MAY, 1797.]

ourselves from the consequences, with all the skill we possess, and all the efforts in our power. Believing with you that the conduct of the Government has been just and impartial to foreign nations; that the laws for the preservation of peace have been proper, and that they have been fairly executed, the Representatives of the People do not hesitate to declare that they will give their most cordial support to the execution of principles so deliberately and uprightly established.

The many interesting subjects which you have recommended to our consideration, and which are so strongly enforced by this momentous occasion, will receive every attention which their importance demands; and we trust, that by the decided and explicit conduct which will govern our deliberations, every insinuation will be repelled which is derogatory to the honor and independence of our country.

Permit us, in offering this Address, to express our satisfaction at your promotion to the first office in the Government, and our entire confidence that the preeminent talents and patriotism which have placed you in this distinguished situation, will enable you to discharge its various duties with satisfaction to yourself, and advantage to our common country.

The Clerk having finished reading the Answer, the Chairman proceeded to read it paragraph by paragraph. The three first paragraphs were read without anything being said upon them; but, upon the fourth being read

Mr. EVANS moved, that instead of "will be felt with indignation," should be inserted, "will be felt with sensibility," as a milder phrase; as he wished to avoid using expressions more harsh than was necessary.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, if his colleague would give him leave, he believed he had an amendment to offer, which would be proper to be offered before one he had moved, as he believed there was a rule in the House which forbids the striking out a clause after it had been amended; and if the amendment he should propose obtained, it might be necessary to strike out a part of that paragraph. It was his intention to move a new paragraph, to be inserted between the first and second. He believed it I would be in order to do so.

The Chairman wished the proposition to be

read.

Mr. NICHOLAS asked if it was not always in order to insert a new section.

The Chairman believed it was, provided it was not intended as a substitute for another.

Mr. NICHOLAS said he should candidly avow it to be his intention to insert several new sections. For the information of the committee, he would, therefore, read the whole, though he meant, at present, to move only one.

The following are the propositions which Mr. N. read in his place; the first of which was under consideration:

After the first section insert:

"Although we are actuated by the utmost solicitude for the maintenance of peace with the French Republic, and with all the world, the rejection of our Minister and the manner of dismissing him from the territories of France, have excited our warmest sensibility; and, if followed by similar measures, and a refusal of all negotiation on the subject of our mutual complaints,

[H. OF R.

will put an end to every friendly relation between the two countries; but we flatter ourselves that the Government of France only intended to suspend the ordinary diplomatic intercourse, and to bring into operation those extraordinary agencies which are in common use between nations, and which are confined in their intention to the great causes of difference. We therefore receive with the utmost satisfaction, your information, that a fresh attempt at negotiation will be instituted; and we expect with confidence that a mutual spirit of conciliation, and a disposition on the part of the United States to place France on the footing of other countries, by removing the inequalities which may have arisen in the operation of our respective treaties with them will produce an accommodation compatible with the engagements, rights, duties, and honor of the United States.

"We will consider the several subjects which you have recommended to our consideration, with the attention which their importance demand, and will zealously co-operate in those measures which shall appear necessary for our own security or peace.

"Whatever differences of opinion may have existed among the people of the United States, upon national subjects, we cannot believe that any serious expectation people from their Constitutional agents, and we should can be entertained of withdrawing the support of the hope that the recollection of the miseries which she herself has suffered from a like interference, would prevent any such attempt by the Republic of France; but we explicitly declare for ourselves and our constituents that such an attempt would meet our highest indignation, and we will repel every unjust demand on the United States by foreign countries; that we will ever consider the humiliation of the Government as the greatest personal disgrace."

Mr. W. SMITH was of opinion that the amendment offered was wholly out of order, as it went entirely to change the form of the Answer; and, before it could be considered, would require to be printed.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, if the gentleman could inform him how he could have introduced it differently, he should be obliged to him. As to its being a substitute, every new matter introduced might be so termed. He did not know how a new section could be introduced, if there were any weight in the objections urged against the propriety of this.

Mr. THATCHER observed, the gentleman from Virginia had read three or four paragraphs, in the form of amendments. He presumed he did not mean to add these, without striking out some part of the report. He wished him to say what part he meant to strike out, that they might see how the Answer would stand when amended in the way he proposed. If they stood together, they would be inconsistent.

