MAY. 1797.] Answer to the President's Speech. addressed to the Dutch nation, as the Speech of Barras was to the French nation, but a private communication to the Secretary of State, at a time when it would have been a breach of his duty not to have written it. When differences like these were overlooked, the committee would determine what degree of credit was due to the gentleman's assertions. The next article which he should notice was an appeal which the gentleman spoke of as made to the people of Holland, when Minister there. Did the gentleman know what this appeal was? He would inform him. There was a little club in Holland who made it their business to inquire into literary, historical, and political subjects. Mr. Colquhoun, a member of the club, with whom Mr. Adams was acquainted, submitted some queries to Mr. Adams, to which he requested his answer; he answered them, and Mr. Colquhoun read the answer in the club: they requested it might be printed, and, on being applied to, Mr. Adams consented that it should be printed. And these circumstances were to be the set-off against all the abuses which the French Ministers have shown this country. It occurred to him that there was another fact in which he was mistaken, as a proof of which he should produce the best authority it would be under his own hand. He had said, that there were thousands of our seamen, who had been taken by the British, groaning in captivity in foreign countries. They all remembered with what a glow of patriotism that gentleman had brought forward the subject; he was placed at the head of the committee; and, after a long time had been taken for making inquiries on the subject, he made a report, viz: that forty-two American citizens had been impressed by the British; also twelve British subjects, twenty-six foreigners, and twenty-seven whose country was unknown. Yet the gentleman had so far forgot ten himself as to state the number at thousands! Mr. LIVINGSTON said he would much rather be charged with ignorance than with designedly publishing a falsehood. He again quoted the artiele which he still charged the Secretary of State with mutilating. It was not with the construction put upon it (though he thought it a wrong one) that he found fault, but with the misquotation, and he insisted upon it that it was as he had stated it. [H. or R. mittee was appointed last session to inquire into the operation of the law, and whether any amendment was necessary. He reported that very few collectors had made returns; only five or six had complied with the act. Yet, in the short time which had elapsed since the passing of the act, the number above mentioned had been impressed. No gentleman supposed, when he said there were thousands of seamen in captivity, that he meant to say there were two or three thousand men thus enslaved; he meant no more than that there were a great number. No return had been made from New York and other considerable places. The multitudes of men seized before the act passed were not reported, nor those who have been taken since. He thought, therefore, if forty men were impressed in six months, when the British knew that an act had been passed on the subject, it was but reasonable to believe that there were now thousands groaning in slavery. Mr. L., therefore, trusted that the committee would be convinced that what he had at first mentioned was now confirmed. Mr. Corr's proposed amendments were then ordered to be printed for the use of the members. The committee rose, and obtained leave to sit again. THURSDAY, May 25. The House went into a Committee of the Whole (Mr. DENT in the Chair) on the amendment of Mr. NICHOLAS to the report in answer to the President's Speech. Mr. GILES rose. He said that he had always been against this form of giving Answers, since the time the practice first began; it was derived from the British House of Commons, which was a bad source for precedents. In that House, however, the Speech and the Answer were both known to be the work of the Minister, and treated with great freedom. Mr. G. thought that it would be better to direct the Committee of Rules and Orders of the House, to make one standing Answer, which would serve regularly for all Speeches. This would be an improper time for such a regulation, but though we could not now get rid of a bad habit, it was not necessary to vindicate it. He said, that Mr. LIVINGSTON had yesterday taken part of the ground which he intendThe next object was Mr. Adams's letter from ed to take. The question before the House amountthe Hague. He did not say this letter was un-ed to this: shall we recommend it to the President justifiable, but referred to it only to show that it was a common thing for Ministers to give opinions of the political situation of the country in which they reside. The third objection was a misstatement said to be made respecting the impressment of our seamen, which the gentleman from South Carolina proposed to correct from his (Mr. L's) own hand. When he first brought forward this proposition, he was told (he believed by the gentleman from South Carolina himself) that it was impossible to carry his project into execution. Notwithstanding the opposition of that gentleman and others, it was enacted into a law; and, in consequence, a com to place all nations on a level as to commerce, and to remove the inequalities between them? To assist him in deciding this point, he would refer to facts and dates; and, as he did not wish to represent things in false colors, he would be glad to be corrected, if he should happen to go wrong. He would begin at the 1st of February, 1793, when England dismissed the French Minister, and the Republic, in consequence, declared war against her. On