Mr. BALDWIN said, in all their determinations with respect to a naval force, however great the emergency, it had always been determined to build, rather than purchase vessels, and he saw no reason for departing from this mode in the present instance. [JUNE, 1797. might always be commanded for the use of the United States. Mr. S. SMITH thought this amendment of some importance, as he believed there was not more than one man in the State of Maryland that knew how to bore a cannon; and if he was taken from that employment by a law of this kind, it was probable, whenever the manufactory was resum After some objections from Mr. W. SMITH to the building plan, which he said would take three or four years to furnish the proposed vessels, where-ed, he might not be found. as merchant vessels might be immediately purchased, which would answer the purpose of small frigates, the commit e rose, reported the two resolutions, which the House took up and agreed to, and committees were appointed to report upon them by bills or otherwise. A message was received from the Senate, with two bills which had passed that House, viz: a bill for prohibiting for a limited time the exportation of arms and ammunition, and for encouraging the importation thereof; and a bill to prevent citizens of the United States from privateering against nations in amity with, or against citizens of the United States; both which were twice read, and committed to a Committee of the Whole to morrow. TUESDAY, June 6. EXPORTATION OF ARMS, &c. The SPEAKER having taken the Chair, Mr. W. SMITH moved the order of the day on the bill from the Senate for preventing the exportation of arms and ammunition from the United States. Mr. NICHOLAS hoped they would take up the unfinished business of yesterday, as having a priority of claim. Mr. LYON said, it was not altogether with the same view which the gentleman from Maryland had given of the subject that he had brought forward this motion. The New England States would produce one hundred men acquainted with the boring of cannon. Every furnace would be glad to be employed in this business; and as to the casting of balls and shells, there was nothing easier. The reason for which he wished these articles to be struck out was, because he did not wish these manufactories to be deprived of employment. The motion was put and negatived. Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) wished to make a motion, which he supposed might, in some degree, effect the end proposed by the gentleman from Vermont. It was to strike out "bombs and cannon balls." He did not think there need be any fear of the United States falling short of these, as the single State of New Jersey, or a single county of that State, would cast sufficient to supply the whole world. Mr. BROOKS inquired whether these were articles exported? If they were not, the mention of them could do no harm. Or, whether these articles and powder were not purchased for the use of the picaroons which were so troublesome to our trade? Mr. GORDON thought if there was no greater advantage attending a regulation of this kind than that of depriving our enemies of these articles, which might be used against us, he thought the provision a good one. After a good deal of conversation on the subject, in the course of which each insisted upon the propriety of taking up the measure he advocated, as calling for the most immediate attention, the motion was put for taking up the unfinished business of yesterday, and negatived, there being 42 for it, and 48 against it. The speakers in favor Mr. DAYTON believed that the operation of this of going into a Committee of the Whole were, provision would be the destruction of these manMessrs. NICHOLAS, VARNUM, S. SMITH, GILES, ufactories. In answer to the gentleman from GALLATIN, BALDWIN, and LIVINGSTON; those New York, he could inform him that many of against it, and in favor of taking up the bill from these articles were exported from New Jersey, the Senate in preference, Messrs. W. SMITH, RUT-and from the town in which he lived; but if the LEDGE, SEWALL, BROOKS, OTIS, and THATCHER. exportation was stopped for any length of time, The motion for going into a Committee of the the furnaces would be turned to some other busiWhole on the state of the Union having been ne-ness; and, in six months from the passage of this gatived Mr. W. SMITH renewed his motion for taking up the bill from the Senate for preventing the exportation of arms and ammunition. Mr. LIVINGSTON moved to strike out the words แ one year," so as to confine the duration of the bill to the end of the next session of Congress; which motion, after some objections from Mr. W. SMITH, on the ground of delay, as the bill was already engrossed, was carried, 43 to 40. Mr. LYON wished to strike out the words "cannons and bombs," as he thought if the exportation of these articles were prohibited, it would considerably injure the manufacturers of them, and there could be no doubt but a sufficient quantity act, there would be a greater scarcity of these articles than if the bill had not passed. An act of this kind might, indeed, carry an imposing air, and look as if we meant to take care of ourselves. If the bill were to pass, however, he should be glad to have it pass with this amendment. Mr. S. SMITH observed, that in a former law of this kind, bombs and cannon balls were not included. It was asked, who exported those articles, and for what purpose they were used? To say who exported them would not be right, as they were contraband, and he could not tell who used them, nor was it an object of their inquiry. Picaroons had no occasion for them, since they went along side vessels and boarded them. The same argument which was used against exporting these articles might be used against the exportation of provisions. Mr. W. SMITH said, the bill was predicated upon being an injury to manufactures; nor did he know why they should make an