Mr. GILES presumed it was the object of the committee to bring into view a comparison of ideas in some shape or other, and he thought the amendment proposed was calculated to produce this effect. If he understood the Answer as reported, it was predicated upon the principle of approving all the measures which had been taken by the Executive with respect to France, whilst the amendment avoided giving that approbation. The simple question was, which of the two grounds the

H. or R.]

House would take? He believed the best way of ascertaining this, would be to move to insert, and if the amendments were carried, to recommit the report, to be made conformable to them.

Mr. GALLATIN said, when an amendment was carried which affected other parts of a composition, it was not usual to strike out, but to re-commit.

The CHAIRMAN having declared the motion 'to be in order,

Mr. NICHOLAS said, the present crisis was, in his mind, the most serious and important which this country had known since the declaration of its independence; and it would depend much, perhaps, upon the Answer which they were about to return to the Speech of the President, whether we were to witness a similar scene of havoc and distress to that which was not yet forgotten; such as had been passed through upon an important occasion, but such as could be entered upon only as a last resource. The situation in which we stood with respect to France called for the most judicious proceeding; it was his wish to heal the breach, which was already too wide, by temperate, rather than widen it by irritating measures. He hoped, on this occasion, they should get rid of that irritation which injury naturally produced in the mind. He declared he felt for the insult which had been offered to Mr. Pinckney; and he felt more for him, from the dignity with which he had borne it, which had proved him a proper character for the embassy. He was sorry that it should have been thought necessary by the French Republic to refuse to acknowledge him as the Minister of this country; but he did not think it right to suffer this first impression to influence their proceedings upon this business. If the insults offered were a sufficient cause for war, let the subject be examined by itself, separate from all others; but, if it be our wish to proceed with negotiation, he thought it wisest and best to adopt a firm but moderate tone.

As he before observed, he felt for the situation of the gentleman employed by this country; he thought it was a trying one, and did great honor to himself, and he deserved the thanks of his country for the good temper with which he had sustained it; but Mr. N. confessed the subject did not strike him with all the force with which it seemed to have impressed the mind of that respectable character. He did not consider the insult offered to Government as going further than the ill-treatment which our Minister had received. He believed that the circumstances, which appeared in the papers laid before them, in some degree accounted for the conduct of the French Government. It appears that at first the Directory were willing to receive Mr. Pinckney, but when they saw his credentials they refused to acknowledge him. This circumstance, he said, seemed to give a character to the transaction which explained its meaning.

It will be recollected, said Mr. N., that since the ca use, or imagined cause (let it be one or the other) of complaint against this country, that there has been an intercourse between the two Govern

[May, 1797.

ments on this subject. It was to be expected that if there had been any intention in Government to have come to an adjustment of the difference between the two countries, our Minister would have been clothed with some power of accommodation. Mr. N. supposed that when the French Directory agreed to receive him, this was their opinion; but upon seeing his letters of credence, they found no such power was given or intended. [He read the object of his mission from the President's Speech, viz: "faithfully to represent," &c.]

If these, he said, were all the objects expressed in his letters of credence-and if there had been more, the President would doubtless have informed them of it-the matter perfectly justified the character he had given of it.

He made these observations, because he thought, on an occasion like the present, the truth should be made to appear, and though an insult had been offered to this country, which could not fail to produce irritation, yet that irritation should stop short of the point where it would produce action, as he was certain any steps taken which might hazard the peace of the country, would not conduce to the welfare of its citizens.

There was a subject, he said, which seemed to have involved itself with this, and of which he should take some notice, viz: a charge against certain persons with being attached to the French cause. It might, perhaps, be the opinion of some members of that House, more particularly of strangers, that he was improperly influenced by party zeal in favor of the French, a zeal which it had been blazoned forth existed to an immoderate degree in this country. He had frequently heard insinuations of this sort, which he considered so groundless as to be worthy only of contempt; but when charges of this kind were made in the serious manner in which they were now brought forward, it was necessary to call for proof. Who, said he, is the man who has this proof? He knew of none. For his own part, he had no intercourse with the French but of the commonest kind. He wished those who possessed proofs of improper conduct of this kind, would come forward and show them-show who are the traitors of whom so much is said. He was not afraid of the impressions any such charges brought against him might make upon his constituents, or where he was known; indeed, he had not the arrogance to believe the charge was levelled against him, though he believed he was frequently charged with a too great attachment to the French cause.

