H. OF R.] Defensive Measures. [JUNE, 1797. tion was agreed to, but the Executive would take proper means for defending it; and they need be under no apprehension that the President would go into the measure, except it were found absolutely necessary. He was surprised that, when the object was so expressly declared to be the protection of our coasts, the gentleman from Pennsylvania should have supposed it intended for quite a different purpose. The expense of this measure was obment could be adduced. There could be no doubt the expense would be considerable; but what were they called together for, but to take measures for the defence of our country; and these must incur expense; but had they not, he asked, better expend a sum of money in defence, than lose millions of revenue? He trusted they had, since it would only be expending a small sum, to receive a larger in return. of the coast, he did not think the object would authorize the expense. The only purpose for which he could conceive these vessels were wanted, was to protect our commerce on the seacoast. If this were the case, they would be employed in fact, if not by name, as a convoy. He thought this was confirmed by the Speech of the President; and he believed the object was to protect our vessels from the attacks of other Powers. As to the protecting our commerce in this way, hejected against it, as was usual, when no better arguwould remind the committee of the point at issue. It was whether, (according to the opinion of many members in that House, supported by the Attorney General, and probably of the Executive,) if foreign cruisers attempted to carry in one of our vessels with a regular sea letter on board, it was to be resisted. And it became a question whether that House meant to provide a naval armament for this purpose. He hoped not, since he feared the consequences. But it was said, they were not about to provide the means, but only to authorize the President to carry the measure into effect, if necessity required; but, he said, there was every reason to fear, that if they agreed to this, the least change of circumstances would carry the measure into effect. But the gentleman from Pennsylvania had heard of no danger. He had not heard of piccaroons coming within sight of our towns. Mr. S. mentioned an instance or two which had come to his knowledge. ping of the frigates; but, he believed, the sense of the country was against him; he believed they wished for some naval protection. Mr. GILES said, the President had recommended particular measures for the consideration of the House of Representatives, and they were about to throw them back upon him. Mr. G. observed that it was acknowledged no danger existed at present, but he went on what might take place hereafter. What, he asked, was this hereafter? How long does it exist? A Fall Session was contemplated in four months from the present time. What, then, could be the alarm which would justify the giving of this discretion, since, if the necessity should appear in a few days from this time, it could scarcely be supposed that vessels could be got ready armed much sooner than the frigates? Mr. S. concluded his observations with saying, that the objections of the gentleman from PennAs to the advantages to be derived from this sylvania to this measure were only the second armament, he differed in opinion from the gentle-edition of his objections to the building and equipman from South Carolina. He spoke of the West India picaroons infesting our coast. He did not believe this was probable. He believed they would find it their interest to remain in the West India seas. Some of the larger vessels, indeed, might come upon our coast; but these, it might be supposed, would not make captures, except there were some ground for it. If they were to attempt any other, our vessels would not have force to resist them. But, admitting that some few small vessels were to come upon the coast, yet the mischief arising from these would not be equal to the expense of the proposed armament. What the blank in the resolution was intended to be filled with, he could not tell; but it was well known that expenses of this sort always greatly exceeded the calculation. He reminded the committee of the state of our finances. Our revenue, he said, did not exceed our expenditure, and therefore every additional expense will be an additional burden on the people; and that after the year 1801, twelve hundred thousand dollars a year would have to be paid, for which no provision was yet made. He did not make these remarks as an objection to any necessary expense, because he believed the resources of the country were equal to any demand of that kind; but he thought it right to mention this, that such expenses as are not absolutely necessary may be avoided. Mr. NICHOLAS said, it was his intention, in supporting the resolution, to go no further than to protect our vessels within the jurisdiction of the United States. Mr. W. SMITH was not surprised that the gentlemen from Pennsylvania and North Carolina did not feel the same alarm for the seacoast that he did. He felt considerable solicitude for his constituents, and he doubted not, if this resolu It was usual, when anything was said of the expense of a measure, to say that security was beyond expense; but they should inquire into this matter. It had been supposed that one-sixth of the revenue would be lost by these pirates, if no protection was given. Suppose this were the case, he asked whether the blank could be filled up with a less sum? So that we were submitting to a certain loss to prevent a precarious one. Mr. G. wished to wait the event of the negotiations, and let these dangerous measures alone. But, say gentlemen, what were we called here for? He believed, for nothing. He had reflected upon the matter