the 22d of April following, the President declared this country to be in a state of neutrality, and warned the citizens to observe it. At this time, about the 10th May, M. Genet landed and raised a considerable alarm by commencing H. OF R.] Answer to the President's Speech. [MAY, 1797. the Indians, and the British soldiers and savages joining the tomahawk against our Western frontiers. He mentioned these things, merely to keep them in view. There was something, he said which he could never think of without surprise. This was a conversation between Lord Grenville and Mr. Pinckney. It was related in a letter, dated the 9th of January, 1794, from Mr. Pinckney. It took notice of Lord Grenville telling Mr. Pinckney the desire which the British Government had of maintaining harmony with the United States, and their readiness to support the Government of this country against a dangerous Jacobin faction who wanted to overturn it. Mr. G. said, that this betrayed more interference on the part of Britain than there ever had been on the part of France. From this time our Government had taken a leaning towards Britain. French influence was only a sentiment which we felt for the sake of liberty, but which was sometimes conjured up as a chimera to serve certain purposes. The United States had a real interest in cherishing the sentiment, which never could be dangerous. an improper correspondence with our citizens. He would pass over Lord Dorchester's speech to Government from that time took a wrong impression, and acted under the idea of a dangerous French influence in this country. All this was a mistake. Genet was universally reprobated, unless by a few disorderly people, and Government from that trial should have learned to trust us. In consequence of the disturbance that Genet made, many societies entered into resolutions to support Government. Even the pulpit reviled Genet. If execration, disappointment, and contempt, could fill up the measure of punishment, he had it. From the arrival of Genet to that of Fauchet, some sentiments were kept alive, and some phrases that he would review. The Friends of Order and the Disorganizers were two of them. Then we had the reign of moderation, but of so frantic a kind, for the short time which it lasted, as to exercise the greatest of despotism over opinion. This order, moderation, and disorganization, were all gone and no more said about them. Among Mr. G.'s constituents, when notice came of the Western insurrection, they were all ready to march in support of Government; instead of calling themselves the friends of order, they proved that they were so. The country remained from this time in a tranquil state till the arrival of Mr. Jay's Treaty. On the 5th of December, 1793, a Message was received from the President, speaking of France in the most friendly terms. In spite of Genet's quarrel there was no misunderstanding with the Republic, and Mr. G. quoted this circumstance to prove that there was no serious difference till the arrival of Mr. Jay's Treaty. Mr. G. said that he would review what was in the mean time passing in Europe. During the Summer of 1793, Britain made no less than six treaties with different nations, and one stipulation in each of them was that the contracting parties should stop all provisions going to France, and force all other nations to do so. The first of these treaties was made with Russia, on the 20th of March, 1793; the second was with Spain; the third with Prussia; the fourth with the Emperor; the fifth with Portugal; and the last with the King of the two Sicilies. It was said that France preceded Britain in the order for stopping provisions. Britain did not publicly issue such orders until the 16th of June, 1793; but Britain had, in reality, adopted the practice long before. The French orders fluctuated; but, at one time, the United States were exempted from stoppage, when others were stopped. He then noticed the stoppage of provisions to the West Indies; the Orders of the 6th of November, 1793, and the 8th of January, 1794. In the very short interval between these two dates, France had gone on so fast that Britain found it better to ameliorate the condition of neutral States. During this time, England also made a truce for Portugal with Algiers, and this truce has cost us fifteen hundred thousand dollars, besides what it may cost hereafter. Timber had been promised to be cut for the Algerines, of a kind which this country could not furnish in due quality. Some of it was to be brought so far as from the Northwest branch of the Susquehannah. As for British influence, it was a matter much more substantial. That people speak the same language with us, are scattered from one end of the Continent to the other, intermarry with us, and have a very great commercial intercourse. Lord Grenville's proposition had led to Mr. Jay's Treaty. As to France trying to engage us in the war, any other nation in the world would be glad to do so. France had addressed the people of America, and was resisted: Britain had addressed our Government; and Mr. G. feared that the latter had not made so firm a stand. While Congress were taking proper measures to check the depredations, Mr. Jay, to the astonishment of mankind, was named Ambassador to England. The treaty was signed on the 19th of November, 1794. The instructions, Mr. G. had never seen, but if we may judge from the treaty itself, they were extremely full. For the making of such a treaty he had never heard a reason, nor had he ever been able to learn one good consequence likely to accrue from it. It had been called an instrument of peace, and its first effect was, that we were summoned to fight with France, Spain, and Holland. One of the articles