When he first came into that House, he found the French embroiled with all their neighbors, who were endeavoring to tear them to pieces. He knew what had been the situation of this country when engaged in a similar cause, and was anxious for their success. Was there not cause for anxiety, when a nation, contending for the right of self-government, was thus attacked? Especially when it is well known, that if the Powers engaged against France had proved successful, this country would have been their next object. Had they not, he asked, the strongest proofs (even the declarations of one of their Gov

MAY, 1797.]

[H. OF R.

war.

He would mention another reason for his feeling so sensibly in favor of the French cause. It was because he found so much indifference to it in this part of the country. He shuddered for his own country when he found such a disposition prevailing in any part of its citizens. He could not calculate upon the effects. He could not account for it; especially when he found that a disposition unfriendly to Republican Government had arisen in the country. It was to counteract this disposition, that he opposed a contrary zeal, though he was not conscious of having been over zealous.

He could not help taking notice of some circumstances in the correspondence of Mr. Pinckney, because he believed they would be made use of to influence the public mind. He meant the allusion which was made to the state of politics in this country. Besides Mr. Pinckney's own opinion, he speaks of a late emigrant returned to France, who described this country as of no greater consequence than Geneva or Genoa. At first, he said, he supposed this to be one of those things which tended the same way with all the rest; but he believed this was not the case. He knew only of one emigrant who had returned to France, who was of considerable consequence. That emigrant, however, was not the associate of the friends of France in this country, but of those who were most opposed to it; so that whatever opinions he might have formed of this country, they were not gathered from the friends of the French. But he could not see any certain deduction which could be made from such an opinion.

He supposed that it would be said that great efforts had been used by the French faction in that opposition which had been made to particular measures which have had relation to that country; but if gentlemen attended to the business, it would be found that it was not in the power of gentlemen said to be in the French faction, to make any choice; they have merely decided on the subject before them. There was no choice to vote this way or that. Whatever appeared to them right in any measure, that they were obliged to do, and not because they had the power of doing it; for it was not always right for a majority, because they could carry a measure, to exert their power. Suppose, said he, in the present instance, there should be a majority in the House determined to carry a certain measure, though it should involve the nation in war. could he, because he was called a French patriot, give up his opinion and join in the vote? He could not. And if, by going into a measure of this kind, they produce division, they must not charge those who opposed their measures with it. Those who produced the division must answer it. He would not, if his life depended upon it, vote for a

He confessed that he considered the answer reported to them, as going to decide the question of peace or war for this country. He thought it a thing of that sort which might have the worst possible effect, and could have no good effect. It may tend to irritate, to prevent any sort of inquiry or settlement taking place, but it cannot tend towards an adjustment of differences. Gentlemen could not suppose that a stormy threat, or the most violent declamation against that country, could have the effect in view. Does any gentleman believe, said he, that we are able to meet them in war? If not, why make such declarations as shall preclude further negotiation? We are condemning the French Government because they ask for redress, without listening to negotiation: yet we say to them, we are right; you have no cause to complain; all the departments of our Government have acted right. The President's Speech, which he said they were about to echo, declared the Government has been uniformly right, and that he would never violate the princíples which had been acted upon.

What, said Mr. N., can be expected, if we all act upon this temper? Your declaration with respect to France will probably reach that country before any Envoy can be sent to endeavor to negotiate a settlement of differences; and when they see, that if negotiation fail, we are determined on war, would not that be the reason for them to take the advantage of us? And if our Envoy was to be sent out under instructions corresponding to the temper which seems to prevail, with an idea that all had been fair and right on our part, little success could be expected from the embassy. Why endeavor to frighten them, when we are the weakest Power? He did not mean to recommend humiliating measures; he would pledge himself not to submit to insult without redress; nor was any man more unwilling to make mean or improper concession than he; but the language of moderation and justice he preferred to a boasting manner. If injury or error had been committed on our part, he wished it to be corrected. He considered it to be for the honor, credit, and interest of this country, that the committee should go into a fair and full examination of the subject before them. He hoped, therefore, that examination would take place.

The difference, Mr. N. said, between the Address reported, and the proposition he had brought forward was this: the former approved all the measures of the Executive, and the latter recommended an inquiry relative to the operation of the British Treaty. It was this question upon which the committee would decide, and it was of importance, he said, that they should weigh the causes of difference between us and the French Republic, and not decide that we are right, without examination, because, if, after being brought to hostility, we are obliged to retract, it would show our former folly and wantonness.