for ten days past, and could see no reason for this extraordinary call. Mr. BROOKS observed that the gentleman who had just sat down, according to his former assertion, opposed every measure brought before the committee. He thought there was no danger, though a majority of the committee, he trusted, was of a different opinion; if not, he wished it might be declared, that they might all go home. But, as he believed it was generally supposed that it was necessary something should be done, he wished they might be permitted to proceed with their deliberations. According to that gentleman's account, four months was no time at all, yet he considered great changes as likely to take place in that time. The gentleman from Pennsylvania supposed that the President would lay hold of the least change of circumstances for carrying this measure into effect; but if the necessity should appear, and no power was given, he would ask the gentleman what sort of a situation we should then be in? This put him in mind of a dialogue between a Hermit and Deist; the latter of whom, said to the former, "You are in a miserable state if there be no future world;""but," replied the Hermit," what will be yours, if there is?" Mr. S. SMITH felt disposed to support the motion, as he looked upon it as an entering wedge to an armed force for the protection of our commerce, but he doubted whether vessels could be immediately found to answer this purpose. Mr. SWANWICK said, this measure had been said to be upon the same foundation as the law of 1794, but he found the bill then passed was for providing galleys. Mr. S. insisted that any vessels they could at present provide would be very inadequate to the defence of our coast, which was more infested by British than French vessels. Mr. CRAIK Condemned the idea of dwelling upon the expense of a measure of this kind, when the great object of defence was in view. He noticed what had been said about a million of revenue being lost by the spoliations, but, he remarked, if one million of revenue was lost, there was at least six millions' worth of property lost to the nation at the same time. Mr. C. strenuously urged the necessity and propriety of entering into a measure of this kind." Mr. MILLEDGE wished the word "galleys" to be inserted instead of "naval force," as they were particularly calculated for the protection of the coast. Mr. Parker suggested the propriety of adding, "or other vessels," which were the words of the law of 1794. Mr. NICHOLAS hoped they should also define the situation in which the vessels should be employed, that it might be within the limits where there could be no right of capture. Mr. W. SMITH said, this was matter of detail which would be best settled in the bill. Mr. GALLATIN moved an amendment to confine the employment of the vessels within the jurisdiction of the United States, which he did not think a matter of detail, but of principle. He took the words of the old law, viz: "to be stationed within the United States." Mr. W. SMITH objected to this amendment. He thought there was ambiguity in the word "stationed," besides that, the detail, as he before stated, should have been left for the bill. 5th CoN.-10 [H. OF R. Mr. NICHOLAS believed the word was well understood; it brought the subject to the point upon which he gave it his support, and except this amendment was agreed to, he must decline voting for the resolution. Mr. PARKER thought the motion was narrowed too much, because vessels, in passing from one part of the Union to another, might have occasion to go further from the coast than nine miles. And though he did not wish the vessels to be employed as a convoy, yet he did not wish them to be confined within quite so narrow a compass, but they should give some countenance to our commerce. Mr. HARPER said, nothing would be more easy than to meet the object of the gentleman last up, in the bill. He was wholly opposed to the amendment, as if it were carried, a pirate might block up our trade, and these vessels would not have the liberty to drive him off. He condemned the great suspicion entertained of the conduct of the Executive. Mr. GALLATIN doubted not the Executive would do his duty, and he wished to do his. They had a question before them in which they seemed to be agreed; but he suspected, from the opposition shown to this amendment, (which brought the matter to a point,) they were not really agreed. The restriction, he said, would not prevent vessels from going out of the limits from one part of the Union to another. Mr. W. SMITH again spoke against this amend ment. Mr. OTIS said he objected to the amendment, because it appeared repugnant to the powers placed in the President by the Constitution. If a naval force was raised, it would rest with the President how it should be employed, as he was commander-in-chief. The Legislature could say whether the vessels should be employed offensively or defensively, but to say at what precise place they were to be stationed, was interfering with the duty of the commander-in-chief; and though he would have no right to send these vessels to the West Indies, or as convoys, yet he might defend the seacoast as he pleased. The word "stationed" was indefinite. He thought it might be necessary to pursue the picaroons beyond the limits of the United States-if necessary to fight, it might be necessary to follow. The question was taken on the committee's rising, which was not carried, there being 42 for it and 42 against it, and the Chairman voted in the negative. The question was then taken on Mr. GALLATIN's amendment, and negatived, 49 to 38. The resolution was then put and carried, there being 51 votes for it. SATURDAY, June 10. DEPREDATIONS ON COMMERCE. Mr. S. SMITH offered a resolution to the House to the following effect: "Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be