Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Mr. LYON said, except the word "cannons" were struck out of it, he could not consent to vote for the passing of the bill.

Mr. W. SMITH called for the yeas and nays upon the passing of this bill, which were accordingly taken, and stood-yeas 74, nays 8, as follow:

YEAS-John Allen, George Baer, jun., Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, James A. Bayard, Thos. Blount, Theophilus Bradbury, David Brooks, Nathan Bryan, Samuel J. Cabell, John Chapman, Christopher G. Champlin, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, William Craik, John Dawson, John Dennis, George Dent, George Ege, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Nathaniel Freeman, jun., Albert Gallatin, William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Henry Glen, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Andrew Gregg, Roger Griswold, John A. Hanna, Robert Goodloe Harper, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, William Hindman, David Holmes, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston, Samuel Lyman, James Machir, Joseph McDowell, Daniel Morgan, Anthony New, Harrison G. Otis, Josiah Parker, Elisha R. Potter, John Reed, John Rutledge, jun., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Tompson J. Skinner, Thomas Sinnickson, Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, Samuel Smith, William Smith, of Charleston, William Smith, of Pinckney District, Richard Sprigg, jun., Richard Stanford, John Swanwick, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thomson, John E. Van Alen, Joseph B. Varnum, John Williams, and Robert Williams.

NAYS-Lucas Elmendorph, William Findley, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, John Nicholas, and Abraham Venable.

PREVENTION OF PRIVATEERING.

Mr. W. SMITH, from the committee to whom was referred the bill for preventing the fitting out of privateers, made a report, which recommended an agreement to all the amendments of the Committee of the Whole, except one for prohibiting citizens from taking command, or entering on board of any vessel with an intent to, cruise against vessels of the United States; instead of which, they recommended another to be enacted in a separate law, confining this bill entirely to private vessels.

The House went into a Committee of the Whole on this report, agreed to it, and afterwards took it up and agreed to it in the House, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

Mr. W. SMITH moved, that a committee be appointed to prepare and report a bill to prohibit citizens of the United States from taking the command of, or entering on board, any ship of war of any foreign Power. A committee of three was accordingly appointed.

Mr. Corr believed, that some inconveniences arose from vessels which had been taken prizes from citizens of the United States, being again sold to citizens of this country, and from their obtaining fresh registers for them, as the doing of it appeared to be an additional inducement to captures. He therefore proposed a resolution to

[JUNE, 1797.

appoint a committee to consider the propriety of prohibiting the practice in future, which was agreed to, and a committee of three appointed.

CORPS OF ARTILLERISTS, &c.

Mr. W. SMITH moved that the House take up the bill which was under consideration yesterday when an adjournment took place, viz: the bill for raising an additional corps of artillerists and engineers; when

Mr. MACON said, he should not renew his motion for rejecting the bill, as it might consume more time than letting it take its course; but he did not think he showed any want of candor in wishing to get rid of it in that way. The gentleman from South Carolina talked as much about candor, and showed as little of it as any man in that House.

The bill was referred to a Committee of the Whole to-morrow.

ness.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said, it was well known that the Commissioners for settling the British debts were now organized and ready to proceed to busimight arise for want of an agent to check the It had been suggested that great evils claims of the British. He should, therefore, propose that such an agent be appointed. He laid a resolution upon the table, directing that provision be made by law for enabling the Executive to appoint an agent for this purpose.

DEFENSIVE MEASURES.

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and the 5th resolution, viz: that respecting the arming of merchant vessels, with the amendments which had been yesterday offered, being under consideration

Mr. OTIS said, it ought to be considered that they were not about to grant a privilege to our vessels to arm in their own defence, but to modify that right. He thought all discussions on the law of nations were secondary; for, if our own law did not forbid the practice, it was necessary something should be done to regulate it, and when the bill was brought in, gentlemen might direct their objections to such parts of it as they thought proper. There could be no doubt that the law of nations warranted the practice; but it might be our policy to put it under a stricter control than other nations had done, because all other commercial nations had fleets to protect their commerce. He spoke of the difference between carrying arms on board a vessel and of using them.

Mr. O. referred to a provision in the law of nations, which, if it did not positively acknowledge the right of merchant vessels of neutral nations to be armed, at least implied it. It was, that vessels of war have a right to examine merchant vessels, and, if they make any resistance, they shall be considered as lawful prize, which supposed them to be in a capacity to fight. It was acknowledged that this power might be abused; and therefore it was, that they proposed to restrict it in the most effectual manner. At present there was nothing to prevent the owner

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

of any vessel from arming it, from which great tention." But, added Mr. O., if the merchants are disorder might ensue, but the order of the Execu-averse to this proposition, why do they not meet tive, which might be any day revoked. But and declare their opinions? If they were to do these regulations were scrupulously to avoid this, it would have some weight with him. cause of offence to any nation, and the improper conduct of the captain of any vessel would be disavowed. The only question was, which was the best way of doing this. All were agreed that the regulation would be proper to the East Indies and the Mediterranean, but there seemed some doubt as to the propriety of including the West Indies.

