H. OF R.] Answer to the President's Speech. [MAY, 1797. willing, on conviction, to redress them, and equal | treaties of other nations in which the same prin measures of justice we have a right to expect from France and every other nation." ciple had not been recognised, unless it was in an instance mentioned of Russia having combined From this explicit declaration of the opinion with England to do it away for the temporary and intentions of the Executive, he concluded end of starving France into a surrender, or, as that it was a principal object to obtain a precise was the fashionable expression, of blotting her out knowledge of the feelings of the American peo- of the map of Europe. Denmark and Sweden ple, and that cannot be done in any shape, with a indeed had in some measure given way to the greater likelihood of certainty, than in that House. necessity of the times by declaring that they But a question has been indirectly made by would abide by none but generally received laws, gentlemen, whether it is proper to offer to place and in this they no doubt acted with a prudence France on the same footing with other nations? that could not be blamed; and it was right, under This question had indeed been already so well a pressure as urgent, that the United States had answered that there was little left for him to add, pursued a corresponding conduct; and, if right in and it might be resolved into the question, What these Powers, it could not be said to be wrong is the law of nations? Because, if there is a pre-only in the case of France, who, being willing to cise law of nations, it belongs to all, and must maintain it, cannot find the other Powers ready be mutual. This has been discussed in the me- or able to render the support mutual and general. rits of the armed neutrality, which, whether it But it had been said that America was not bound contained truly or not the fixed law of nations, by her treaty with France not to make this relinwas accepted as that permanent law by America quishment to Britain. As a foreign nation, unin the midst of her Revolution, when it was above questionably she had a right to treat as she pleased, all other seasons the least her interest so to recog- and no other nation had a right to interfere in the nise it, and which, if there was a doubt, she would acts of her sovereignty; but was it right to achave been justified in acting upon to her own sal- knowledge it in opposition to the law of nations, vation and benefit. In like manner the Treaty of and to grant it without an equivalent from the 1778 was concluded. But the gentleman from only nation that had before denied that law? It South Carolina (W. SMITH) had insisted, and the should have been the sine qua non in our negotiSecretary of State, in his letter to Mr. Pinckney, ation with Britain-not of war, but a sine qua non had endeavored to argue, that it was not meant to of negotiation. It would have been our interest be permanent. Their arguments had been al- and our duty not to abandon the principle, even ready so pointedly refuted by a gentleman from though our strength did not allow us to support New York, (Mr. LIVINGSTON,) that he had to add the execution, and we should have left past deonly one conclusive fact. The gentleman had predations to have been amicably compensated, asserted that the armed neutrality had ceased to but asserted strenuously our security for the fuoperate upon the termination of the war. Now, ture. This is a real, effectual, and not such a ficif it should be found that one Power had entered titious security as we have now obtained. The into that coalition and recognised the principles mischiefs of an abandonment of the principle are thereof as a permanent law, the gentleman's conto us of immense magnitude. clusions fell at once to the ground. The gentleman had argued that the convention of armed neutrality was not to be permanent, and the Secretary of State had supported, or rather broached, the same opinion. What does that document itself declare? "These stipulations shall be further considered as permanent, and shall decide in all matters of commerce and navigation; and, in short, in every case where the rights of neutral nations are to be determined." To this article he would only add this plain fact, which he found recorded in the history of the armed neutrality, which had been quoted by gentlemen: That, in the year after the conclusion of the war, Portugal had formally acceded to that convention; its provisions concern shipping, and we see a maritime Power acceding to it in the tranquil moments of peace, and agreeing to it as the permanent law of nations; and it is upon our accession to the principle while we were ourselves at war, and when its acceptance was in opposition to our interest, but conformable to our love of justice, and upon our subsequent recognition of it as well in the one case of our treaty with France as with others, that we are now bound to put France upon an equal footing with those to whom we have since relinquished the principle. He did not know any | On the contraband article, the gentleman from South Carolina had found Vattel, who was every thing in