exception in favor of one more than another, which would give just cause of complaint. The operation of the bill, since the amendment had been carried, would be of short duration. The object of it was two-fold, viz: to preserve these articles in the country, to be ready in case of emergency, and to keep them from foreign Powers, who might turn them against us. Though we had no occasion at present for cannon balls, we could not help looking forward to the time when they would be wanted; and though no bombs were at present used against us, yet the time might probably arrive when they might be so used, and it was politic to guard against the possibility of it. Mr. BROOKS said, though this law might operate an injury to manufacturers, yet he did not believe it would be so great as had been supposed, as the places where these were cast, were not wholly employed in this business, but cast also innumerable quantities of hollow ware, as well as metal in pigs; when they were not, therefore, employed in manufacturing articles for the destruction of mankind, they were employed in making such as were of use to them. Mr. NICHOLAS said, this subject had taken a much more serious shape than it assumed when it was first introduced. It seemed as if it were not so much the intention of this law to regulate our own wants, as to prevent the supply of foreign Powers with warlike articles. This, he said, might be attended with serious inconveniences, since it would certainly operate principally against one of the belligerent Powers; and except we are prepared and determined upon war, we should be careful in provoking it. It was conceded that there was no probability of our wanting bombs or cannon balls, the operation of the law was of course intended against one of the belligerent Powers; for though both had an equal right at present to come here and purchase these articles, every one would see that France would be principally affected by the regulation. It would be little short of hostility, therefore, to say these articles should not be exported. Indeed, he feared there was more in this business than the committee understood; that they were taking a ground which could not be maintained, and which, pending on negotiation, ought not to be taken. Mr. S. SMITH said he believed that some of the manufacturers of cannon balls might be manufacturers of hollow ware; for he understood there was an action now pending on account of their having cast a parcel of cannon balls hollow, which had burst the cannon in which they were fired, and done other mischief. Mr. LYON believed the gentleman from New York was not well acquainted with the business. Hollow ware and pigs were not cast at the same furnace with bombs and cannon balls. Many [H. or R. furnaces worked with ore which, though not fit for pigs, &c., answered very well for cannon balls and bomb shells. In his district there were several of these manufactories which exported many of these articles into Canada. He trusted gentlemen would not have the same objection to sending them thither, that they had to sending them to French ports. Mr. THATCHER thought this law could give no nation cause of complaint, because the articles were contraband, and it would perhaps have the good effect to prevent the le of some of our vessels employed in carrying t 'm. Mr. HARPER thought the objection of the gentleman from Virginia deserved some consideration. No measure of defence had been or seemingly could be mentioned, but it was said it might give offence to France. He asked how long we were to be deterred from taking such measures as should seem to be necessary, for fear of offending France? If we were not to take general measures for the protection of our citizens, because there might be a possibility France would not approve them, where was the humiliation to stop? He supposed we should next be told, that we must not fortify our ports, or arm our vessels, lest it should be offensive to France. He trusted that House would no longer hold so disgraceful a language, but that they should consult what would be for our own good, without reference to any foreign nation. Our Government, he observed, had not said it would never prohibit the exportation of arms and ammunition. The English had been permitted to purchase these articles, of which the French complained, and equal liberty was given to both nations; but this was no reason why both nations might not be prohibited from doing so, if it should be found expedient. And though he did not believe that all the advantages which were expected would be derived from this law, yet he should be in favor of it, not because it would not offend a foreign nation, but because it would be serviceable to ourselves; for, he said, if they were to go on in consulting the feelings of the French nation on what they did, if they saw us thus prostrate and feeble, they would soon take advantage of our timidity and folly. On the contrary he would show foreign nations that we were determined to regulate our own affairs in our own way, in the way of justice; for, if we went on in the present humiliating way, he should not be surprised at receiving a note from the French Minister, saying, that such and such a law must be repealed, as they were offensive to the French Directory. Mr. DAYTON, thinking himself alluded to by the gentleman who had preceded him, asked if he meant to insinuate that he was actuated by other motives than the good of this country? when Mr. HARPER interrupted him by saying expressly, he had never intimated any such thing; his remarks being confined to the gentleman from Virginia. Mr. NICHOLAS said he would tell the gentleman from South Carolina when he would cease to hear this clamor about offending foreign coun tries. It would be when he found a greater disposition in all the departments of Government for preserving the peace of this country; when he was convinced they had as great a desire to preserve