Mr. O. contended, that if the danger in the West India seas was as great from unauthorized cruisers as it was in the East India or Mediterranean seas (and he thought this had clearly appeared) the same regulation ought to be extended to that quarter. But it was said it might be the cause of war. He took it for granted such restrictions would be made in the law as would prevent any real pretext for war, and if the French were determined to act upon specious ones, they would not want them : and if they had them not, they could manufacture them, and nothing that we could do would prevent them from making

war upon us.

Mr. O. denied that resentment could have all the effect ascribed to it, since it would only operate to any effect upon a few individuals; nor did he think the captains employed in the West India service would be less likely to consult the interest of their employers and of their country than those employed in the East India and Mediterranean trade. He denied also, that if a captain was so imprudent as to force a vessel into a rebel port, that it would be a cause of war, nor would the French Republic ever make it a pretext of offence. Indeed, if it were a fact that the unauthorized cruisers in the West Indies were in rebellion to the French Government, we should, in fact, be fighting their battles by fitting our vessels to oppose their unjustifiable attacks.

Another gentleman had told them that the loss sustained by depredations upon our commerce did not wholly fall upon our merchants, but upon the public at large. That the gentleman from Pennsylvania should have supported a theoretical idea of this sort, would not have surprised him; but that a gentleman, who was himself a merchant, should have given countenance to it was extraordinary. If the merchants and insurers were to lose the whole of their capitals by these spoliations, would it be any satisfaction to them to be told that the farmers would also be affected by their losses? Or, if the matter was reversed, and a mildew should destroy the crops of a number of farmers, the misfortune would of course raise the price of grain, and the public would be affected by the misfortune; yet, the advance in price would be general, and the suffering would be confined to those who crops had been destroyed.

Seeing, then, said Mr. O., that our commerce is thus exposed, shall we desist from all prudent measures of protecting it? If we do, we shall be obliged to the mortifying alternative of putting our vessels under British convoys, or suffer them to be captured; and he believed if nothing was done for the protection of our trade, it would be found at the next session of Congress, that all the vessels which had arrived safe, would have been thus convoyed.

Mr. O. concluded by a complaint of the want of candor in charging gentlemen, who advocated this motion, with being advocates of war. He thought gentlemen had used language in the course of the debate that they would not have used out of doors. He feared the time was coming when they should be obliged to unite in the defence of their common country, and he thought it would be well to avoid all unreasonable provoThe gentleman from New York had objected cation. But, if gentlemen were determined to to this proposition because it appeared naked. say, because he advocated the arming of our He thought this no objection, because the gentle- merchant vessels, that he advocated a war proman could take it out into the committee room position, and that it would produce war in six and clothe it with his own ideas. The gentle-months, he could not help it. The public must man from Pennsylvania had said the expense judge between them. would be an objection; but he might have known Mr. VARNUM said the gentleman last up had that no one would be forced into the regulation. taken much pains to show that the citizens of the But it was said the merchants were against arm- United States had a right to arm their vessels, and ing their vessels. They were apt, he said, to sup- to resist the attacks of foreign nations. If this pose that because half a dozen persons with whom were true, he was astonished the doctrine should they conversed were of their opinion, that every have lain so long dormant. But he believed the body thought alike. right had not been considered to exist, and he beBut suppose this was the opinion of some mer-lieved it ought to exist. Though the President chants, did not they expect there would be other had forbidden the arming of merchant vessels, yet measures taken for the protection of our trade? gentlemen asserted they had a right to do it. In order to put the matter upon a right footing,[Mr. Oris interrupted Mr. VARNUM to read an gentlemen should say to these merchants, "We extract from the President's Speech on the subwill do nothing; we are willing that privateers ject, where he says he did not doubt the policy should not only come off your Capes, but up to and propriety of merchants arming their vessels.] your city, and take your bank; (he did not know Mr. V. said the President might not doubt the powhether there would be any one found to wel-licy and propriety, and yet not be satisfied as to come them ;) we want to go home; the weather the legality of the measure. If individuals had gets warm; our own affairs have need of our at- this right, he hoped they should pass a law before

[blocks in formation]

they rose, to prevent its exercise, as he doubted not if this plan was gone into that this country would soon be involved in the horrors of war.