laid before this House a re port respecting depredations committed on the commerce of the United States since the 1st of October, 1796, specifying the names of the vessels taken, from whence and where bound, and, where it can be ascertained, the species of lading, and the value of the vessels and cargo, and by what Power taken, particularizing those which have been condemned, together with documents relative thereto." The resolution was agreed to. FORTIFICATIONS. [JUNE, 1797. ter than was generally supposed, and that it would be found so, when the money came to be paid. He knew not whether two or three agents would not be necessary. The resolution was referred to a select committee, to report by bill or otherwise. FORTIFICATIONS. Mr. LIVINGSTON, from the committee appointed on the subject of fortifications, reported sundry documents; together with a bill to provide for the Mr. BLOUNT said, as they were to be called upon fortifications of the ports and harbors of the United to take the subject of fortifications under consid-States, in which it is provided that the money neeration, he wished to have some information on the subject, and proposed to the House, therefore, a resolution to the following effect: Resolved, That the Secretary of War be required to lay before this House a list of the fortifications of the United States, together with the number of troops in each; an account of the expense which attended the erecting of them, and what is yet necessary to their completion, and of the unexpended money appropriated for that purpose." Mr. LIVINGSTON Suggested the propriety of suffering this resolution to lie until the committee appointed on this subject made their report, as he believed some of the inquiries would be there answered, and that report would be made to-day. Mr. BLOUNT consented. AGENT FOR BRITISH CLAIMS. Mr. LIVINGSTON then called up the resolution which he had laid upon the table for appointing an agent to defend, before the Commissioners now sitting, the citizens of the United States against the claims made upon them by Great Britain, in pursuance of the late treaty. Mr. W. SMITH Submitted to the consideration of the mover and the House, whether it would not be best to place this subject under the Attorney General. It might, in that case, be proper to af ford him a sum of money to enable him to employ additional clerks for the purpose. Mr. LIVINGSTON had no objection to modify the resolution in this way: "to appoint an agent to assist the Attorney General in the defence of," &c. Mr. MACON said this might be a good proposition, but it did not strike him as necessary. He thought the Commissioners would be competent to do the business. Mr. GOODRICH thought the matter would be best referred to a select committee. Mr. LIVINGSTON saw no use in referring the subject to a select committee, except it were to report a bill. When gentlemen reflected upon the nature of these debts, and the time at which they were contracted, they would see the opportunity afforded for collusion. He did not mean that an agent should be appointed to reside in Philadelphia, but a person who might be employed to investigate, in the best manner, the justice of the claims. The President might, perhaps, think it necessary to appoint a person near the place where the debts were contracted. Mr. NICHOLAS thought this a more serious mat cessary for carrying it into effect shall be borrowed of the Bank of the United States, or in such other way as shall be found best. The bill was twice read, and referred to a Committee of the Whole on Monday. REQUISITION FOR MILITIA. The House took up the resolution agreed to in the Committee of the Whole, yesterday, authorizing the President to call upon the Executives of the several States, to hold 80,000 militia in readiness, apportioned according to the number of white inhabitants in each State. Mr. W.SMITH Wished one part of the resolution to be modified or omitted. He meant that part which directed the men to be apportioned according to the number of white inhabitants in each State. This, he said, might have an injurious effect; for, in case an invasion were to take place in a State where the white population was the weakest, the proportion of men detached would be so small as to be, in a great degree, useless; and in other States the number would be greater than there was any necessity for. For instance, if Georgia were to be the place of attack, (and if an invasion did take place, that was the most likely quarter for it,) where the white population is small, there would not be a sufficient number of men to afford any protection on the plan proposed. He thought if they fixed upon the proportion, the Constitutional estimation would be best, viz: to add to the white population three-fifths of the number of negroes. He moved to strike out the apportionment, in order to have the regulation to be inserted in the bill. Mr. MACON did not think there was any weight in the objection of the gentleman last up; as, in case of invasion, the Executive of the State might call out more than the number here contemplated, or even the whole of the militia, until assistance could be got from the neighboring States. The resolution, being in the form of that agreed to on a former occasion, could not reasonably be objected to. Mr. THATCHER inquired whether it had been customary to train blacks to arms? Mr. W. SMITH said he was not understood. He meant, that the number of whites to be detached should be in proportion to the number of whites, with three-fifths of the blacks added to the number. Mr. VENABLE did not think there would be justice in such a regulation, as the duty would lie heavier upon States thinly inhabited, than upon others. In case of invasion, he said, the neighboring States would be called