JUNE, 1797.]

Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, James Machir, William Mathews, Daniel Morgan, Harrison G. Otis, Elisha R. Potter, John Reed, John Rutledge, jr., Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, William Smith, of Charleston, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thomson, John E. Van Alen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams.

NAYS-Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Thomas

Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Samuel W. Dana, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, George Dent, Lucas Elmendorph, William Findley, John Fowler Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Albert Gallatin, William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Josiah Parker, James Schureman, Thompson J. Skinner, Samuel Smith, William Smith, of Pinckney District, Richard Sprigg, jr., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumpter, John Swanwick, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and

Robert Williams.

Mr. KITTERA wished to offer an amendment It appeared to him that the expression of "mu tual spirit of conciliation," was improper, as the passage of the Address now stood, without any thing being stipulated to be done on the part of France. He therefore proposed to add the following words, viz: " to compensate for any injury done to our neutral rights, and on the part of."

Mr. HARPER thought this proposition made bad worse. They had been contending for a long time against interfering with the Executive, and now they were about to extend that interference. For himself, the same motive which led him to oppose the former motion would lead him to oppose this, as he never could vote for a proposition of this sort.

Mr. KITTERA hoped the yeas and nays would be taken upon the question. He was against giving advice to the President as much as any one; but if they were to give it, he would make it as consistent as possible, and at the same time that attention was paid to concessions to France, he was not willing to forget our own citizens.

Mr. GILES said this proposition would serve to perplex the business instead of dissipating difficulties. We were to demand from France compensation for spoliations, or what? We will go to war, for that must be the consequence.

Mr. GALLATIN was in hopes this proposition would not have been brought before the House, for, if they voted in favor of this resolution, would it not be putting themselves in a situation of saying, if you do not allow compensation for these injuries, we will seek redress in another way; and if they voted against the resolution, it would appear as if they intended to abandon the claim. Being forced, however, to vote in one way or the other, he must vote against it. He was in favor of making certain concessions, because he con

[H. OF R.

ceived it to be for the interest of this country to do so. He should vote against the proposition, because, if the French refused to comply with the condition, war must be the consequence. He wished the question could be avoided, because he saw no benefit that could arise from a decision upon it.

Mr. BAYARD was surprised, that after it had been agreed that it should be recommended to the President to make certain concessions to

France, that gentlemen should be opposed to any provision in favor of our own citizens. If the French, said he, complain of inequality with respect to treaties, how much more reason have our citizens to complain of the spoliations committed upon their commerce? He thought this amendment calculated to make a bad thing better. Mr. VENABLE was apprehensive that a decision upon this question would be a real injury to the claimants; because, if any thing was done which would prevent an accommodation, these claims would stand on a worse footing than at present. He should be sorry to be obliged to vote upon the question, but, if he did vote, he must give his negative to it. There were two hazards to be run; if it were negatived, it would appear as if compensation was not expected, and if carried, and the French refused compliance, war would be the

consequence.

Mr. NICHOLAS wished gentlemen to consider what a serious barrier they were putting in the way of the peace of the country-a clog, which, if persisted in, must lead to war. It was possible, he said, they might have carried their zeal too far, but what was it to effect? The peace of the country; whilst the zeal of their opponents led to war. He felt this question of so important a nature, and, in his opinion, so improper to be decided, that he should move the previous question upon it.

This motion being supported by five members, (according to the rules of the House,) the question now became, "Shall the main question now be put ?"

Mr. HARPER said, if no other good could be effected by this motion, it had produced declarations in favor of the Executive from all sides of the House. He left it, however, to the ingenuity of gentlemen who voted in favor of the former proposition, to show why they voted against this. He noticed what had fallen from a gentleman from Virginia, with respect to supporting the Executive; he believed the best way of supporting the Executive was to leave him to himself.

Mr. GILES said, when gentlemen were themselves turning round, they were apt to believe all the world was doing so. He thought there would indeed be inconsistency for any member to be in favor of both propositions. He was in favor of peace, not because valuable to a foreign country, but because valuable to American citizens, and he thought the mode he and his friends had advocated was the only one to secure it. He believed the business of spoliations should be left to be settled by the President, in the best way he could do it.

