H. OF R.]

English, and they less French than have been represented, by expressing their confidence in him. But it was said, they should give their ultimatum; but that, if the amendment passed, he said, would not be the case, because the President would make what ultimatum he thought proper.

Mr. SEWALL Corrected the statement of the gentleman last up, by insisting that our Executive had entered into a negotiation, and did all in his power to form a new treaty, and that it was entirely owing to the French Minister that it was not completed. Mr. S. complained of the remarks which had fallen from the Speaker. If gentlemen were deemed in order by the Chair, he did not think that gentleman was authorized, when out of that situation, to pass his censures upon them. Although the agents of foreign countries were present, he said, they were not to be prevented by this circumstance from expressing their sentiments freely.

Mr. BRENT was not surprised that the gentleman just sat down was displeased with the amendment. He had told the committee, on a former occasion, that he had no hopes of reconciliation; he stated that we had nothing to hope but from our own unanimity, and from the combination of foreign nations with us against the aggressions of the French. He did not, therefore, address himself to that gentleman, but to those who did not entertain so despicable an opinion of the French nation to those who believed the irritation subsisting between the two countries might be put a stop to. To them he recommended the amendment as a concilatory measure. He then examined the different objections which had been urged against it; and insisted upon the right the House had at all times to express their difference of opinion from the other branches of Government, since the Government was made up of checks. He also advocated the right that they had to offer an opinion to the Executive upon important occasions, especially in a case in the event of which war might be involved.

Mr. W. SMITH said the doctrine of checks held, as it respected laws which were passed by the three branches of Government, but had nothing to do with business that belonged only to one or two of the branches for instance, that House had no right to check the President in duties which the Constitution has reposed in him. But the genLeman from New Jersey had introduced a new check a check on the freedom of speech, when particular characters were present. He did not expect to have heard any such observation, particularly from the quarter from whence it came. Mr. DAYTON wished the gentleman to state what he had said fairly. Mr. D. repeated his expression.

Mr. W. SMITH said members were not to be called to account for what fell from them on that floor, and he hoped a remark of the kind would never again be made. He was not at a loss to know the motive for all the anxiety which appeared for the passing of this amendment. The French had never asked for what was proposed to be granted to them; he would undertake to say

[MAY, 1797.

they had refused it. Mr. S. showed, by the correspondence between Mr. Randolph and Mr. Adet, that there had been a perfect willingness on the part of our Executive to make alterations in the existing treaty with that nation, agreeably to their wishes, and that it was not owing to any thing on our part, that it was not done.

All that could be said for the present amendment was, that it was not quite so bad as the one negatived, for there was not a single word in this which altered the sense from the other. He repeated the propriety of making a stipulation for the payment of our twelve millions of loss by spoliations, which, if the French were not able to pay in money, they might pay in ships of war and frigates. He did not wish France to be put upon the same footing with other countries, because there were stipulations in some of our treaties which he should not like to see in a French treaty; for instance, in our treaty with Sweden, there was an article which had produced great inconvenience he meant the embargo article. There was an article also in the treaty with Spain which, though it may not be injurious as it relates to that country, he should be very sorry to see inserted in a French treaty. By the 16th article of that treaty, the Spaniards were allowed to take great liberties with our vessels; when their ships of war, in want of provisions, meet any of our vessels, they are allowed to take out of them such necessaries as they stand in need of, for which they give a receipt, to be paid by their Government agents. This liberty he should not like to have given to French vessels, that they might take provisions from our vessels in exchange for a bit of paper. There was also an article in our treaty with Algiers, (the 12th,) which he would not have inserted in a French treaty, viz: "That a citizen found on board an American vessel having no passport, shall be considered as a lawful prize."

It was very extraordinary that gentlemen were continually calling the British Treaty a bad one, and still they wished the French to be put upon the same footing with the British. He would rather give them an equivalent in some other way. The gentleman from Pennsylvania had wished the committee to rally round the standard of peace, (by which he meant the amendment before them.) This put him in mind of the story of a recruiting sergeant, who was beating up for recruits when the Prince of Wales was a little boy, who, seeing some boys playing at marbles, in order to seduce them, said they would have nothing to do but to play at marbles with the Prince. He doubted not every member in that committee wished for peace; but he trusted they had too much discernment thus to be taken in.

Mr. GALLATIN said, one of the observations made by the gentleman last up, he could not assent to; he did not believe they were all desirous of peace; for, if he must express his opinion, he did not believe that gentleman wished for peace. Mr. G. drew this conclusion from the variety of contradictory objections which he had urged

H. OF R.]

ton, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thomson, John E. Van Alen, and John Williams.

