Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

MAY, 1797.]

Answer to the President's Speech.

proper functions, &c., and, having omitted to do this, our Government is chargeable. Many apologies have been brought forward by gentlemen to endeavor to clothe this conduct to appear fair; but, notwithstanding their display of oratorical ability on this point, I am not convinced. I only appeal to the feelings of this House on the rejection of our Minister. Gentlemen in general say that we ought not to go to war; that we ought rather to suffer indignity. If they had stopped here, if indignity had been all, and our dearest rights had not been involved, I should have found no difficulty in agreeing with them. With them, I will say that I am not for war.

[H. of R.

Executive powers. I will not contend, though I do not doubt, that it is a violation of the Constitution, but confine it merely to the ground of prudence. What are we attempting to do? Why, to prove that there is not that unanimity in the Government which it has been supposed. It is to prove to the world that this body cannot trust the Executive with the power of negotiation, although he has declared he means to prosecute negotiation; yet gentlemen seem inclined not to believe him. They will say that he is about to involve the country in a war, and not prosecute any amicable adjustment with the French. If this is not evident, from the amendment, I am at a loss to know what is; and if not, from it, the observations of gentlemen prove the assertion.

According to an observation made, the Government is like a clock; that, if part does not do its duty, the other part will compel it. What does this evince? That if the President means hostility, the House will prevent it; that the House of Representatives take it for granted that the President has done wrong; that, contrary to his own inclination to do us justice, they will compel him; that the Representatives of the people being in favor of the French, and taking their part, will not regard their plunders and violation of right. While they say we are right, the French say, we will not regard the other parts; we will increase in our demands, while they are on our side.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. FREE MAN) has read a passage from Vattel to prove that they have only exercised their right, and he has said that Republics, in particular, have a right to send away foreign Ministers when they have nothing for them to do. But can the gentleman put his finger upon the place in the law of nations, or good manners, where any nation has rejected a foreign Minister without giving him an audience-refused a passport out of the State, and even thereafter, put him under the jurisdiction of the civil laws? I ask the gentleman, on this occasion, for I am at a loss to know, what could be the reason? Has Mr. Pinckney departed from his instructions? Gentlemen seem to talk about sending an extraordinary Minister to France. I am for it too. But what have we to do with that? It is better becoming us to leave that to the President. He may send Mr. Pinckney, with extraordinary powers, or any other Minister, but this will not satisfy the etiquette of the French. Their demands seem of such a mongrel kind that it is difficult to conceive them. I know no other way, from the least idea I have of their demands, than to call Mr. Pinckney on this side of the At- But it is asked, may we not express our opinlantic, giving him the same power as before,ions upon this occasion? I think we may as inbut call him a Minister Extraordinary. This dividuals, but not as a body; but if a body, not in word "extraordinary" is a very extraordinary one this obligatory kind of manner. indeed. This is an extraordinary enacting of There is another amendment which is not taken Congress, on an extraordinary occasion, to send a so much notice of as others. I have said the arguMinister Extraordinary, and we, all this while, ments of gentlemen seem to be predicated upon a are, in a most extraordinary manner, exercising supposition that the question is a declaration of the powers in our intended directions to the Pre-war. It is easy to conceive that the greater part sident.

It is an opinion, sir, that, by offering to the French the same footing on which Great Britain is put by the treaty, they will abandon all their ground of complaint. Now, can this be supposed, when they say they have a "community of privileges?" That they claim, if we have granted privileges to Great Britain, they have a right to the same; therefore, what they can and will take as a matter of right, can be no grievance in our not granting it freely. But the gentleman from Pennsylvania thinks they recede from some ground of complaint; but what particular ground? Should we go to them and give up all into their hands with submission, and not say they have done wrong, and ask redress? Surely, we ought to do it, else where is our neutrality.

But the third which I mentioned is still more objectionable, because it is interfering with the

Another gentleman from Pennsylvania says that he thinks the President waits for instructions from us. So, then, the President and Senate have not wisdom enough! Although I have heard of the House of Representatives monopolizing all the power, I never heard that they ever possessed all the wisdom of the three branches.

of the observations has been distant from the subject; and, while going on this, they might have talked forever, and not been nearer to a decision. Like a writer I have seen, who says, "where the tongue is let loose, in the frenzy of passion, it is the man, and not the subject, that is exhausted." I have heard but one opinion on this subject-I have heard war deprecated from every part of this House. No man is willing to go to war. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has asked if we would like to be taxed? whether the people would like to be plunged into an unnecessary war? I do not think the people would like taxes, and as much disapprove of war, and abominate an unnecessary one. We all want peace, but we differ about the means to preserve it. I believe the best way to preserve it is to let the Executive go on in its own way, in the act of negotiation, while we prepare means of defending our country; that, while we

H. OF R.]

Answer to the President's Speech.