Mr. V. wished to know what cause existed at

present more than for four years past, for going into this measure. Gentlemen had brought forward many ideal depredations committed by the French Republic, of which no evidence had been attempted to be adduced. They had proof indeed of three or four vessels being taken into France in the report of Major Mountflorence, yet gentlemen exclaimed that our commerce was laid at the feet of France. If this were so, why did not the evidences lie before them? The cries of women and children, which had been the other day introduced, was no proof. He believed those cries had been produced by an overbearing spirit of speculation, in this country, more than by the depredations of any nation whatever. He saw nothing in the French Republic like a wish to injure the property of the citizens of the United States. Mr. V.then took notice of the decree which they had taken in respect to the British, and doubted not, when our negotiators should settle that business, that the present misunderstanding would be done away, and they would be convinced of our good wishes towards them. He did not wonder that the French should have been offended with this country. He thought they had cause for offence in the British Treaty; nor was he of opinion that our conduct towards them had been more friendly than to other nations, which he thought they had some reason to expect; not but that he applauded our Executive in taking such a part as was calculated to keep us out of the war. He believed it would have been a wise thing not to have entered into any treaty with either nation till the conclusion of the war.-[The Chairman reminded Mr. V. of the question.] He concluded with hoping we should wait the event of negotiation, without doing anything which might eventually lead to war.

Mr. NICHOLAS Would not again have troubled the committee, had not the importance of the question appeared to him to require it. They were told that merchants had a right to arm their vessels, and a motion was made to sanction the arming of them to the West Indies, in addition to the East Indies and the Mediterranean, under certain restrictions. So that they were about to admit the right of the merchants to do the thing. It was necessary therefore to inquire, whether this was the practice of nations.

[ocr errors]

[JUNE, 1797.

trary, would be to bring the Executive into a situation which he did not deserve.

The gentlemen declared it was their intention to suppress a natural right. He would not willingly dispute their intention, but he believed this was not the whole of it, because the gentleman from South Carolina had spoken of forcing our vessels into the rebel ports of the West Indies, than which no step could be taken which would sooner lead to a war. But gentlemen said tha the law of nations countenanced this doctrine, and said it remained with them who opposed it to prove the contrary. The fact was, the law of nations was silent upon this point. But if it had been a beneficial thing, and conducive to the happiness of a country, would it not have been at some time acted upon, and noticed by the writers on the law of nations? And is not their silence pretty strong evidence that the right was never exercised? The reason of the case was strong against the practice, as, if unrestrained, it was acknowledged it would lead directly to war, as it would have a tendency to violate the rights of other nations; and if this would be the natural consequence of the measure unrestrained, he believed the same effects would be produced, notwithstanding any restraints which might be enacted to regulate the practice; and if they authorized a practice which produced evil, it would be the same as if they authorized the evil.

But gentlemen say this measure could give the French no real offence, and if they would act from specious ones, they would never be in want of them. Mr. N. said he did not want to remove specious pretences of offence, and, if this country gave no solid ones, he should never be heard to raise his voice in favor of France. But it was his opinion this proposition was pregnant with real offence.

The gentleman last up seemed to think that if the merchants were indisposed to the measure, then it would not be carried into effect, and of course could do no harm; but, though the generality of merchants might be opposed to it, yet there might be enough ready to enter into it to involve the country in mischief. For, when once this business was gone into, they could not saythus far it shall go and no farther; nor would any bond which could be entered into be an effectual security for our peace.

He was surprised to hear the complaints of the gentleman last up, with respect to attributing improper motives to gentlemen, since he believed that gentleman had himself been as reprehensible in this respect as any other. Indeed, this very day he had spoken of the French coming up to our wharves, and intimated certain persons would be ready to receive them. He thought the admonition came ill from one who had been twice obliged to recant what he had said in this way.

It was said that there was no law to prevent arming; yet the President had forbidden the arming of merchant vessels, except in certain cases, and he should not be willing to believe that he would do what he had no right to do. And surely no gentleman would contend that the President had the power to do, or not to do, according to his will. It was his business to execute the Mr. N. concluded with hoping the amendment law, and not to make it. He believed there had would be rejected; nor did he wish the resolubeen no hesitation, since the passing of the law tion to be agreed to without it, since he believed in 1794, in believing that vessels arming in the if it passed that House, it would not pass the ports of the United States were doing so with an Senate, and if any law passed on the subject, he intent to commit hostility. To suppose the con- I wished it to be so expressed as to do away the

[blocks in formation]

supposition that the right in merchants to arm was acknowledged.