upon. Mr. McDOWELL said, that should the gentleman from South Carolina's proposition be agreed to, the duty would fall heavier upon any other part of the Union; besides, when so many whites were taken from home on this business, the rest would be exposed to the blacks. He trusted, therefore, he would not press it. Mr. W. SMITH wished only for the subject to be left open, that the apportionment might have been left to the President. [He here read the form of an amendment which he would have proposed.] He did not at present contemplate an invasion, though it might be necessary to adopt this cautionary measure. He withdrew his amendment. The question was about to be put on the resolution, when Mr. VARNUM said he did not see any occasion for this resolution. He did not think they had any reason to suppose an invasion probable; but, if it should take place, there was sufficient power in the Executive of the different Governments to call out the militia. He did not know how the militia was regulated in other States; but, in the Eastern States, he knew they were always in readiness, and that twenty thousand men could be landed in a few days at any point, from Portsmouth to Rhode Island. This being the case, he did not think it necessary to make any detachment from them. It was true, an invasion might take place from France; but he thought it was as probable it might come from England-though he believed it was equally probable it might be from Nootka Sound. It was said that this regulation would be no expense to the United States. It might be no expense to the Government, but it would be a serious expense to the people. He thought the situation of the United States very different now from what it was in 1794. The British were at that time not only taking our property at sea, but they had large provinces adjoining upon the United States, and could have brought large bodies of troops against us. It also appeared that they had hostile intentions against us. It appeared, from the proclamation of the Governor of Canada, that Great Britain meant to declare war; that the Indians were prepared to make attacks on our frontiers; and fortifications were erecting within our territory. In that case, it became prudent to have a detachment of militia in perfect readiness. But, said Mr. V., the situation of the United States is now very different. The nation with whom we have now a misunderstanding had no possessions adjoining upon us, and there was not much probability of troops being sent against us from France. He did not wish, therefore, to go into the present measure. It might be well to call upon the Secretary at War to know the condition in which the militia was in, in the different parts of the Union; but he did not think more was necessary. Mr. BLOUNT agreed with gentlemen in opinion, that they had no reason to expect any invasion. But it was well known that the President of the [H. OF R United States, in his Speech, had spoken of raising a provisional army; but, if he had not done this, he thought the measure now before them was at all times proper. The expense would depend upon the time at which the regulation was carried into effect. If the States did not call extraordinary sessions, no expense would be incurred. He believed we ought at all times to have a military force standing in readiness, which would at any time convince the world that we were not a divided people. The best defence, he said, was to be always prepared to meet the attacks of an enemy. When the measure was formerly gone into, he had as little apprehension of an invasion as at present; and if we had no misunderstanding with any nation, he should be in favor of it. Mr. THATCHER believed it was true (as his colleague had stated) that the Massachusetts militia could at any time be called out, at a moment's warning; but if the militia in the Southern States were not in this readiness, he thought that it would be well that they should be put into such a state. Mr. J. WILLIAMS thought it would be proper to have a select corps of militia in readiness; but he denied that this could be done without expense. The expense of the corps which he commanded, when called out in 1794, was very considerable. If the gentleman from Massachusetts thought there was no immediate necessity for the measure, he might move to have the power of making the call whenever the President should see it necessary. The question was put on the resolution, and carried. DEFENSIVE MEASURES. The resolution reported by the Committee of the Whole, proposing to authorize the President to provide galleys, or other vessels, for the defence of our coast, was next taken up. Mr. GILES wished to have it clearly ascertained what was to be the employment of these vessels. "Seacoast," he said, was an indefinite phrase, and liable to be misunderstood. He was decidedly against their being employed as a convoy. In order to make the meaning clear, he should move to strike out the words "for defending our seacoast," and insert "to be employed within the jurisdiction of the United States." Mr. RUTLEDGE supposed, if the resolution stood as it was reported, the vessels would be employed within the jurisdiction of the United States; but he thought it would be absurd to say these vessels should on no account pass the limits of the jurisdiction. The pirates would know this, and our cruisers would have the mortification of seeing our vessels taken or plundered, without having the power of affording them relief. Or, if one of these pirates were to come within the line, and be pursued by one of our vessels, though she might be on the point of taking her, yet she must not venture across the line. He did not wish these vessels to be employed as convoys, but he thought their destination might be safely left to the Executive, and had no notion of