[MAY, 1797.

they were groundless; to restore that mutual confidence which has been so unfortunately and injuriously impaired, and to explain the relative interests of both countries, and the real sentiments of his own."

are not willing to accede to any act of offence, we the Government and the people of the United will prepare the most effectual means of defence. States, their disposition being one; to remove jeaI ask, is there any reason to expect war? I be-lousies, and obviate complaints, by showing that lieve not. But gentlemen say it is probable; it may be. I do not confide in any extraordinary negotiation; but, though I do not think it will be effectual, I am still willing to try it. My principal hopes centre in a change in the spirit and Legislature of the French Government. When they come to reflect on the indignities committed towards our Minister, and those of thirteen other nations, whom they have expelled, they will recall what they have done, and not from negotiation, nor our determination to defend our rights and honor.

I have been sorry to witness so much passion and partiality shown on both sides of the question. We did not come here to advocate the part of France or of Great Britain. It will be time enough to talk of that if a more ripe part of the subject should be presented. If gentlemen had not introduced the extensive arguments they have, and to no purpose, we should have been through the question before now.

I shall again mention that I am for providing a 'suitable defence, although I should not be willing to leave this city until the House had paid proper attention to the military, and put us on ground of defence. But in my measures with the French Republic, I would be for moderation, not only in words, but in action, which speaks louder, and not indulge that frenzy on either side which must naturally be attended with unpleasant effects. On the whole, I must express my disapprobation of the amendments.

Yet this peaceable messenger has been rejected without a hearing; has been threatened and insulted, and has taken refuge in another country. The complaints of France have been long heard and understood; they have been answered by the Department of State of the United States, and the answer remains without reply; but she goes on with her depredations, and at length she has recalled her Minister, and driven away ours. Her open violation of the right of a neutral nation, not only secured to us by the common principles of the law of nations, but also by a solemn treaty, which France claims to hold in force against us, and the contemptuous dismission of our Minister, evince a hostile disposition on her part, and that our danger is imminent. At a moment like this, to find in this committee, among the immediate Representatives of the people, the advocates of the French, condemning the Government of the United States, and acquitting the French Government, or palliating and excusing those violences and insults, of which the circumstances are too prominent to be disguised, this will be proving to them and to the world, that we deserve the character of us which is said to be prevailing in France, and which too probably has encouraged their attack upon us; that we are indeed torn Mr. SEWALL claimed the indulgence of the with factions, and that there is a division between committee for some observations, in which he the Government and the people of the United should be as brief as possible on this interesting States. To him it appeared that a former tranoccasion. He had said interesting, without hav-saction, rather than the business before the coming in his mind the estimate of it which some mittee, had produced this debate. Those who gentlemen had expressed. He did not consider were once opposed to the carrying into effect the that the fate of the United States, as to peace or British Treaty, arm themselves as renewing that war with the French Republic, depended in any subject, and lighten up the yet unextinguished degree upon the present deliberation. He thought fires of that transaction. the present question, however, sufficiently interesting, when he considered that the determination of it would go far to show the disposition of the House of Representatives as to a provision for the defence of their country, when in actual danger from a foreign Power. He observed this extraordinary session of Congress to be occasioned by the dangers which threaten the United States on the side of France. The President had informed them that in consequence of the complaints of that Republic, and their outrageous depredations on the property of good citizens, a respectable Ambassador had been sent to them; that the object of his mission, as expressed in his letters of credence, had been "to maintain that good understanding, which, from the commencement of the alliance, had subsisted between the two nations; to efface unfavorable impressions; banish suspicions, and restore that cordiality which was at once the evidence and pledge of a friendly union;" and his instructions were to the same effect "faithfully to represent the disposition of

If anything can prevent the open hostility which is now feared to be approaching, or can assure the United States of a complete defence, it must be the unanimity of their councils; and the mutual and unabating confidence between the Government and the people.

Three of the gentlemen who have advocated the amendment, have gone into very labored arguments to prove that the complaints made by France against the United States ought first to be remedied, and they urge upon this House immediately to condemn the Government of the United States, and to acquit France.

This proneness to condemn on the one side, and this anxiety to excuse on the other, would, in the transactions of common life, mark the conduct of an enemy, and not of a friend-not even of an impartial judge. Indeed, if they had made good the charges upon which the condemnation is to be brought, they might be excused for their sincerity, whatever might be concluded of their patriotism; but when the charges are inconsist

MAY, 1797.]