[H. OF R.

Mr. S. concluded by saying, he had shown that a regulation of the kind proposed could not effect its object, that our vessels would not be able to cope with the force they would meet with, and that it would lead to war. He believed we must determine upon one of two things, viz: either to continue our trade, as at present, by means of insurance, or give it up altogether. And this might be left to regulate itself; because, whilst the profits arising from it were sufficient to make it worth the attention of merchants, it would be carried on; when it was not, it would be declined.

into, our coasting trade would be ruined. Was it then expected that French privateers would Mr. SWANWICK said, that as the question was come and take our coasting vessels? If so, were to insert the words West Indies in the resolution, our coasters to be armed? This he could hardly it might not be amiss to make a few observations suppose, as no transportation could support the on that trade. Much had been said about the re-expense of such a measure, and if not, what bestrictions which should be laid on vessels going came of the argument on this ground? out, that they should carry no contraband articles or English or French property, and that therefore they could not be legally stopped; but, he asked, under what regulation vessels were to be put on their return? What documents could a vessel bring from any port in the West Indies? Every person who was acquainted with the West India trade knew that it was a continued source of distrust, lest the French or English should export their property under cover of American property; and, in either case, where the fact appeared, vessels were looked upon as good prizes. This collusion, he said, had been carried on in a variety of ways, some of which he explained. He knew of no method by which this could be prevented, and still he believed more vessels were taken coming from than going to the West Indies. Mr. S. saw no advantages from arming, because, he believed, we should not only lose our vessels, but also the arms on board; and these vessels would probably be made use of as privateers against our own trade.

Mr. POTTER hoped the amendment would prevail, and that we should soon have the question, as he thought there had been more than enough said upon it. He was afraid no question would hereafter come up, but gentlemen would think it necessary to tell them all they knew about the law of nations, &c. Many gentlemen had complained of long speeches and personalities, and immediately made still longer, and been more personal. He could not say whether these long speeches were made to display members' own vanity, or from their opinion of the ignorance of the House.

But why, said Mr. S., is so much said about the French in this debate? This arming, he said, would operate principally against Great Britain, as a greater number of our vessels in the West Indies were taken by the British than by the Mr. HARPER took notice of what had fallen French, because we had much more valuable from Mr. SWANWICK on the subject of French trade with the French, Spanish, and Dutch and British spoliations. On a former occasion Islands, than with the British. France would he had said that the depredations of the British rather be pleased than offended at our determina- were equal to those of the French; but now he tion to protect our trade, because the want of that told them they were much greater. Mr. H. said, protection had been one of their causes of com- he then called upon him for his proof, and he plaint; and they would know that in a fortnight referred him to the insurance offices. He had after we sent our armed vessels to sea they would accordingly applied to them; and though he had be fighting with the British. So that this mea-not yet got his information complete, such as it sure would be like a two-edged sword, and cut a contrary way from that which its movers and supporters intended.

It was asked how long we should submit to the degradation of our vessels being convoyed by the armed ships of Great Britain? He would answer, that these convoys were confined to their own ports, and did not extend to the French, Dutch, or Spanish ports. If the French had a sufficient force in that quarter, they might also convoy our vessels from thence.

When he spoke before on this question, he said the expense of this measure was of itself a sufficient objection to it; when it was answered that this was no objection, because if merchants did not find their account in it, they were not obliged to go into the measure. But it was not only on this account that he objected to the plan, but because it would give rise to collusions of the most dangerous kinds, and all regulations which could be thought of would be insufficient to prevent them.

It had been said, if this measure was not gone

was, he would lay it before the committee.

From the Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, he found that since the 1st of January the French had taken four ships, five brigs, and three schooners, insured in that office, and the British only two brigs in the same time. From the North America Insurance his account was less complete, as it went back to the beginning of 1796, and ended with the end of it, when the spoliations of the French were not so great as they have been since. The total amount of British captures during that period was $99,274-of French, $271,000. But he believed, if the account was brought up to the present date, the French spoliations would be ten times the amount of the British. But of this he should be more certain to-morrow, as he was promised a statement of them at that time.

Mr. S. SMITH said, if he understood the observations of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, it referred to captures of fair and honorable trade, and not to those made of vessels of the United States engaged in illicit intercourse. If, when the gentleman obtains his information from the insu

H. OF R.]

Defensive Measures.

[JUNE, 1797.

the Havannah, whereas he knew that thirty or forty vessels which trade between Rhode Island and the Havannah had arrived safe. They had been searched, but, after examination, all of them had been dismissed.