all other cases, completely void of authority, although Great Britain agrees with Vattel. But how is France to be contemned for her maintenance of the doctrine against Britain ? The only way to obviate the difficulty is by placing her on the same footing as France in this respect, and specially stipulating that the principle is not abandoned, but granted for a period coexistent to each of the Powers. This will be a lesser evil; but there is little to be derived from either party, and when two Powers are at war, when we are not able to enter into extensive hostility, we had better incur a disadvantage when there is no dishonor, than insist upon objects of subordinate value, which may be in more auspicious times retrieved. It had been said we should not offer France an ultimatum. He had not heard one reason to show the bad consequences of such a step. He was for giving an ultimatum, and for this very plain reason: because every thing that could be known on this subject by either party was already perfectly understood; but more particularly because Mr. Pinckney informs us the people of France entertain an opinion that we are divided, MAY, 1797.] Answer to the President's Speech. which, though true in some cases, would put us on such ground as to show that on the true national points we were united to a man. Those who oppose it on the ground of concession, would do well first to show that what we ought and are certainly willing to allow, can be so considered. If this amendment should be rejected, or at least the spirit of it should not be adopted, can it be expected that gentlemen who formerly opposed and disapproved of the measures of administration will sacrifice their opinions, as has been insinuated they should? Can it be expected that after the clamor which has been raised with the obvious intention to overawe us-after the Executive has been put up as a kind of shield to stand between us and the truth, and to protect their arguments and irritating measures from animadversion, that we should not rather be the more alarmed for ourselves and more fixed to such measures as we are convinced are just? He had always spoken freely, and he would continue so to do, always preserving due respect for others. Gentlemen in this discussion have taken a very wide scope indeed, and the gentleman from South Carolina in particular, who is usually very cool, had indulged himself in a poetical flight. He had indeed forgot himself, and launched into assertions for which there was not the least foundation. Speaking of the conduct of the several French Ministers, he had described Genet as making an appeal to the people; Fauchet as fomenting an insurrection, and Adet as insulting the Secretary. The particular point he meant to notice was the fomenting an insurrection. He was willing to allow that his constituents on that occasion had not behaved well; but it must be in the recollection of many gentlemen in that House, that the common cry and charge against them at the time was that they were going to join the British, and even the letter of Fauchet himself declares it to be the case. It is true he would not place much reliance on that man who could write on a subject one day, and sign a certificate to the contrary another; but he believed he was right in saying it was a poetical flight just made to round a period. He had found poetical occupations for his first and last personage, and it was necessary to find some business for this middle person; indeed this was rendered certain, for he had never heard of but one other authority for the flight, for it was never before asserted but by one Phocion and William Wilcocks. The gentleman has, with the spirit of a legislator almost as sublime as his poetical character, told us that he should prefer carrying the question with only a majority of one or a casting vote, than not at all. A majority of what? Of the Representatives of the people? [H. OF R. question to be decided! We see, then, who it is that really wishes to divide the Government from the people. But he hoped that such adverse opinions would not prevail in that House; they were baleful to the very happiness of the country, and the due credit of the Government. He hoped that a great majority would be found unanimous in resisting the rashness that would drive us to a war. He hoped that there would not be found one man, unless it was those who were eager after power or money, who anticipated, in the desolations of war, the realization of riches by plunder, either as agents, contractors, or one or other of those train of wretches that hover like vultures in rear of battles-that none but such as these would be found eager to involve us in calamities which were too grievous to be yet forgotten among us, and too terrible to be encountered but in the last extremity. Whatever may be our determination, he said, rash or weak men should not divert us from our sober purposes in the pursuit of measures calculated for accommodation and peace. We could not be too speedy in our decisions; the events on the other side of the Atlantic are so rapid as not to be within our reach or control. We do not know the events which have already