H. OF R.]

Mr. ALLEN thought gentlemen seemed too much disposed to lay this country at the feet of France. If the Address were examined, it would be found that we only cherish a hope that France would compensate our wrongs. Surely, he said, this cannot give offence.

Mr. GORDON was in favor of peace, and still in favor of what gentlemen had called a war motion, and against what they called a peace motion.

Mr. LIVINGSTON was against the main question being put, because he was afraid, if it were put, it would be lost. He saw no impropriety in the motion; it would be no clog upon the negotiation, because it must be made a part of it. But the losing the amendment would have a bad effect; and he believed it would be lost, because if gentlemen acted consistently who voted against the former amendment, they must vote against this also.

Mr. GOODRICH said, that as they had assumed the right of advising the President, he wished at least as much respect to be paid to the claims of our fellow-citizens as to those of the French Republic.

Mr. SITGREAVES saw the difficulty in which gentlemen were placed, which was, either to abandon the claims of their fellow-citizens, or their own views, and he had no doubt in saying that an endeavor to get rid of the question, was an endeavor to abandon those claims. As it was not an ultimatum, it would not be called a war proposition.

Mr. N. SMITH said, the argument of the gentleman from New York was a singular one; because, if the previous question was carried, it would amount to a negative.

Mr. BRENT defended the argument of the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SWANWICK Spoke at some length, as to the finesse which had been used on this occasion; as it appeared, he said, that it was the wish of gentlemen to carry this proposition for the sake only of defeating both, when the vote came to be taken on both together. If both propositions could be carried, he should be in favor of both; but he could not consent to vote for this, in order to give gentlemen an opportunity of defeating the

other.

[JUNE, 1797.

which he believed would have had the desired effect. He did not think it was the business of that House to take into consideration the losses sustained by our merchants from the spoliations of the French; if they chose to run risks, they must take the consequences. But the question having been brought before the House, if it were negatived our merchants would have a claim upon Government for their losses. He wished, therefore, to have kept the subject out of sight, since our citizens would not like to be taxed to pay for these spoliations. It was the opinion of one part of the House, that the proposition for placing France on an equal footing with other nations would have the effect to preserve us in peace; he wished, therefore, that it should go out unclogged. He hoped the mover would withdraw his motion; he thought it would be a conciliatory step, and his proposition, he was of opinion, would answer every purpose.

Mr. SEWALL would not have troubled the House on this question, but that part of his constituents being interested in the question, he felt himself called upon to make a few remarks upon it. If this motion had not been brought forward, he himself should have thought it his duty to have introduced something of the sort, since the former amendment was carried. He did not think with the gentleman last up, that the bare admitting of the question would pledge them to pay for the spoliations. He was of opinion that merchants carrying on trade, under the sanction of the Government, were entitled to protection, and to be shielded from insult every where; but he did not understand that this protection went to the making good of losses, but only to protect them with the public force in their defence. The injuries committed against them might, indeed, be so great as to be a just cause of war, or of a partial war of retaliation, or for a call upon the nation committing the injury for redress. It had been denied, when the former question was under consideration, that they were dictating any terms to the Executive. It was then said that they were only about to offer him their opinion; but now, when only a single article was to be added in behalf of our fellow-citizens, it is said to be an ultimatum. This was changing of ground, and brought the amendment, which he did not think very hurtful before, to give them the power of making peace or war in the country; they might force the Executive and Senate into a war against their inclination. The Constitution had provided otherwise the Executive was to take measures for preserving peace. This was sufficient to show the absurdity of undertaking the business. If, said Mr. S., gentlemen refuse to consider the question, it will be adding insult to injury upon our fellow-citizens. A treaty without this stipulation would be absurd. Was the President to go on with the idea that the only suggestion in this Answer was the ground on which he was to go? If so, and he were to do any thing more, and war were to be the consequence, he would have to bear the opprobrium.

Gentlemen said they had no objection to this

JUNE, 1797.]

[H. OF R.

Mr. WILLIAMS (after leave was obtained to speak a second time to a previous question, which was obtained by every member who spoke twice on this question) observed, that there seemed to be a difficulty in so amending the Address as to attend to the claims of their fellow-citizens, without appearing to impair their desire for peace. In order to promote conciliation in the House, he should move to recommit the Address and amendments to the Select Committee who prepared it, and, if he were successful, he should move to add some new members to it.

The motion was put and negatived, there being only 24 votes in favor of it.