was that free ships do not make free goods. This was highly injurious both to France and the United States; it implied a breach of the law of nations, because, before you can search for an enemy's goods you must stop neutral ships. This regulation could only be understood as operating against France. If we could not help the practice going on, we should at least have suffered it to stand as it was, without any countenance. All the principal articles of export from the United States were declared contraband, except tobacco, and, indeed, that might be included under the general title of provisions, as people would sometimes be in want of a chew. He spoke of this provision clause as infamous. He referred to Count Bernstoff, Minister of Denmark, who had kept his country in a more honorable 141 MAY, 1797.] Answer to the President's Speech. situation than perhaps any other in Europe had done during the present war. Mr. G. read the refusal of Count Bernstoff to comply with the British requisition to that effect. During the armed neutrality, the United States had owned that free bottoms should make free goods. Was there any reason since to alter our opinion? He would be glad to hear gentlemen answer if there was any. He had always said that the provision article was unjust to France, and yet on account of the British Treaty we are to plunge into a war before we know whether we are in the right or in the wrong. Gentlemen who had promoted the British Treaty now came forward to support it, but it would now be more manly to declare at once that we cannot do so. In Citizen Adet's complaints, many articles were unjust and trifling, but this was always the case in productions of that sort. Mr. G. then referred to the speech of Barras: he said that Britain still went on robbing and Mr. HARPER had impressing American seamen. yesterday said that the impressments were few; but how were we to be certain of that? The men are not allowed to write to us, and Mr. Pinckney informs us that vast numbers of them are in French jails. He had always wondered at our having so few communications on this head from the Executive. A law had passed in this House and in the Senate upon this subject, without any information from that quarter. Gentlemen had allowed that it would be just enough to grant an equality of privileges to every foreign nation; but, Mr. HARPER had objected, that if this were granted to France, she would still continue to demand. When she makes an unjust claim, said Mr. G., we should stop; he would not be for going any further. The French had not acted on vague claims; they take neutral and contraband articles; they take the ships, and when they find our seamen on board of British vessels, they threaten to treat them as pirates, and will not allow them to prove that they were impressed. As for Mr. Pinckney's dismission, he would not say that it was right; he was sorry for it. He gave the gentleman great credit for his behavior; he had acquired as much reputation as, in such an exigency, it was possible to acquire. But Mr. GILES would not say that the dismission was entirely groundless. If he understood the Directory, their meaning was, not that they would receive no Minister; but that he must be vested with extraordinary powers. They still say, that they hope to keep up harmony with the people of America. This surely cannot be reckoned a declaration of hostility, since the people and Government were the same. Is not this House a part of the people? But though he believed that the Directory wished for an Ambassador Extraordinary, they did not say so, but left us to our own reflections. In this they were extremely right; for such an intimation would have been called dictating to the Government. A gentleman had said yesterday, that this report of an Address was a second Declaration of Independence. Mr. G. had often thought about a year ago, that such a 142 [H. OF R. declaration would be well timed, when the British Mr. HARPER rose again. If Mr. ADAMS had ever done so, he never would have heard my approbation-they were only a literary society. Mr. GILES appealed to gentlemen whether this made any alteration. There was a strange cabalistical charm in these words democratic societies. Mr. G. said, that all M. Genet's efforts only showed that there was no such thing in this country as a French influence. He compared the style of the Answer to the President's last Speech, with Mr. Jay's memorial to Lord Grenville; the one spoke of the resources of the country, the other of the virtues of the British King. Mr. G. did not feel himself degraded by having brought forward that part of the Answer to the President's Speech of last session, which recommended the cultivation of peace. [Here Mr. W. SMITH rose, and seemed to question whether Mr. G. had obtained the insertion of such a passage.] Mr. G. upon this read it, and it was in these words, "and by all honorable means to restore that peace and harmony with France and the United States;" and since Mr. S. would have the whole history of it, Mr. G. would further tell him, that he obtained the striking out of these words on the part of the Republic, and inserting H. OF R.] Answer to the President's Speech. .