taken place. He would not rely on the generosity of any nation in particular circumstances; and there is no knowing the extent to which success might lead men, under a mistaken impression of injury. We ought to lose no time. The haughtiness of France has overwhelmed nearly all Europe on land. What she may do next we know not. Whether she is just or unjust, we should at least not lose time in negotiation, and we ought the more steadily to do this, because there is no man in America, of what party he may be, who will not resist, if resistance is required; therefore, while the conflict is doubtful, we should determine our affairs; and, as the amendment appears to furnish the only grounds upon which negotiation is at all likely to be attended with the necessary effect of securing peace and independence, that ought to be preferred. The amendment had been opposed on various other grounds: among the most curious, was that of the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. W. SMITH.) He says either we have or we have not granted a favor to England in the provision article; and his inferences are, if we have not France cannot complain; but if we have, since she has, by her decree of the 2d March last, taken the same advantage to herself, she has no right to complain. Thus, according to that gentleman's logic, we have done France the kindest favors, whether we meant it or not. He would just obThus, then, it appears that this gentleman, who serve, and the committee would not forget it, is at turns recommending unanimity and the that this sort of argument did not belong to the union of the people, is indifferent about an equal supporters of the amendment. We say France division; content with the unanimity of the Gov- has no right to assume these immunities; we do ernment. So the Senate and Executive agree not allow it. We say, by virtue of the 2d article with a majority carried only by one, the gentle- of our treaty with France, she cannot insist on it. man cares not if the remaining half of the Rep-| But supposing we should agree in the gentleman's resentatives and their constituents differ upon the style, and say, either we are resolved to be at H. OF R.] Answer to the President's Speech. tached to Great Britain or we are not ; if we were, such arguments might be very properly used to cement that union; but if we were not, in the name of common sense, why object to the amendment? We who propose the amendment say the British Treaty exists; it is the law of the land, and we insist upon keeping it. We confess we have said it was a bad one, and so we say still; but we will not therefore go beyond it with you, France; we shall agree to make you equal, but no more. The gentlemen appeared to coincide in one particular: that was in their opinion of the British Treaty. They felt so sensibly alive to it that they dreaded even to touch it, and yet they insisted that it was universally popular, and that its popularity increased in proportion as it became more known. He would leave gentlemen unmolested in the solacing indulgence of that idea as long as they could persuade themselves into such a fantasy, but he would just suggest to gentlemen that there did not appear to him a likelihood of its gaining a considerable share of popularity on the Western frontier when the memorial of the Spanish Minister shall have found its way into that part of the United States. [MAY, 1797. reply. He had been accused of indulging a poetical flight, but the gentleman who accused him appeared himself in that particular to have been indulging a poetical license. He had talked of concessions as if France had not spoliated. We are not about to conclude a treaty of concession, but to enter on negotiation for a treaty of stipulations for equivalents. If we are to usurp the treaty-making power in this House, he hoped we would not forget to do something for America. As to the poetical flight, he appealed to the recollection of gentlemen who had read Fauchet's letter, wherein he pathetically deplores the failure of the Western insurrection by a too early explosion. The gentleman says he is not disposed to make any concessions; but is it not evident that force exists? Does this not invite hostility if we must concede? Do we not admit by this what France seeks, and if she obtains one article of the British Treaty by threats, may we not expect to hear her demand all the other articles by similar means, and the repeal of the law of 1794, and all her other insulting demands? The gentleman had made another extraordinary discovery, that the President seeks our advice. He denied it. He gives us a narrative of the state of the Union, and he tells us he means to pursue negotiations. He calls you to defend your country against external attacks, and be prepared to repel them; but here we work whole days in discussing business that does not belong to us; and perhaps in this great revolutionary change of Constitution, while we are thus employed, the Senate may be doing our duty and debating the means of defence. The committee now rose, and had leave to sit again. FRIDAY, May 26. It has been several times asserted, that all we can say or do