Mr. S. SMITH said that, in the language of Mr. Barras, they presented a novel spectacle to the world. They had been called together by the President to do some act, but they were wasting that time which should be employed in effectual measures-how? To get clear of what he could not tell how to get clear of, without a recommitment. The object of calling Congress together was to take into consideration the spoliations committed upon our commerce, and the indignities shown to our Minister. They had proofs of the latter fact, but none of the former. He had mentioned this the other day, when the Secretary of State was present, expecting that he would have remedied the deficiency. He would again say, when British spoliations were the subject of complaint, they had documents before them. At present they had none, for the representations made by Mr. Skipwith long ago, and which were in a train of settlement, could not now be the object, but something recent. He wished to know whether these were irregular depredations or regular captures. They had been told of certain claims of our merchants. He asked what they were. It was true that a number of merchants (and he amongst them) had contracted with M. Fauchet and others to deliver flour in France, and some of them had got paid and others not. Many of their vessels had been, it was true, improperly embargoed in French ports, for which they had claimed payment; whether it would be obtained or not he knew not. He trusted they were not to go to war to obtain this payment. He was persuaded that when the Treasury of France got into a better state than it was at present, that our merchants would be paid; but if war was to be gone into, there would be an end of payment. Americans had been in the habit

in the West Indies, and when the French took our vessels going to those ports, would it be right to go to war to get redress? No neutral Power was permitted to trade with this country when we were declared by Great Britain to be Rebels. Vessels taken in going to British islands, in the West Indies, would be looked upon as regular captures; but those captured in going to the Rebel ports, could not be expected to be compensated. He knew the French had taken vessels bound to these regular ports; but he also knew that their numbers were small, and that, instead of twelve millions, it might be found that there had not been to the amount of half a million, or a million at most, taken in this way. And, said he, shall we go to war to recover this? He trusted not, but that the same course would be followed which had been taken with respect to British spoliations. At that time a negotiator was sent over to Great Britain to settle the business (and a proper person he was, since it was always wise in such cases to send persons who are well known to have a friendly disposition for the nation with whom they go to treat.) He wondered that the Secretary of State should have left the gentleman from South Carolina to refer them to Mr. Skipwith's documents. The man who carried on trade from this country with British ports (which was mostly the case at Philadelphia and New York) was subject to French spoliations. He who traded to French ports was in like manner subject to the spoliations of the British. Both countries plundered us. [Mr. HARPER wished to have interrupted Mr. SMITH; but Mr. S. would not give way, he said, to a man who had told him, the other day, he knew what he was going to say better than he did before he uttered his words. Besides, he knew it was the practice in county courts to endeavor to confuse a speaker by interruption, but he had been too long in public life to be thus affected.]

The SPEAKER said, any member had a right to call another to order. Mr. HARPER said he did not mean to call the gentleman to order. "Then," replied the SPEAKER, "You, sir, are out of order."

Mr. SMITH proceeded. He said he had lately seen papers, which he meant to lay before the Secretary of State, from which he found that orders had been issued in April last, by Admiral Harvey and General Simcoe, for taking all American vessels bound for Hispaniola, and to carry them into Cape Nichola Mole. He had mentioned, on a former occasion, the manner in which Colonel Talbot had been treated by the British Admiral; the gentleman from South Carolina at that time apologised for his conduct, by saying Colonel Talbot had behaved improperly. He now informed that gentleman, that, so far from this, Colonel Talbot was not permitted to speak to the Admiral.

The indignity shown to our Minister, Mr. S. said, seemed to be more dwelt upon than the spoliations. But suppose, said he, we were to complain to the French Government, might not M. Delacroix say. "What injury has been done to

H. OF R.]

you? your Minister could not diplomatically be received, since our Minister had been recalledyou have merely mistaken an article in diplomatic proceedings." Suppose this were found to be the case: the complaint would then only be, "You did not show a sufficient degree of politeness to our Minister." The answer might be, "We told him he might remain among us subject to the same laws with other strangers." And surely, said Mr. S., we who are tenacious of our own laws, shall not refuse to respect those of other countries. He confessed he was no diplomatic man, but he supposed this might be the course such a complaint would take.