Answer to the President's Speech.

ent, unfounded, and unjust, we are at a loss to say what are the motives of their conduct. It is far from being clear upon what grounds the Government of the United States is to stand convicted and self-condemned before the Directory of France; and the gentlemen who advocate their proceedings differ from each other as to the principles upon which they so readily condemn the Government of their own country. The gentleman from New York selects from among the French complaints, three charges, which he conceives to be entirely supported upon certain principles of the law of nations, and to admit of no excuse. The gentleman joins him in condemning the Government, but denies the principles upon which the gentleman from New York had proceeded, and has never conceived them to be a part of the law of nations. Another gentleman from Pennsylvania, with that caution and argument which distinguishes him, relies upon one only of the three charges, and upon this he thinks the Government would have been excusable, if there had been any necessity for a commercial treaty with Great Britain. He would proceed to a more particular examination of the three charges, but would first observe, that when the gentleman from New York could select only three of the many complaints of the French Republic as deserving attention, and had rejected all the others, though urged by them with equal seriousness and determination, it might naturally have occurred to him that these charges did not exhibit the real dangers of the French; that the real question between them and us, was not whether we had forfeited our neutrality by the articles of the British Treaty, of which she complains, any more than whether we had done her an injury by our law of 1794, or respecting the Consular convention, or any other instance of her numerous complaints, but the question is, whether the United States shall be involved and made a party with her in the European war, or whether our rights as a neutral nation shall be submitted to her, and we should violate, in conformity to her wishes, our treaty with Great Britain? In his opinion, it was that treaty which had excited the complaints of the French, but not as applied to any particular article of it. No, it was the treaty itself; and because the United States had thereby forfeited their neutral ground, and become more able to baffle the insidious designs of France for involving us in the European war. He would submit it to the committee, and to their own recollection, whether, from the coming of Mr. Genet, the French have not been incessantly endeavoring to drive us from our neutrality, and to engage us in the projects of war? Even the gentleman from Virginia, who so warmly advocates the French complaints, acknowledges this; but if it were not acknowledged, it would be impossible to resist the evidence which exists at this moment.

[H. of R.

have rested upon the love of our country which must exist in the House of Representatives; that it would have been given spontaneously, and with one voice, showing that we were aware of the dangers which threaten us, and we thought only of the necessary defence.

Notwithstanding his opinion that the charges were irrelevant to the present question; yet, as they had been brought into view, they ought not now to be dismissed without an answer. The first charge is, that by the article of the British Treaty the principle is admitted that free ships do not make free goods; and the gentleman from New York says that there is no amelioration of the effect of this principle, and that it is a surrender of our neutral rights; and he will have it that, by the law of nations, free ships make free goods, and defies the contrary to be shown. If there should be an examination of books of acknowledged authority in the purview of the law of nations, their decision would undoubtedly be against him. The law of nations may be considered in its origin as the law of nature, determined by the reason and common consent of mankind, and applied to the conduct of nations, who are to each other as individuals in a state of nature. If such a state may be supposed, the individuals in it are governed by their own natural reason and sympathy; and being without any common arbiter or judge, if an injury happens, it is revenged by force. And so among nationsinjuries produce a state of war. Then each party in the war aims at conquest, for the purposes of securing dominion, by lessening the means and power, or by the destruction of its adversary. Hence is argued the right of every nation at war to possess itself of the goods and persons of the nation which has become an enemy. If we can suppose that one nation prosecuting hostilities against another has a right to destroy the persons of their enemy, we may readily allow the right of seizing their property, thereby to deprive them of the means of defence, and to reduce their power. If this may be considered as the general principle, it is for the gentleman to show the limitation and exception which he contends for, and to show some custom, convention, or rule, by which a neutral nation is allowed to protect the property of a nation at war from the rights of hostility and the power of its enemy. The armed neutrality is produced as a convention having that effect; and it is granted that, with regard to the nations who were parties to that convention, a different principle was thereby established, and became obligatory upon them; but it could not become the law to those nations who refused their consent and would not submit to it.

This is also an answer to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who relied altogether upon the armed neutrality as constituting the law of nations; and he mentioned Great Britain as acquiescing in that convention. But in this he was He conceived the charges to be examined were mistaken, as between the United States and Great immaterial to the present question. He had Britain: then the law of nations, in this particuthought that an Address to the President, in an-lar, must be understood to have been that free swer to his patriotic and animating Speech, might ships do not make free goods; and, as a belliger

5th CoN-6

H. OF R.]

Answer to the President's Speech.

ent Power has a right to seize the goods of its enemy wherever found, a neutral vessel cannot protect them, unless by force of some treaty to that effect. Indeed, the law was formerly carried to a much greater extent; for a neutral vessel, found in the possession of an enemy's goods, was formerly considered as infected, and was condemned, as well as the enemy's property on board. But the principle has been modified in this respect, and now it is argued that the enemy's property shall be prize, and that the neutral vessel shall go free.