Mr. S. SMITH said Martinique was considered as a rebel port by Victor Hugues. It was true that Port Royal was bravely defended by French troops, but the island itself was given up to the British without resistance. But suppose that island was taken fairly, they were cautioned against trading there, and it would afterwards become a matter for discussion between the two as a rebel port, he trusted we should get redress for the property which had been taken in going there. The property of vessels bound to the regular ports of Great Britain, Victor Hugues caused to be sold, and the amount placed in the treasury.

rance offices, he will get them to state to what place vessels which were taken were bound, and with what they were laden, the committee could be able to understand what they were about. Philadelphia, he said, was particularly situated in this respect. One of the most respectable houses in the city was one upon whom Mr. Whigglesworth, the British agent, drew all his bills for produce, carried for the use of the British Government. This gave them an advantage over other parts of the Union, and hence it was that there were more depredations committed by the French upon vessels from Philadelphia than from any other port; but much of this trade was ille-Governments; and if it ought not to be considered gal, as it was carried on to ports where there were only a few British troops, and which were deemed by the French rebel ports. It was on this account that he had twice proposed a resolution to the House, but had not able to pass it, to get a particular account of vessels taken, in going to the West Indies, since the 1st of October, 1796. This account from the insurance offices, he said, was not a fair one. Many vessels, he said, were captured, taken into British ports, and, after being put to great loss and inconvenience, released. These did not come within the view of the insurance office, though they were, probably, obliged to sell their cargoes at fifty per cent. under their value. Therefore, any account which could be got from insurance offices could not be relied

upon.

Mr. S. said, he had this morning received letters from different captains in his employ to and from French ports, who had been carried into British ports, and obliged to sell their cargoes at a price by which he would lose fifty per cent. He learnt that the privateers state their orders to be, to take and carry into British ports all vessels bound to and from French ports. They state that nine American vessels were taken in this way, and carried into Cape Nichola Mole, and afterwards sent to Jamaica. These, he said, never came before an insurance office, because they were excepted against in the policy of insurance. The gentleman from Massachusetts had said, why did not the merchants meet, and express their wishes on the subject. The merchants in Philadelphia, Mr. S. observed, consisted of English, French, and American, and so different were their feelings, that were they to meet, they probably would not agree to any declaration which could be formed.

Mr. S. read the proclamation of Victor Hugues, wherein he declares certain ports of the West Indies in a state of rebellion, and forbids trading to them. He thought this provision just, and if persons continued to trade to these ports, after this notice, they must take the consequence.

Mr. CHAMPLIN interrupted Mr. SMITH to inquire whether Martinique was included in the rebel ports, because it had been taken by the British after a vigorous resistance. Though, he said, he was no merchant, his friends were engaged in commerce, and from them he had some knowledge on that subject. The gentleman from Pennsylvania had stated our commerce was stopped to

Mr. CHAMPLIN again interrupted Mr. S. to say, that property thus taken was sold for one-tenth of its value, and the small sum of money for which it was sold was placed in their treasury-so that the whole value was detained from the owner.

Mr. S. SMITH acknowledged that this was true. The goods were sold at vendue (perhaps unfairly) for what they would fetch. Mr. S. here mentioned the case of a ship of his taken by Victor Hugues, which had been misrepresented to his disadvantage. It was the ship Jane, chartered by him, the supercargo of which was cruelly treated, and placed in prison, from the idea that the vessel belonged to a Scotch merchant in Baltimore, of the same name with his supercargo; but, on the mistake being cleared up, and finding on the trial that the vessel belonged to a real American, who was in the habit of trading to French ports, and that she was bound to Martinique, and not to Guadaloupe, she was released. This account of the transaction was at the time fairly represented in the American Daily Advertiser, but, from some cause or other, had got represented to his disadvantage in other papers. He apologised to the committee for having troubled them with this fact; but, as it had been alluded to by several gentlemen in the course of the debate, he thought it necessary in his justification to state it.

Mr. BROOKS said the committee had long been amused with matters no way connected with the subject under discussion. He should confine himself to it. That an individual had a right to arm his vessel for self-defence, was very clear. It was the practice not only of this, but of every other nation. The next consideration was, whether it was expedient at this time to go into the measure. Gentlemen had talked about what had been done on a former occasion, when another nation captured our vessels, which he thought had nothing to do with the present question. Heretofore our merchant vessels had been captured by vessels of considerable force; but of late the principal depredations committed upon our commerce were the acts of small vessels without authority. He thought it was therefore a question with the committee, whether they could not so modify the re

« AnteriorContinuar »