this blessing as he had. He did not believe this was the case at present; and it was from this distrust that he suspected every measure which was brought before them. Was he not justified, he asked, in saying that a measure of this kind was calculated to remove peace from us, as it was a measure which would operate wholly (as he before stated) against the French? Mr. N. said he disdained to answer what the gentleman had said about fear. It could not be found in him; and he thought that gentleman was possessed of no small degree of assurance to fancy that he (Mr. N.) was less attached to the interests of this country than he himself was. He felt as sensibly for his country as any man, and therefore he could not help expressing his apprehensions of war from every step which gentlemen seemed inclined to take. Mr. BROOKS did not expect the argument to have taken this turn. There was nothing to prove that these articles were not as necessary for our safety as the other. It had been said they were cast in plenty in one part of the Union, but they might not be cast at all in other parts. He disclaimed all idea of considering how the measure would affect any other nation; he attended only to his own, and he believed they were at liberty to prohibit the exportation of any article whatever. Mr. GALLATIN said the gentleman who had just sat down had forgotten his own arguments. He charged others with having reference to foreign nations, in speaking to this question, when he and the gentleman from South Carolina were the first to introduce the mention of them; it was, therefore, not right in him to charge others with doing what he himself had done. Mr. BROOKS replied, that he had said nothing about foreign nations. It was true, he had supposed the picaroons, which had intercepted our West India vessels, might have been served with these articles; but gentlemen had denied that these were authorized by France. Mr. LYON would have no objection to join the gentleman last up in withholding these articles from the picaroons, if his constituents might be suffered to transport their manufactures down the lake to Canada. Mr. HAVENS said, it appeared as if those gentlemen who opposed the amendment, believed we could monopolize all the bombs and cannon balls. He believed picaroons could get these things independent of us, and that we need be under no apprehension of wanting them ourselves. [JUNE, 1797. Mr. DAYTON referred to a former prohibition law, to show that cannon balls were not included in the list. He believed they might make the proposed prohibition without giving just cause of offence to any foreign nation, and, therefore, if they were offended we need not care; but if the only object was to preserve a larger quantity of these articles in this country, (as he had before observed,) the end would be defeated, as it would both discourage the manufacturing and the importation of them; but as it would have an appearance of an intention of defending ourselves against the unjust attempts of any foreign nation, if the amendment was agreed to, he should vote for the resolution; and if it were not, he had not determined to vote against it. Mr. WILLIAMS wished this act to be conformable to that passed in 1794, which had been attended with good effects. He, therefore, moved that the amendment should be divided. The question was divided accordingly, and the sense of the committee was first taken upon striking out the word "bomb-shells," which was negatived, there being 41 votes for it, and 45 against it. The question was then taken upon striking out the words "cannon balls," and carried, there being 52 votes in favor of it. The committee then rose, and reported the bill as amended. It was taken up in the House, the amendments confirmed, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading this day, which it afterwards received; but, from an objection as to the wording of the penal clause, the passing of it was postponed until to-morrow. PREVENTION OF PRIVATEERING. On motion of Mr. W. SMITH, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill from the Senate to prevent citizens of the United States privateering against nations in amity with, or against citizens of, the United States. After some conversation on this bill, particularly as to its operation, whether it should affect only American citizens concerned in armed vessels fitted out by private persons, or whether it should affect all citizens employed only in foreign service, or such as were employed only in foreign service in cruising against the vessels of the United States-upon which subjects there appeared a considerable variety of opinion-the bill was recommitted to a select committee of five members, in order to be put into a somewhat different form. WEDNESDAY, June 7. Mr. Oris presented a petition from sundry merchants of Boston and Charlestown, trading to China and India, praying for a suspension, for a limMr. HARPER believed there was policy in pre-ited time, of certain duties imposed last session venting the exportation of implements of war upon tea and upon white cotton goods, intended which might be turned against us. He did not to take place from the first of July next, on the accuse the gentleman from Virginia with person-ground that it was the intention of the Legislaal fear; he believed he was incapable of it; but he doubted whether his zeal for serving his own country would be so great as he professed, when the interest of another country happened to clash with that of his own. ture to exempt from the duty the cargoes of all vessels then on their voyages, alleging that their vessels required a longer time to make their voyages than vessels from other ports of the Union. Reese fred vessel fet committee of three members. Mr. W. SMITH moved that the House go into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for prohibiting, for a limited time, the exportation of arms and ammunition; which