Taking it then to be the law of nations, as far as it is generally established, that free ships do not make free goods, this article of the British Treaty affords to France no just cause of complaint. The value of the contrary principle to the commerce of the United States leaves no room to doubt the intents of their desire and endeavors to obtain it as an article of their Commercial Treaty with Great Britain. If their attempts were ineffectual, it would not be contended that the treaty ought to have been refused, or the hazard of war incurred for the sake of this principle. He observed, that the gentleman from Virginia had admitted the law of nations to be as stated by Vattel, and as now argued. But, says the gentlemen, though the principle is well established, yet the application of it is wrong; for, although an enemy's goods may be liable, yet it is a violation of a neutral right to enter a neutral vessel for the purposes of search or seizure. But the gentleman having admitted the principle, must yield also what is necessarily connected with it.

The gentleman from New York argued that, admitting it to be the law of nations, the United States should not have agreed to the list establishing it, because unnecessary, and it is made without any amelioration of the subjects. To this he answered, that there is something favorable to the United States in that stipulation. If a vessel is taken or captured on just suspicion of having on board enemy's property, or of carrying to the enemy any of the articles which are contraband of war, the vessel is to be carried to the nearest port, and, after the case is decided, the vessel shall be liberated to proceed on her voyage. Besides, it has been long usual to introduce a stipulation to this effect, in commercial treaties, probably with some reference to what has been mentioned, as having been the most ancient rule in the case, and thereby to provide for the restoration of the neutral vessels and goods, which are not to be esteemed to be infected, or rendered liable to confiscation by the enemy's property found with them.

There remains another charge brought against the United States, and which is represented to be of a very heinous nature, indeed. The gentleman from Virginia had spoken of it as a stain in the annals of American history, which nothing can obliterate. It is said to be not only a stipulation unfavorable to France, but that we had contrived a mean pecuniary advantage to ourselves from a sacrifice of our interests.

[MAY, 1797.

To this he observed, that, if it is the existing law of nations that an hostile nation has the right of reducing its enemy, by preventing neutrals from carrying provisions into a blockaded port, then this article has given an advantage to the commerce of the United States, and is therefore favorable to the French nation. The risks of a voyage, in which supplies of that kind are undertaken to be carried, are materially lessened by this article. There can be no doubt that, in the case of a blockaded or invested port, provisions are liable to seizure; but, when our vessels are taken going to such place, the full value of the provisions, with a reasonable profit, freight, and damage, is to be paid. This, then, is an heinous offence, the disgrace of our country, which the gentleman endeavors to establish. He had argued that this article necessarily admits the practice of the English, which they claimed to maintain by the law of nations, and had pursued against the United States, but which they had never ceased to complain against-that is, the assumed right of forbidding the carriage of provisions to a large extent of territory, under pretence of some general invasion, or of the particular nature of the war, in which it was their design to reduce their enemy by famine; and this the gentleman from Virginia included, from a supposition that the case of blockade or investment is provided for by another article in a distinct manner from this. But there is no distinct provision of this kind; and what is said of vessels which happen to sail for a port belonging to an enemy, without knowing that the same is besieged, blockaded, or invested, connects itself with the former part of the same article, and may be rather understood to limit the intention of the whole article, than to give a larger extent to the former part. It is plain, however, that the whole article supposes no other case than what arises under the existing law of nations, which, in the cases provided for by this article, was not precisely agreed to; and it is not denied that, under the practice of the English, not only the United States, but Denmark and other neutral nations had complained. And even in this view it is justifiable, as tending to lessen the evil, to encourage the commerce of provisions, and to avoid a war with Great Britain, which the severe exercise of her claim might excite; what, in the existing law of nations, must, in any case of capture, be determined by the courts of law having a maritime jurisdiction, and as the English practice of seizing provisions in the extensive manner contended for by them had never been before allowed, as it is not allowed by this act.

The letter of Mr. Pinckney on this subject, and which has been so triumphantly quoted as determining the law, does not deny the right of stopping provisions from going to a blockaded port, but denies the construction by which the English had endeavored to maintain their novel and unjustifiable practices; and it is of this Mr. Pinckney complains.

These complaints may be also fairly answered together by observing that if there had never been a treaty with Great Britain, and she had main

MAY, 1797.]

