail to accuse him of duplicity for having written officially in its defence.†

While officially defended by their chief, the party themselves assailed it with the most persevering violence. The haranguers exclaimed, the self-created societies resolved, the presses devoted to the party teemed with abuse; and that, in particular, which was under the immediate direction of the chief, poured forth one continued torrent of virulent invective. Afraid to attack the head of the Executive department himself, whose tried virtue, whose splendid services, whose great and well-earned popularity, could not fail to rouse the public indignation against any who might impeach the purity of his conduct, all the shafts were levelled at the counsellor by whose advice the system was supposed to have been adopted, and by whose talents it was ably supported. It was everywhere declared, and everywhere most industriously propagated, that this person had enslaved the mind of the President, and misled his judgment. Everywhere, by every press, and every club, was this person branded as a speculator, as a thief, a plunderer of the public Treasury, which was under his superintendence-a wretch, in the pay of England; in fine, the most profligate of traitors, the most dangerous of public enemies. These calumnies, asserted within these walls, circulated by members of this House, were industriously wafted from State to State, for the purpose of overwhelming with obloquy and public hatred the author and prop of the neutral system, as an essential step towards the destruction of the sys

tem itself.

When the public mind was thought to be sufficiently prepared, a direct attack was made on him in this House, for the purpose of driving him from his office, so that the President, deprived of his counsels, might the more easily be brought to concur in the designs of the war party and of France. The charges, before circulated in a vague and indirect form, were reduced to specific accusations, and brought before this House. as the grounds of a vote of impeachment. But, although the party had met with some success while they confined themselves to their stronghold, to the ambiguas in vulgum spargere voces," which I mentioned in the beginning of my observations, yet, when they ventured to fight on the open plain of fact and proof, they were totally routed; when their vague calumnies assumed the shape of resolutions, they were easily refuted. Every charge was repelled by a vast majority of this House; and the wise and virtuous statesman, to whom his country is so much indebted, rising triumphant from the contest, established his fame and his system on a basis more solid than ever-like some mighty oak, whose roots are more strongly fixed, and new vigor added to its growth, by those storms which seem to threaten its overthrow.

Thus the war party were again discomfitted; and, in spite of all their efforts, aided by the efforts

†See Genet's letter to Mr. Jefferson, of September 18, 1793-pages 70 and 73, of the printed correspond

ence.

[MARCH, 1798.

of the French Minister, a system of fair and impartial neutrality, calculated to preserve justice to all. and keep peace with all, was completely established.

Though beaten, however. Mr. Chairman, they were not subdued; nor could they be induced to relinquish their favorite object of war and alliance. They waited for a more favorable opportunity of renewing the attack, and that opportunity the unjust aggressions of England on our trade too soon supplied. These aggressions, joined to the remembrance of our former contest with that Power, and the resentments remaining from her former injuries, raised a flame of indignation throughout the country, which, pervading all classes and distinctions of people, prepared the public mind for measures of hostility. The occasion was seized by the war party, and used with an activity and zeal which gave them the fairest prospects of success. The attempts were not direct; because in that case the people might have been brought to reflect. The great object, then, as before, was war against England, and alliance with France; but not one word was said about war or alliance, words which might have created alarm, and given rise to hesitation. But measures were proposed whose direct and inevitable tendency was to widen the breach with England, and inflame the two countries more and more against each other. These measures assumed various shapes, to suit the feelings and catch the passions of particular individuals, or classes of men, and were urged with unremitting zeal and indefatigable industry. Sometimes commercial restrictions on the trade of England were attempted; sometimes the intercourse between the two countries was to be cut off; and sometimes confiscation and sequestration were resorted to. Many of our best citizens, and the firmest friends to peace and neutrality, were impelled by the warmth of the moment, and the insinuations of this party, to favor, and even to propose or advocate, these measures; and nothing was omitted to raise a storm of popular resentment and public odium against all those who had the firmness to withstand them. To speak of negotiation was branded as pusillanimity; to speak of attempts at amicable adjustment, was pronounced to be little short of treason. Gentlemen, for their opposition to these hostile measures, were stigmatized on this floor as the agents of England; mobs were hired to burn them in effigy in various towns in the Union; the presses devoted to the war party assailed them with continued volleys of calumny; their names were coupled with every disgraceful epithet, with every vile accusation, in the toasts of clubs and the resolutions of societies; and, finally, by all these means, aided by the continued aggressions of England, an universal flame was excited in the country, and the party saw itself approach rapidly to the moment of its triumph over the system of peace and neutrality.

When the country was thus on the point of rushing down the precipice, the President of the United States, destined so often to become its saviour, again stretched out his paternal hand, and

« AnteriorContinuar »