The fourth amendment, which was of a trifling nature, was agreed to; but on the amendment introduced by Mr. DAYTON being read, Mr. WILLIAMS proposed to add the word "justice" in one part of it; but

Mr. W. SMITH said, he should propose an amendment, which he supposed would supersede the one moved by Mr. WILLIAMS. He wished, instead of directing the President to any particular measure, to make the expression general, which would remove most of the objections to the amendment. He wished to strike out all that followed the word "instituted," and insert "nor can we too strongly express our sincere desire that a mutual spirit of justice and accommodation may produce a conciliation compatible with the rights, duties, and honor of our nation." Mr. NICHOLAS said, this amendment was either a substitute, or the same as the original motion, which had been decided yesterday.

The SPEAKER having read the motion, declared it to be out of order.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, if the motion just made was out of order, he should make one which he believed would be in order. It was to strike out all the words in the amendment of the Committee of the Whole from "conciliation" to the word "exist," and insert "justice and" before conciliation.

Mr. GILES said, that this proposition went to destroy the amendment altogether. If they were to strike out that part of it which went to the placing of France on the same footing with other nations, it would be inferred that they refused to place her in that situation, and would place her in a state of outlaw. He wished, if gentlemen meant this, they would declare it.

Mr. HARPER thought the alarm of the gentleman last up perfectly groundless. Gentlemen had constantly declared that their reason for opposing the words to be struck out was an unwillingness to interfere with the Executive authority. They were not disposed to withhold from France what other gentlemen were disposed to give her; but they did not wish to give it to her in this way. If the present motion prevailed, the inference could not be that it was not the wish of the House to preserve peace; the Republic of France would very well understand it.

Mr. Corr said, the warmth of the gentleman from Virginia had surprised him. He denied that France could draw any unfavorable inference from an agreement to the present proposition: for, said he, if the Lord's Prayer were inserted in our Journals, would the gentleman say it would be rejecting the Lord's Prayer to expunge it? He refused to vote for the amendment of the Committee of the Whole, because he conceived it was neither English nor common sense.

Mr. VENABLE said there was no occasion for warmth. He could suppose no other view in gentlemen bringing forward the motion, except that they thought the House would vote for it, without understanding the drift of it.

[JUNE, 1797.

Mr. SITGREAVES did not know that the understanding of the House would be enlightened by the explanation which had been given to the motives of the friends of the motion. He felt perfectly indifferent as to the motives which might be attributed to him by certain persons. He meant this proposition to produce that conciliation which appeared to be the wish of every one. All were agreed that some concessions should be made to France; but there was a difference of opinion about the propriety of an interference with the Executive. He thought, if this amendment took place, it would produce the effect desired; because, if any inequality exists with respect to treaties, it would be removed by this general expression, as well as by a particular one. This was his intention. He did not know how members would vote on this occasion, but he trusted there were those who wished France to have justice done her, who were also desirous of not interfering with the business of the Executive. It was to meet the wishes of such gentlemen that he introduced this amendment. If this sentiment was not adopted, he should vote against any Answer to the Speech of the President which should contain the sentiment introduced by the amendment of the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. MCDOWELL said, that after having discussed this question for nearly a fortnight, and they had come to a vote upon it, an attempt was now made to set aside that vote in an indirect way, instead of meeting it in an open manner. He should have been better pleased with gentlemen if they had employed a part of that time which they had occupied in talking about the powers of the Executive, in enlightening him with respect to the rights of that House. They had been told that they ought not to doubt the wisdom of the Executive-he would do what was right; but he believed the President waited for, and expected the opinion of that House.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, if he understood the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the Constitutional principle, which had been so much talked of, would be as much infringed, if this passed, as if it stood in its present form. He saw no difference, as to the Executive, than this, that by an ambiguous, general expression, their meaning might not be understood.

Mr. DANA said, he was opposed to the amendment, for it might be necessary to make concessions to France, which justice did not require, but which the interest of our country might. Mr. D. said they were possessed of two descriptions of rights, viz: rights of sovereignty, and rights which were obtained by virtue of treaty. They proposed to say to the President in this Address,

66

we will never surrender our rights as a nation;" but he did not know that it would be for the good of the country that they should maintain all they possessed by treaty, and therefore he did not wish to insist upon it. And he considered this Address as pledging themselves to preserve all our other rights, which he thought it proper at this time to do, especially as they had been called upon by the President for the purpose. The ob

JUNE, 1797.]

ject of this Address was, therefore, to assure the President how far he might rely upon them. But, if an amendment like that which was now proposed to be displaced, was not agreed to, the Executive might suppose the House pledged to do more than they intended to do. He thought the House had a Constitutional right thus to speak, because they had the right to declare war, which gave them this right.