With respect to the previous question, it appeared to him when principles had been fully determined upon, and an attempt was made to set them aside, this was the best way of preventing the measure. If the gentlemen who supported the proposition would vote for the whole, when amended, he would also vote for it; if not, he would vote for the previous question; because he did not like tricking.

Mr. HARPER was not surprised that the gentleman last up should have so far wandered from the subject; nobody who knew him would be surprised. From what he had said, he should have thought the motion before the House had been a call upon the Secretary of State for papers. The reason why the papers the gentleman mentioned were not before them, was, they had not been asked for. He looked with contempt upon what the gentleman had said about the practice of county courts; he thought it indicative of his want of sense and good manners.

Mr. RUTLEDGE wished to make an observation, which, though not strictly in order, he trusted he should be permitted to make, as it was in reference to what had fallen from the gentleman last up. The SPEAKER said he could not be permitted to proceed with remarks not in order.

Mr. W. SMITH supposed, that as the gentleman from Maryland had been permitted to make his observations, a reply to them ought to be allowed. The SPEAKER said, the remark of the gentleman from South Carolina was equally out of order. [He read the rule.] The gentleman having set out with saying what he should offer would not be in order, it was his duty to stop him. He should ask leave of the House for him to proceed. Leave was asked and given.

Mr. RUTLEDGE observed, the gentleman had frequently called for documents with respect to spoliations. The gentleman could not have read the documents on the the table, without seeing Major Mountflorence's papers on that subject, which not only confirmed the taking of vessels, but also the resuscitation of an old law requiring the protection of seamen to be countersigned by the officers of Government. He should vote against the previous question; nor should he think he acted inconsistently in doing this. He disliked the thing; but he was for lessening the evil as much as he could, which was a common course in passing of bills. If the amendment was adopted, he should vote for the whole.

[JUNE, 1797.

Mr. S. SMITH answered, that he had noticed the documents which had been mentioned, when he was up the other day.

Mr. CRAIK thought there was no necessity for further proof of the spoliations committed upon our commerce by the French, than they had before them. He thought it right that the stipulation in favor of our citizens should be added, and that the attempt to get rid of it by the previous question was unfair, as a refusal to consider the subject would amount to a justification of the spoliations, and to a denial of the right of our citizens to satisfaction. He denied that there was any danger of a war in consequence of the French refusing to make the satisfaction here mentioned; nor could he conceive gentlemen need to be alarmed for the loss of the amendment when amended.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, it was his wish to offer France the concession already agreed upon, for the sake of peace, and at the same time to convince them that they had nothing to expect from any party in this country, (which it appeared they had been led to believe,) in support of any unjustifiable claim. The amendment which had been agreed to, he thought well calculated to produce this effect; as it declared what these Frenchmen, (as they have been stigmatised,) were willing to do; but now gentlemen came forward and wished to tack another proposition to this, viz., that compensation should be made for spoliations committed upon our citizens. It was not doubted that this was a proper subject of negotiation; but when they saw the zeal which was shown by the Executive in favor of our own claims, they did not suppose these would be forgotten; but they think it possible from the complexion of the Speech of the President, and the reported Answer to it, that it was possible the concession which they had introduced might not be attended to. They wished, therefore, as they believed the peace of the country depended upon it, to express their wishes on that subject; but if the subject of spoliations was introduced in the way proposed, it would be to say, 6. we will have satisfaction for spoliations, or we will not treat;" for, said he, it is either a sine qua non, or it is not; if it were, he apprehended war would be the consequence; if it were not, it could not be of any use, but would destroy the claims of the merchants. He denied that gentlemen averse to this proposition were averse to obtaining redress for the merchants; their object was peace, and they did not wish to clog the negotiation with any thing which might prevent a continuance of that blessing to our country. Mr. N. defended himself and those who voted with him from the charge of being friends of France. He believed they could challenge gentlemen on the other side to show that they had more reason to be attached to this country than they; he thought their fortunes were as stable, their domestic comforts as great, as were those of other gentlemen.

Mr. N. was proceeding on this subject, but was called to order.