on the affairs with France will be now perfectly useless, for she is determined to go to war with us at all events; and various reasons are assigned for this, among others that she resolved to make us break the British Treaty and to overturn the British trade. Gentlemen might have sufficient authority for the reasoning and they might not; indeed he would not argue it with them on this occasion. He would suppose it possible that France would sacrifice her interest with us to injure that trade which is the vital support of Britain, and commence a war with us on that account. But, if such is really the opinion of gentlemen, ought it not to be the first and most pressing motive with us to adopt measures likely to extricate us from such difficulties? But do gentlemen believe the fact? Do they, who give the President even more credit than he asked on so many occasions, doubt him on this, or have they Mr. DENNIS said, being unacquainted with the better means of information on this subject? If subject in a manner, and newly honored with a they have, why has he not been made acquainted seat in the House, he thought it most prudent to with it? But he still thinks we may negotiate, observe silence hitherto, and should still have reand consequently entertains no immediate appre- mained so, had he not observed the ground of hension of a war. This sentiment is expressed some gentlemen's arguments, which had roused in his Speech, and it even makes a part of the re-him to a sense of his duty. He, under that import, and consequently those who support that part of the Answer, cannot with propriety oppose the same thing in the amendment. ANSWER TO THE PRESIDENT'S SPEECH. The House went into Committee of the Whole, (Mr. DENT in the Chair,) on the amendment of the Answer to the President. pression, came forward, not merely to examine many of the arguments introduced on this occasion, but to show his reasons why he could not vote in favor of the amendments now before the committee. It is also charged against the amendment that it concedes every thing and asserts nothing. Now, the impression which the amendment made on It appeared, from the turn the debate had tahim was, that if any thing it took higher ground. ken, as though the question was, whether AmeWe all agree as to an insult being given in the rica should enter into a war or not; at least it dismissal of our Minister; and in the amendment, would appear so to persons attending to the dewhile we leave open the ground for negotiation bate. Indeed, he said, he should not be at all proposed by the President, we declare that a rep-surprised if at this moment wagon loads of petietition of insult will put an end to every friendly relation; and after all, this firm language is said to be degrading! Mr. W. SMITH, begged leave to offer a short tions were on the road from all quarters to restrain this body from entering into a war with the French Republic. Was the question asked of a person who had not heard it, the answer MAY, 1797.] Answer to the President's Speech. must naturally be war; whether we should now declare war against the French. [H. of R. to vindicate the cause of France or Great Britain, nor to depreciate the one in violating the In the remarks he had to make, he could not dignities of the other, but only to vindicate our flatter himself to be able to display the talents own Government, because I think it has acted which some gentlemen had done; he must con- right. It seems curious to observe that, while tent himself with a few desultory observations, all nations are employed in the admiration of our and endeavor to direct them as much to the point Constitution, our Government, and Administraas possible. It had been the practice of some tion, our own citizens are the only ones who exgentlemen to commence their harangue to the press dissatisfaction at its form or its conduct. I House on the impressions under which they came do not mean to say that all that has been done on into the Government. Notwithstanding some the part of the Government, has been critically observations which had been made on this sub-right. I will not deny but it may have omitted ject by a gentleman, (Mr. LIVINGSTON,) though to do what it ought to have done, or done in some a new member, Mr. D. said, it would not be very cases what had been better let alone; but by the extraordinary if he were to explain his impres- great mass of their transactions, they have assions on first coming into the House; but he sumed a situation as respectable as that of any should not so take up the time of the committee; other nation. The fiery ordeal we had to pass nor should he follow the other gentleman, (Mr. through, amidst conflicting nations, has been as FREEMAN,) on the subject of federalism. He successfully encountered by the conduct we purhad no former errors to amend nor retractions to sued, as by any other path we could have chosen. make; he came forward perfectly untrammelled, I cannot pretend to defend the violations comin which he was different from the gentleman mitted by either of the belligerent Powers; they who opened the debate, (Mr. NICHOLAS,) who have both acted wrong, so much