it accordingly did; and, after receiving sundry verbal amendments, suggested by Mr. BAYARD, the committee rose, and the House agreed to them. The bill was ordered to be re-engrossed. DEFENSIVE MEASURES. The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union; when the third resolution, relating to the purchase of additional armed vessels, having been read, Mr. SEWALL Submitted it to the gentleman who brought forward these resolutions, whether it would not be better to postpone a determination upon the third and fourth resolutions, until the fifth was disposed of; because, if it were agreed to, it might have an effect upon the votes of gentlemen upon the other two, as they might be of opinion that, if the merchant vessels were armed, there would be no necessity for a convoy. Mr. W. SMITH had no objection to postpone the consideration of the third and fourth resolutions for the present, in order to take up the fifth. Mr. NICHOLAS supposed this could not be done, except the gentleman chose to withdraw the third and fourth resolutions. [H. OF R. Mr. HARPER said the detail would be brought forward in the bill; the principle was now only. to be determined. He had not thought of all the modifications which might be given to it, though he had thought of many; but it would be best discussed in this general form. The gentlemen, if he thought proper. might introduce into the resolution any principle which he might wish to have inserted in it. Mr. WILLIAMS said it was well known that a number of our merchantmen were arming in different ports of the Union, and it was, therefore, necessary to regulate this business, to prevent mischief being done. Gentlemen might differ in opinion with respect to the marine law or laws of nations on this subject; but all would wish, since vessels were arming, that they should be put under some restraint. When he voted for manning the frigates, he did it with a view to have them employed in the defence of our coasts, and not as a convoy. Our situation, he said, was truly critical, and he was undetermined how far it would be proper to arm the merchant vessels of the United States; but to prevent mischief, he wished the resolution might be agreed to, reserving to himself the right of voting ultimately for or against it. It might afterwards undergo such modifications as should be found necessary. Mr. W. SMITH said, it might be done by gener-sylvania had very properly inquired what was the al consent. Mr. GILES could not consent to depart from the plan of discussion laid down by the gentleman from South Carolina. For his part he should vote against the whole of the resolutions, and trusted a majority of the committee would do so; and he did not wish the decision to be delayed. He wished the country at large to know the sense of the committee upon them as soon as possible. Mr. Oris could not see how it was material to gentlemen who intended to vote against the whole, in what order the resolutions were discussed; to those who were not decided it might be material. He was of opinion with his colleague, that it would be best to take them up in the way he proposed, and he thought it would be uncandid to object to the postponement. The Senate had already passed a law on the 3d and 4th, and those might as well be considered in their bill. Mr. W. SMITH said, he should adopt a mode which would not require the consent of gentlemen. He withdrew, for the present, the 3d and 4th resolutions. The 5th, which was in the following words, having been read, "Resolved, That provision be made, by law, for regulating the arming of merchant vessels of the United States," Mr. SWANWICK inquired, with what view these vessels were to be provided? Against whom they were to be employed? and in what cases they were to defend themselves? The information which he might receive on these inquiries, he said, would have considerable weight in influencing his vote. Mr. LIVINGSTON said the gentleman from Pennscope of the present resolution, and he expected some answer would have been given. The gentleman from South Carolina had said they must vote for the principle, and the detail would come of course. So that without knowing its object, whether it was defensive or offensive, they were called upon to agree to the principle. This deficiency had been supplied in some degree by the gentleman from New York. He says the merchants have undertaken to arm their vessels. He wished to know whence he derived his information? The only information before them was in the President's Speech, where he says he has forbidden such armament, except in the East India trade. He therefore supposed the fact not well founded. What, he asked, was intended to be must argue hypothetically. He supposed they done with these armed vessels? He said they were intended to protect our trade. He did not believe they were meant to operate offensively. But he would ask if this were the case, if it would not lead directly to war? since individuals would be left to determine the law of nations, and of course the peace of the country would be placed at their disposal; and all precautions, on the part of Government, would be in vain, since individuals, who might have an opposite interest to that of the Government, might be continually committing acts of hostility. Who, said Mr. L., are our merchants? Were they all men in whom implicit confidence could be placed? Were they all Americans? He believed the generality of them might be well disposed towards the interests of this country; but if there were one man of a contrary spirit, the peace of the country would be at his disposal; for what would avail all the instructions which were given, if one foreigner had the power to commit acts of hostility on a Power with whom we are at peace? and if Government were to disavow violations of this sort, yet a repetition of them would certainly involve the country in a war. And when it was considered what a number