Mr. Oris said, he was not deterred from giving

JUNE, 1797.]

his opinion on this subject, from the high responsibility which was attached to it; he hoped that the previous question would not prevail, but that the main question would be put. If they were brought to a decision on this question, it was not the fault of gentlemen on his side. It appeared to him, there could only be three reasons for wishing to postpone a decision upon the main question; they were, that gentlemen were ready to abandon the spoliations altogether, or that it was inexpedient to enter into the discussion of them at present, or they were not prepared to enter upon it. With respect to the first, he could not believe any gentleman wished seriously to give up the claims. As to the second, he believed it would have been inexpedient, if they had not gone certain lengths; but, if they were to dictate to the President one set of terms, he wished to add something to them which would render them less exceptionable. But this was called a war proposition, a trammelling of the Executive. A war proposition! said Mr. O., to hope for a redress of wrongs! Was it ever criminal to express a hope? Hope, the consolation of the wretched-hope, which the malefactor at the bar may entertain without offending his judge! If this were the case, we were at the last extremity of humiliation. But it would trammel the Executive! If it were not a serious subject, said he, could any man help smiling, that those men, who had advocated the equality clause, should complain of this? If gentlemen, added Mr. O., will knock down the Executive, on one side and the other, it would be necessary for him to have a prop, at some future period, to support himself, either by means of corruption or by force. But, he believed, if they did not encroach upon his prerogatives, he would be able to support himself.

But gentlemen were unprepared to meet the question. Why unprepared? Because we want documents. But, added he, suppose there were no evidence, or that the fact was not true, where would be the danger of hoping redress? What member of the Executive Directory could complain of this? It would only be a vain hope, such as many of them were in the habit of indulging, and which he had never heard was insulting. But would the gentleman from Maryland go back to Baltimore, and say there were no documents? Were there not depredations committed, and at this hour committing, upon the property of his constituents? They would not permit him to doubt on the subject; they would say to him, Look at the tears of the widows and children; our injuries stare every one in the face; they are felt in the heart of every man.

Another reason for adding this clause is, he did not decide that compensation and concession should go hand in hand, but he would not decide the contrary; and if they were called upon to respond to one part of the Speech and not the other, they would be understood to say they should not go hand in hand; for, according to a legal maxim, "The designation of one thing was the exclusion of another." He believed it would be seen by this vote, therefore, who were the friends of the mer5th CoN.-8

[H. OF R.

chants and who were not. He denied that there was any trap intended by this question. He professed it his intention to vote for both propositions.

Mr. GALLATIN said the question had assumed somewhat of a different shape since yesterday, as several gentlemen had expressed their intention of voting for both propositions. This would have induced him to vote for the amendment, for the sake of conciliation, if he had not strong objections to it. Therefore, when he stated his reasons for voting against the main question, he did it that they might be answered, if they were not well founded.

The gentlemen who supported this amendment said, Surely we can have no objection to express a hope. If no more was expressed, there could not be a single objection to it.

Gentlemen needed not to have told them there was no degradation in expressing a hope. If it was nothing more, it would be an unnecessary thing. But the amendment proposed not only hoped that such a disposition would exist, but it went on to say that that disposition would produce an accommodation. It was to this he objected. He considered it in the shape of an ultimatum. It was the condition of the hope that it would produce accommodation. If that disposition was not found on the part of France, there was no hope of accommodation. This appeared to him to be the literal meaning of the amendment. He might be mistaken; he wished a different construction could be given to it. Mr. G. mentioned several collateral reasons for believing that this was the construction intended to be given to it.

If, said Mr. G., this proposition was meant as an ultimatum, it would doubtless strengthen the hands of the Executive. If they were prepared to say, that except the French will pay the amount of the spoliations committed upon our commerce, we will go to war, it would have an effect. Being, however, a doubtful thing, was a sufficient reason for his voting in favor of the previous question. He denied that it was the same thing to say they would not take up the subject as to negative it, since to decline the consideration of it at present would not be to abandon it.

Mr. DANA said he was perfectly satisfied with the vote which he had given on the proposition for placing France on the same footing with other nations. He, notwithstanding, acknowledged the obligation he was under to those gentlemen who seemed to express solicitude at the dilemma in which they supposed those who voted for that question were now placed. However, the solicitude of gentlemen on this account was misapplied, as to himself, as he did not wish to evade a vote upon the main question. He should therefore vote against the previous question.

It had been said that if the proposition now proposed to be introduced was carried, it would be either pledging the House to go to war, or amount to a relinquishment of the claims of our merchants. If he thought it would pledge them to go to war, if not acceded to, he should be against it. The question having been brought up, if no decision