so as to impress said he came forward animated with zeal in be- the whole world that we cannot depend upon the half of the French nation, because of the powerful"generosity" or "magnanimity" of either. But, combination she had to cope with, and which attempted to rob her of her liberty; also on account of the indifference which seemed to pervade this country, not only to the cause of the French nation, but to Republicanism in general. I once, said Mr. D., had the same impressions; I once felt with enthusiasm the cause of the French, because her aim, her attempt was liberty. I rejoiced in her victories, and felt her troubles; so long as her aim was liberty, defending herself against aggression, I felt in her behalf; but now, in what a situation is she now? No longer the injured, the persecuted, but her victories have made her become the aggressor. No longer is the cause of freedom her aim, but interest, aggrandisement. With her change of conduct, it becomes obligatory for me to change from the approbation I formerly felt in her behalf. She now comes forward to regulate our concerns; I therefore can no longer espouse her cause, and must candidly declare myself perfectly untrammelled to any opinions except my own; not prejudiced in favor of any nation but my own, except their conduct demands that predilection. A greater national change scarce ever passed than that lately displayed by the French nation. Individuals may change from caprice and a thousand passions which attack the mind-this is not material; but, when we see a great and powerful nation changing-changing, from that glow of enthusiasm which has long been borne in the bosoms of Americans, what does it evince? It is a presumptive evidence that some great event has caused it. I come forward with no attachment but to my own Government; I think none so good. I will say that America, every thing in her, and belonging to her, in every respect, is superior to anything in any other country. This may be thought a narrow disposition, but I am not sure that to be more liberal would be to be more politically wise. I then come forward, not the question is, have we sufficient cause to resent those insults? We all agree that an attempt to negotiate will most safely conduct us out of our present difficulties. We agree as to the object; but the manner to effect that object with honor to one nation is the point on which we are divided. An amicable adjustment of our differences, then, I take to be the unanimous wish, but, upon what terms? On a former occasion, it will be recollected that we adjusted a dispute with Great Britain by a treaty ; an adjustment not inconsistent with the honor, advantage, or justice, of the nation, but consistent with all. This treaty received its proper ratification by every branch of the Government, and, I believe. is become generally popular; however, if it might not have met the acquiescence, it has the compliance of every one. Notwithstanding what some gentlemen would say upon the subject, I cannot believe, but, had not the prejudice against the British nation been so prevalent, that treaty would have been satisfactory to all; but, notwithstanding that, we have done it to our satisfaction, (I mean by a majority of the citizens,) although it might not be so in the sight of France. She says, by that act we have violated our antecedent treaty with her. Now, the question with us is, whether this assertion has foundation or not? I must say, I believe not. It was not a treaty, offensive and defensive, we made with her, nor to continue forever. This she well knew, else why did she not come forward and say to us, you are under obligation to join us against our enemies! No, they knew the contrary, and therefore could not exact it. We are ready to prove that none of the articles of the British Treaty does in the least contravene that with France. But, it is observed by some gentlemen, that the article including contraband goods, "that free ships make free goods," is just cause of offence. I hope gentlemen will not be alarmed at my men H. OF R.] Answer to the President's Speech. [MAY, 1797. It is not a surrender merely to say that we will not sequestrate. The gentleman from Pennsylvania says, could we expect, while we were granting stipulations, that free ships should not make free goods, France would not act upon similar principles? I could not suppose that France would violate her treaty to us merely because it was her interest to do it. But here we complain of depredations committed upon a right predicated upon this supposition. I should not argue with any gentleman on the right of France to act upon the same principle with us. as we by treaty granted to Great Britain the liberty of doing. tioning this alleged infraction, because I do not mean to enter into them. I think the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SMITH) has fully and most masterly answered all the arguments of the other gentleman (Mr. NICHOLAS) on this subject, and even anticipated all the ideas advanced by the other gentlemen on the same point so fully, that it would be entirely unnecessary for me to enter into the discussion, as I believe it has