Mr. POTTER said, he voted against the amendment in Committee of the Whole, not because he did not wish to put France upon the same footing with other nations, but because he did not wish to give up the ground of recovering redress for the spoliations committed upon our commerce. The same reason would induce him to vote for striking out the words now proposed to be struck out. He thought there had been much unnecessary debate on this subject, about French party and English party. For his part, he should like such an Address best as should mortify both the most.

Mr. W.SMITH repeated his reasons for opposing the amendment in Committee of the Whole, and was of opinion that the thing was not clearly understood even by its friends. The Committee of the Whole having, however, declared that France should be placed upon the same ground with other nations, he saw no reason for carrying the matter any further, by inserting it in the Address to be presented to the President. He thought the matter might very well rest here, and introduce the words "mutual spirit and justice" into the Address. If they must, however, suggest to the Executive, he did not think they ought to confine themselves to making concessions to France. Indeed it was contradictory to speak of mutual conciliation, and propose nothing to be done by France. If gentlemen insisted upon this amendment as passed yesterday, he should think it his duty to propose that France should be called upon to do justice, by inserting, "and a disposition on the part of France to redress the injuries committed against the United States."

Mr. S. SMITH charged the gentleman last up with repeating the same observations over and over again. Mr. S. denied that the privilege of coming into our ports with their prizes was any longer serviceable to the French, since they were not permitted to sell them. Under these circumstances, he said, the French would not bring their prizes into our ports. Did Great Britain, be asked, keep her Treaty in this respect? No, she did not. It was true she did not bring her prizes into our sea-ports; but she brought them into our rivers and bays, and then sent them to Halifax. But, because the French had come upon our coast with some vessels of war, it had been accounted a very extraordinary thing-though the British ships of war are constantly on our coast. Indeed, he said, they had just taken the brig Liberty, from Philadelphia, and a schooner from Baltimore, (which he saw with pleasure set sail,) laden with some families, chiefly old women and children, who were returning home to Cape Francois, which were sent to Halifax. These vessels of the

[H. of R.

British keep possession of one of the mouths of our rivers, and yet we are not surprised at it because we are used to it, but because one or two vessels are taken by French privateers, we are greatly surprised.

He was far from justifying the conduct of the French; but he was not for making war upon them, on account of what they had done, because he believed the French Government would disavow many of the injuries which had been committed against us. He vindicated neither nation; both had injured our commerce and entrenched upon our rights. The British, said he, oblige our vessels passing in or out of the bay of the Chesapeake, to douse their colors; yet this nation lately made a treaty with us! This was not an agreeable thing to Americans, but they were obliged to submit to it. He mentioned these things to show that France was not singular in her aggressions towards this country.

Mr. BALDWIN repeated his objections to the report, which he made yesterday, in order to show the propriety of disagreeing to strike out the words in question.

Mr. OTIS did not think it necessary to go into a comparative view of the outrages committed against the commerce of this country by the British and French. He believed the House was tired of such repetitions. The gentleman from Maryland had told them that the British had taken a cargo of old women. The French army and conventions had been introduced amongst them by turns, and now the gentleman had brought forward the old women; whatever effect the former might have had upon their debates, he knew of none this cargo could produce. The question, he said, was now reduced to a narrow compass, viz: to a proposition to insert general words in the place of particular ones. Both were intended to have the same effect, and the object of the present amendment was to produce conciliation. It had been insinuated that gentlemen who voted for the amendment of yesterday could not vote for this; but he thought they might with propriety do it, and, by thus acting, escape the danger of encroaching on the duty of the Executive. It had been relied upon, that because the Legislature had power to declare war, ergo, this House has a right to decide upon what terms it will be willing to declare war. He did not think the Constitution ever intended such a dialogue to be held with the Executive; for the House of Representatives and Senate might disagree, and therefore it was a thing not to be anticipated. Though he was charged with being of the war party, yet he did not know that he should be willing to go to war, even if the present negotiation were to fail; indeed, he thought the particular proposition more threatening than any other. But it had been said that if the present motion passed, France would be in a state of outlaw. If such consequences could be seriously charged upon the passing of a motion of this kind, what situation, he asked, were we in? It seemed as if the cup of indignation must be filled to the brim.

Mr. VENABLE denied that the proposition now