Answer to the President's Speech.

tained the same conduct towards us as the treaty authorizes respecting nations with whom she is at war, the depredation to France would have been the same, and the only alternative to us must have been war, or a submission to the construction by Great Britain of the law of nations, and from which her superior force prevents an appeal. As to the increase of the list of articles deemed contraband of war, it was no violation of neutrality, even determining by the Convention of the Armed Neutrality. Here the evidence from that convention concludes against those who would establish this complaint. It ought to be understood that the declaration of the King of Denmark, making a part of that convention, relies upon his treaty with Great Britain, and which expresses and makes contraband the same lists which are enumerated in her treaty with the United States.

If there is a necessity of yielding to France, and giving up principles which are just and honorable for us to maintain, let it be done in the mode pointed out by the Constitution-by the means of discussion between the Minister of the Executive and the Directory of France. He thought it a matter of great importance to the United States that we should preserve those articles in our treaty with France, which give freedom to our commerce in time of war, and which limit the articles of contraband. To suspend our advantages during the present war in compliance with France, if she requires it, would be better than a total relinquishment. The close of this war may give an opportunity of discussing this subject more successfully than it could be done at this time. Perhaps the United States may obtain even from Great Britain to consider and agree to make goods free on board of free ships in all cases but those of actual blockade and investment; we may obtain from her to limit the articles of contraband. If it can be done, it is needless to say that our commerce will be greatly benefited, and in the periods of European war will very much increase. In any view, he asked, why surrender this part of the treaty with France without a reciprocal stipulation as to some articles which are disadvantageous to the United States? Why is this to be done out of the ordinary course, and by the direction of the House of Representatives, without the concurrence of the other departments of the Government? He here anticipated an argument which he had intended to offer in another place, and proceeded to show that the House could have no reason to hesitate in giving their confidence to the Executive, for there had been no remissness of endeavors for entering into a negotiation with France; on the contrary, it would appear from the highest authority that attempts had been made to negotiate, and that the negotiation had been directed to the very object of our present concern; and had there been on the part of France a disposition to accommodate, they might long have had satisfaction upon all the complaints which any of the committee have thought deserving of consideration. He then read from Mr. Pickering's letter to Mr. Adet, dated

[H. of R.

June 30, 1795, several passages to prove the eagerness which the Executive then discovered to Mr. Adet for a negotiation with France; and having contrasted the conduct of the Executive of the United States, in overlooking Mr. Adet's want of formal powers, with the conduct of the French Directory, who were supposed by their advocates to have driven Mr. Pinckney from France because he had not the character of a special Envoy, he proceeded to read some passages from a letter of Mr. Adet, stating objections to the British Treaty, and the reply of the Secretary in July, 1796; and upon these he argued the eagerness of the Executive of the United States to give France satisfaction on the subject of those complaints which Mr. Adet had offered as objections to the British Treaty. In fact, he was ready to allow that the advantages supposed to be secured to our commerce by the treaty with France, but which, in fact, we had never enjoyed, as France had instantly and openly violated the treaty in this respect, could not be retained unless all nations would submit to the same rule, or unless neutral nations should arm themselves in support of the rights of their neutrality; but, with the United States, the commercial advantages to be obtained would never compensate for the hazard and expense of arming. To concede these articles of the French Treaty, during the period of the present war, was a matter of no importance; but to retain them as a subject for discussion when peace should ensue, and with a view to their being generally adopted, appeared to him to be very important. To make the concession, as proposed by the amendment, was at once to lose our hopes of an equitable arrangement, which might prove so advantageous to the commerce of neutral nations. Suppose, said he, that the amendment before the committee is agreed to, and an Envoy Extraordinary is sent to Paris, carrying with him, not as concealed instructions, but openly, this direction of the House of Representatives to the Executive of the United States, what will the Executive Directory say? "Your Representatives have conceded to France this article of your treaty, and are desirous we should have a right to inflict upon you all the losses which you suffer at the hands of our Envoy." If this Envoy talked of entering into stipulations, they would tell him he had nothing to argue: "You have your instructions from the Representatives of the people-look to them." It would be in vain for him to urge his instructions from the President. They would answer him, “We know your Government; your Executive is separate from the people; it is an idea we have a long time entertained; now you see it verified. The House of Representatives, the immediate Representatives of the people, declare the fact."

I have endeavored to come to this conclusion, for, after all the violations of our neutrality, the depredations and spoliations on our commerce by both France and England have little to do with the question before us.

The question is, whether we will agree to such an Address as will show our disposition to defend our country in case peace cannot be maintained

« AnteriorContinuar »