[MAY, 1797. might as well have been omitted altogether on the present occasion. The members of the committee may be made sensible of the irritation of such discussions, but he believed no one would pretend to say he was fully informed of foreign concerns, on either side, to decide upon their policy or impolicy. At the same time, it should be considered that our own situation, and the best policy to be pursued in that situation, are the only proper objects of our immediate attention, and those alone upon which we can pretend to be properly informed, or to decide with effect. The question before the House was the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Virginia; and in considering that amendment, he would neither criticise upon terms, nor dispute about any of the nice delicacies of diction. These he considered of but very small consequence, indeed; and he cared not whether gentlemen should prefer "sensibility" to "indignation," or the contrary, so that the substantial ends of our deliberations shall be accomplished, and in a way the most conducive to our national honor and security. He did not pretend to censure gentlemen for the discursive manner in which they had debated on the amendment; he only fixed it as a rule for himself to adhere closely to it; and this he would do by offering such observations upon it as occurred to himself, and as arose from the remarks of other gentlemen; and he would notice the latter before the substantial facts. in their place the word mutual. Thus he had saved us from the presumption of saying that we were infallible. He could not help noticing again the very different ground taken in the present Address, wherein we rely on ourselves and our resources, and the memorial of Mr. Jay; wherein we rely on the magnanimity, &c., of the British King. A gentleman had spoken about the falling price of grain, and the bad effects of the French depredations on the farming interest. It was said last year, that the British Treaty would tend to keep the price of grain high; he was then an unbeliever in that doctrine; and since then wheat had fallen from two and an half and three dollars per bushel to a much lower price. Mr. G. was a farmer, and depended on his farm for his whole subsistence; he now sold his wheat for 78. the bushel. At the time of discussing the Treaty a clamor was raised about peace. and what sort of peace has it proved to be? War with three nations in order to keep peace with one! Is not that the fact? We are told that Barras has insulted us. He owned it; but are we to go to war to dissipate the insult? Will the farmer or the merchant be the better for such a project? Will it produce any thing but greater taxes and lesser prices for produce? He hoped that we should not go to war under the idea of obtaining reimbursement. As for expressing our opinions with regard to the mode of negotiating, we had a right to do it, and it was a matter of policy to put all nations on an equal footing with respect to trade. France would think it equal to a declaration of war if this amendment was rejected. And here Mr. G. would stop for one moment to think of the consequences of the war. The first would be a more intimate connexion with Britain-a country convulsed both from without and within, and the credit of whose paper was now gone. Mr. G. said, that there was the greatest similitude between our conduct and that of Britain, before the war, towards France. On the other hand, the Republic, possessing immense resources, has mil- This is considered by some gentlemen as an lions of armed men, for whom she cannot find apology for the dismission of our Minister. He employment at home for many years to come. would observe upon this objection very briefly; As to the effects of such a contest upon this coun- he would not inquire whether our Minister had try, they would be most destructive; and no one ordinary or extraordinary powers; but he would could tell the object for which we were to fight. consider that part of the amendment in that The adoption of the report, as it stood, was equal point of view in which there was no difference of to declaring war. The amendment merely re- opinion. We all agree that Mr. Pinckney has commended a point of good breeding. But yet, been dismissed, and no one has said that we gentlemen would rather prefer a rupture. If should be, nor that we are, precluded from further France had not been the nation referred to, there negotiation. The Speech of the President, with would not have been one dissenting voice against the sentiments of every gentleman of the comit. Mr. G. said, it was no secret that the United mittee, are united. The amendment, then, apStates had not done justice to France. He con- peared to him as an expression of that principle; cluded by making an apology for having taken and he believed that nothing more nor less than up so much time of the committee, and sat down that opinion could be found in it. after having been up above three hours. Mr. GALLATIN said, that the debate had been extended into so wide a field, that the object, which in his mind occupied the first place, was in some measure deprived of that full consideration which time and circumstances demanded. He thought those arguments which concerned the conduct of foreign nations towards each other It had been objected to the amendment that it was couched in language calculated rather to apologise for the conduct of France towards us, than to assert our injuries. The paragraph objected to was in these words: "But we flatter ourselves that the Government of France intended only to propose the ordinary diplomatic intercourse, and to bring into operation those extraordinary agencies which are in common use between nations, and which are confined in their attention to the great objects of difference." Let us now remark upon the arguments against the other part of the amendment. A gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SMITH) has told us, that possibly Mr. Pinckney had extraordinary powers, and, as he was dismissed, we should not agree in that amendment. While we agree in the principle of further negotiation, he could not discern the application of this objection. But MAY, 1797.J Answer to the President's