of English and French we had amongst us, who would wish to see this country take part in the present war, it would not be extraordinary if they should seize such an opportunity of provoking hostilities with one or the other Power. For his own part, he looked upon the measure in so serious a light, that he should not hesitate to say he should prefer a declaration of war to such a step, because it would be a dereliction of principle thus to commit into the hands, of they knew not whom, that most sacred trust, the preservation of the peace of the country; whereas, if war were to be declared, we should put ourselves into a state of defence accordingly. A measure of this kind, taken under the mask of peace, would be plunging a dagger into the vitals of the country, from which it would be a long time in recovering. Mr. L. concluded by remarking upon the extraordinary manner in which this business was conducted, and attributed the withdrawing of the third and fourth resolutions to a persuasion that they would have been negatived, if persisted in. Mr. S. SMITH acknowledged that the present was a very delicate subject; but had not the President forbidden the arming of merchant vessels, he should have been of opinion that the merchant vessels of a neutral Power had always a right to arm for their own defence. But he believed it was necessary that something should be done. Merchants would arm their vessels from the right given to them by the law of nations, and, if not restrained, might go on to do acts which could not be justified. Though he believed merchants possessed the right of arming their vessels, yet, rather than do any thing which would involve the country in war, he believed they would desist from the practice, and bear the losses which they might, for the want of arms, suffer. He moved to strike out the word "regulating," and to insert in the place of it "restricting in certain cases." Mr. SWANWICK believed it would be very difficult to devise any plan by which to regulate a power of this kind, since private interests were set to work to evade the law. There had always been great difficulty to prevent privateers from being fitted out in our ports, and it was known that many of the vessels employed against our trade in the West Indies, notwithstanding the precaution, had been fitted out in our own ports, and whenever permission was given to merchants to arm their vessels, that permission would be a cover for a variety of abuses. Besides, the arming of vessels, Mr. S. said, would be attended with an expense which no regular trade could support. If it were not for this, nations at war might carry on trade as well as neutral nations. He looked upon the advantages which the United States had derived from their trade, to be owing to their having carried it on without the necessity of arm- | [JUNE, 1797. ing; this provision, therefore, could have no other effect than to involve us in war. What, he asked, had been the conduct of other neutral nations? He did not believe Denmark, Sweden, or Venice, had carried guns on board their merchant vessels, though they had very considerable commerce. He believed the only proper protection for the trade of a nation was the armed force of the Government, which would always be under due regulations. For these reasons he should be opposed to the present measure. Mr. GALLATIN said it seemed as if the motion of the gentleman from South Carolina was susceptible of any shape, since the amendment now incorporated into it seemed to have a different view from the original. At present he would state his objections to the principle of the resolution itself. The first inquiry was, whether the law of nations permitted the merchant vessels of neutral nations to arm? If they had not a right to permit it, whether they are not bound to prohibit it? He had examined the law of nations on this subject, and found no such authority, nor did the practice of modern times justify the practice. He took a view of the different stages of society, to show that whenever regular governments were established, the public defence was always placed in them, and it was their duty to protect individuals, since they did not give them leave to protect themselves. Mr. G. said he knew of no exception but in cases of letters of marque and reprisal, and he did not know a single instance within the last century where these had been granted, but war had been the consequence, so repugnant were they to the present state of society. It was true, nations might be in such a state as to find it necessary to grant such a power; as when a nation with which it has to do is unable to support the common relations of intercourse. Two instances of this kind presented themselves, viz: The East India trade and the Mediterranean trade. In carrying on our trade with the East Indies, our vessels were met by those of a number of uncivilized Powers, upon whom no restraint could be had, so that no remedy was left to us, but immediate resistance. Nearly of the same nature was the situation of the Barbary Powers in the Mediterranean; and, although we enter into a treaty with them, we have not a perfect reliance upon their observing their engagements, our merchant vessels are therefore permitted to trade to those parts armed. He knew it might be said that, at present, the West Indies were in a similar situation. He believed, in some respects, they were; and this could be the only plea for adopting a measure like the present. If it were to be understood that there was to be an end of the negotiation with France, or that the privilege of arming would not be abandoned, it might be proper to authorize the arming of merchant vessels; but he believed, if it were considered that such a permission would be almost certain to involve us in war, it would appear to be much more wise to await the event of the negotiation with France; not that he was afraid of offending France by a measure of this |