been fully displayed to the satisfaction of the committee. I shall just observe. sir, on that part of the article referred to which relates to supplying belligerent Powers with provisions, on what has fallen from the gentleman from New York (Mr. LIVINGSTON.) He has put this in a very extra- The amendment now before us strikes me to ordinary position. Says the gentleman, we should present itself in three points of view, and to each have said to Great Britain, there are cases in of which I object. First, it ascribes all the miswhich, by the law of nations, provisions are to fortunes, depredations, and calamities, to the become contraband. Now, every one knows this! British Treaty, and exposes it in that view to the The only doubt which can arise on this occasion world. It has been sufficiently demonstrated by will arise, not out of the law, but out of the fact. the gentleman from South Carolina, that if the We always denied that provisions were liable to British Treaty had never had existence,the grounds become contraband unless where one belligerent of complaint would have been the same, and that Power had a well-grounded hope to compel ano- they have never been abandoned to the present ther to peace, or to make a garrison capitulate. time. The French Government informs us that Where there exists an appearance of this, provis- those three complaints form but a small part of ions, and, I may say, every thing in existence, the long catalogue of crimes they can allege to may become contraband. It depends, then, on our charge, and these, by the amendments we facts or existing circumstances. Nations some- seem inclined to acknowledge. They also mention times declare a port in a state of blockade when our Judicial and Legislative acts, and an infinit is not; neutral nations have then a right to ex-ite variety of others, which they say America has ercise their judgment on that point. So it was practised to her injury; and that, until these are when Britain declared the whole French Repub- removed, they will not come to terms of accomlic in a state of blockade. We denied the fact, modation; and gentlemen here say they will grant and did not consider ourselves bound by that dec-it without even attempting to contradict the asserlaration. But, the gentleman says, if this be the law of nations, why did we recognise it?. I answer, he may recollect nations recognising more simple facts than this when against the law of nations, too. It was recognised to make it more plain, for it is more important; if not, not only is the vessel taken, but a confiscation of the property. It might become nugatory and mischievous if not mentioned. It will appear, then, that we have granted no new right. We have stipulated that though these nations may take our provisions it shall not be without an ample consideration. This was altogether an article of our own, and if any nation found fault, it would be more reasonable to expect it would be Great Britain. This position goes to show that it was our interest, and not the particular injury of any nation, that this stipulation was made. But it has been said that we suffer our seamen to be impressed on board English ships, to the great injury of the French. I ask, in what manner have we suffered it? I will grant that the right of complaint is in us; I will grant that, if by partiality or connivance, we had suffered it, there would be just ground of alarm from the French. How have we suffered it? Because a strong nation took advantage of our weakness? Another gentleman, who went copiously into the subject, says that we have surrendered the right of sequestration. I do not conceive this right when I am under a moral obligation to do it. I tions. They certainly ought to wait the issue of negotiation, which the President has promised to pursue. But gentlemen seem to take it for granted that the President prevaricates; that he will not negotiate, although he has engaged to do it. They say the British Treaty is the sole cause of the grievance. But the French represent it as only one cause, and without the whole is removed they will not admit our Minister. We must, then, not only nullify the British Treaty, but we must instruct our judicial officers to remove their part of the grievance. We must permit the French to arm in our ports, to fight against nations with whom we are in amity; we are to bring war into our cities while our hands are tied; permit them to sell their prizes in our country, and by these means make enemies of those with whom we are now at peace, under their imperious command. They will take out of our harbors their enemies' ships, because their jurisdiction is paramount. We must give orders to all the Almanac printers in the United States to place their Minister's name first among the list of foreign Ministers. But I object to the amendment, also, upon another ground. It seems to me to create unnecessary apologies for the French, and because it expresses contradiction in itself. It goes further. It seems studiously to lay the whole blame upon our Government; it has followed up the blame cast upon us by the French, that we have not sent à Minister Extraordinary, with |