doing business by halves. Mr. BROOKS said it appeared to him that this principle had been decided yesterday, and did not require further decision. Mr. NICHOLAS supposed it was not from an apprehension that the Executive would not do his duty, that it was wished this business should be put into a definite form. No one, he believed, would put the same construction upon the amendment that the gentleman from South Carolina had done. It would not be supposed to be the intention of the supporters of this amendment, that these vessels should be prevented from crossing the line in pursuit of a picaroon which had come within the jurisdiction of the United States. Indeed the gentleman himself had concluded that such an idea would be absurd. To do away all objection, he proposed to insert the words, "for the defence of the seacoast within the jurisdiction of the United States," instead of Mr. GILES's amend ment. Mr. GILES thought the phrase "seacoast," indefinite. It might be supposed, perhaps, to extend to Bermuda. Mr. W. SMITH said the gentleman last up had supposed the coast might be supposed to extend to Bermuda, yet our vessels were not to go beyond the jurisdiction of the United States for the defence of the coast. This, he said, involved a contradiction. He wished the gentleman to define what he meant by the jurisdiction of the United States; he believed it was not decided whether it extended three or nine miles. If it were even nine miles, he said, these vessels might sometimes be obliged to go beyond the line merely for the purpose of avoiding shoals. Why, then, confine them so very tightly? When the purpose was expressly for the defence of the coast, it could not be expected they would be employed in any other way. To employ them as convoys would be unlawful. After several proposals for amending the resolution had been made, withdrawn, and succeeded by others, and a few observations from Mr. GALLATIN, who said there were three objects for which the vessels might be used, viz: to defend our territory and sovereignty, (which he wished;) to convoy our trade to foreign ports; or to repel the attacks of privateers out of our jurisdiction: the two last objects he declared it as his opinion would lead to war, and, therefore, he wished to avoid them Mr. SEWALL proposed the following: "to defend the seacoast of the United States, and to repel any hostility to their vessels and commerce within their jurisdiction." Mr. R. WILLIAMS thought this amendment more objectionable than any other which had been proposed. The jurisdiction not being ascertained, disputes would of course be the consequence. He thought the resolution better without any of its amendments. He was disposed to defend our commerce wherever attacked but; if we had not the means to do this, he would not do anything which should seem to infer that we had not the wish to do it, by confining our defence of it within our own territory. Mr. NICHOLAS was in favor of the amendment. [JUNE, 1797. Mr. ALLEN thought the whole of the business trifling, and wished to postpone the subject until the bill came down from the Senate; or, if they did pass the resolution, they ought not to confine it within such narrow bounds. After alluding to the various amendments which had been proposed and opposed, which he called "catches at phraseology," he moved to postpone the subject until Monday. Mr. S. SMITH agreed with the gentleman from Connecticut that the present was a trifling business, and he would agree to extend his motion till next session. It was a lilliputian concern. It was the British navy, he said, which kept possession of our coast, and what effect, he asked, would these small vessels have upon them? Some of our deserters had lately gone on board one of the British ships of war at Norfolk, and when they were demanded back, they were refused. And suppose, said he, one of these vessels had been there to have en forced the demand, could any one suppose it would have produced anything more than insult upon insult? They could not. He wished to leave these trifling subjects for the Senate, and to go on to substantial business; he meant the finances of the country. Mr. BROOKS was in favor of coming to a decision at present, since the business had been fully discussed. Mr. ALLEN wished it postponed till Monday; by that time he thought the House would have come to its senses. Mr. GILES also thought the business trifling, and proposed to postpone it till the first Monday in November next. Mr. HARPER said, if he was of opinion with the gentleman from Connecticut that the House would have more understanding on Monday than at present, he would agree to postpone the question to that time; but, he believed gentlemen must receive some lessons of experience before they could be convinced of their error. The arguments of the gentleman from Maryland went to this: if we cannot resist a British 74, we will not resist a French pirate. But Mr. H. trusted they should not be diverted by a jest from doing what he believed good sense and good policy required them to do. Mr. S. SMITH said he did not mean to make a jest of the business, but merely to express his desire to go on to more important business. Mr. THATCHER asked. if this business was postponed, whether, when the bill came from the Senate, they could not proceed with it? The SPEAKER answering in the affirmative, Mr. GILES withdrew his motion. Mr. SEWALL said the bill in the Senate had not the same object in view with this measure. It was, therefore, the intention to provide vessels as a convoy. Mr. GILES believed it was not very orderly to refer to business doing in the Senate. He believed that bill was recommitted. The question for postponing the business till Monday, was put and negatived. Mr. SEWALL'S amendment was then put and carried without a division. |