Speech. will it be said that Mr. Pinckney had extraordinary powers, and that he could not treat? Surely that would not be maintained. He would take upon him to assert that he had not extraordinary powers; because if he had, the President would either have told us he had, or furnished us with a copy of them; and, above all, because, had he such extraordinary powers, there would have been no alternative for us between submission and war. Another gentleman (Mr. SITGREAVES) had said that he had no reliance on the magnanimity or the justice of France; that he would not trust to her as disposed to reconciliation; and yet the gentleman is disposed to support that part of the report which approves the purpose to negotiate. He believed that such declarations were not the best of all others to ensure, or even to promote, a spirit of reconciliation. If we were injured, we should not be the less so for a dispassionate representation of our injuries; and animosity is at the best of times an inauspicious temper to negotiate under. He believed, if we should be sincere on both sides, that our disputes would have an amicable termination, and if we mean to evince our sincerity that we ought to be unequivocal. He would now take up what he deemed to be the substantial part of the Address. He thought it should contain, in one shape or another, a declaration of the disposition to place France on an equal footing with every other nation; and having found it in the amendment, it was with him an additional and powerful reason for supporting it. It says: "We therefore receive with the utmost satisfaction your information that a fresh attempt at negotiation will be instituted; and we expect with confidence that a mutual spirit of conciliation and disposition on the part of the United States, to place France on the footing of other countries, by removing the inequalities which have arisen in the operation of our respective treaties," &c. In speaking of this part of the amendment, it may be necessary to notice an objection which had been made to the discussion of the subject in that House, upon the principle of the Constitution, that the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, is alone competent and authorized to consider and determine upon foreign relations. Would gentlemen then say that this House is precluded from the free exercise of opinion on the most interesting concerns of the nation? Will they say that the Representatives of the people shall have no voice or deliberative weight in questions which go to decide whether peace shall be preserved, or war rendered inevitable? Until they do assert this, or at least until the Constitution declares it-for it is so far fortunate that the Constitution is much stronger than those gentlemen-until they declare this, in the face of the Constitution, it will be the duty of that House to disregard such far-stretched doctrines, and to deliberate fully. But supposing that the House should resolve to express an opinion in terms more strong, or as strong as they possibly could be expressed, and inform the President that [H. or R. we wished for peace on such and such terms, gentlemen must know that the President is not bound by the Constitution to adopt our counsel. We have the right to declare our opinion-he has the right to act; but if he acts contrary to the national opinion, it must be upon his own responsibility. It is clear, therefore, that we do not interfere with his duties; we do not usurp his functions; and there can be very little reason to suspect that the President will step out of the line of his duties or depart from the plans which his wisdom has formed, in consequence of any vote which we may pass, if it appears to him in itself wrong. If gentlemen would indeed rest upon the authority of precedent, and that derived from foreign and dissimilar constitutions, it would not be difficult to cover the table with quotations from foreign Parliamentary proceedings directly in the teeth of their assumptions, and these, too, from bodies whose rights were not so extensive, whose constitutions were not so free as ours. Gentlemen who insist on foreign precedent, and upon British Parliamentary precedent too, appear not to know or forget that it was a vote of the British House of Commons which terminated the American war; and on a late, but less important, occasion, that it was a vote of the House of Commons that terminated the Russian armament, which was a case not very remote from a resemblance of the present state of our own affairs. But gentlemen, as if conscious of the futility of these assumptions, abandon them for another kind of argument. They say our expression of our opinion betrays a want of confidence in the Executive. This argument would do very well in countries where the Executive was every thing and the people nothing; or where deliberation was only a form and not an essence. But in our free Government he did not know which to admire, the strangeness or the incongruity of the doctrine. He thought that, so far from betraying a want of confidence, he was fully persuaded the President was then waiting anxiously for the opinion of that House, or, at least, to know the opinions of the people. His wishes are for peace; but he is also desirous of ascertaining how far he shall be supported in the negotiations which are to secure it; and this disposition, and this desire, are the necessary result of his situation. He would remind gentlemen that six, seven, or eight weeks have elapsed since the President received advice of the dismission of our Minister, and yet to this hour he has not taken any steps, beside the calling of the Legislature together, towards that negotiation. What does he say to us? |