H. OF R.]

Mr. N. said he would inquire into the rights of France as they respected three principal subjects, which were more particularly causes of complaint between the two countries. These were, the right of our vessels carrying English goods, the article respecting contraband goods, and that respecting the carrying of provisions. He knew no better way to determine how far we could support those articles of the British Treaty, than by extracting the arguments of our own Ministerial characters in support of these measures. With respect to the question of free ships making free goods, his impressions were very different from those of the Secretary of State. He says, with respect to the regulation of free ships making free goods, it is not changing a right under the law of nations; that it had never been pretended to be a right, and that our having agreed to it in one instance, and not in another, was no just cause of complaint by the French Government. He advocates this transaction in his letter to Mr. Adet last Winter. Mr. N. said, he knew not what was the origin of the law of nations upon the subject; he knew not how it came into existence; it had never been settled by any convention of nations. Perhaps, however, the point now under consideration came as near to a fixed principle, as any other of what are called the laws of nations ever did, as only one nation in Europe could be excepted from the general understanding of it. Mr. Pickering, he thought, seemed not to have given full force to this circumstance, but seemed to have weakened the evidence. [He referred to what Mr. Pickering had said upon the subject.] It was Mr. Pickering's idea, that the stipulation of free ships making free goods, was a mere temporary provision; that it was not an article in the law of nations, but a new principle introduced by the contracting parties. In order to prove this was not the case, Mr. N. referred to the provisions entered into by the armed neutrality of the north of Europe; to a treaty between France and Spain; to a note from the Court of Denmark; and to the declaration of the United States themselves on the subject.

In his mind, therefore, Mr. N. said, it became in some degree certain, that this stipulation was an article in the law of nations, and that an abandonment of it, as a neutral Power, was an abandonment of neutral ground.

But, said he, let us consider the circumstances under which this treaty was made; let us see whether it is the law of nations or not. It was the intention of the parties to make the law of nations as free as in their power; and if we choose to abandon the principle of free ships making free goods, shall we call upon France to do the same? This did not appear to be consistent with justice. Justice seemed to require an opposite course. If we could not maintain this stipulation with all the world, we are bound to allow France the same privilege which we allow to any other nation. It was not for the interest of this country to insist upon the fulfilment of hard treaties, to do which would be a greater loss than benefit. In the treaty with Great Britain, we had

[MAY, 1797.

denied the right that free ships make free goods. It was not indeed wholly given up, but we agree that it shall be suspended during the present war. He thought this wrong, and asked if any country, who granted a privilege to one nation which they refused to another, could pretend to any firmness in their proceedings? He thought they could not. With respect to contraband articles, he had little to say. It was asserted that the articles stipulated in the British Treaty as contraband, were made so by the law of nations. Where the doctrine was found he could not say. It had been quoted from Vattel; this authority might be correct; but he never found any two writers on this subject agree as to this article. In a late publication on the law of nations (Marten's) he found it directly asserted that naval stores were not contraband. But he said, if the contrary were the law of nations, they were bound to extend the same privilege to France which they gave to England: they could not have one rule for the one nation, and a different one for the other.

The 18th article of the British Treaty, respecting the carrying of provisions, always struck him as a very important one. It had heretofore been contended that this article did not go to any provisions except such as were carrying to besieged or blockaded places; but he believed the British had constantly made it a pretence for seizing provisions going to France. Indeed, if he was not mistaken, the British Minister had publicly declared in the House of Commons, that the provisions on board the vessels intended for the Quiberoon expedition had been supplied from what had been captured in American vessels.

Mr. N. contended that this was the opinion of the Executive of this country, as published in all the public papers, and of course known to the Government of France. In the letter of Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Pinckney in 1793, he declares that there is only one case in which provisions are contraband, and shows the necessity of a neutral nation observing the same rules towards all the Powers at war. But, in the present case, the right was ceded during the present war.

It was an unfortunate circumstance against the neutrality of this country, to find a doctrine so differently applied at different times. It was a strong proof of the progress of the passions. It might be considered as a fraudulent thing, in one instance, to give up a right for a compensation to ourselves.

But Mr. Pickering, in his observations upon this circumstance, says, that this stipulation is really a beneficial thing to France, it encourages mercantile adventures; but this Mr. N. denied, and said, that if it encouraged adventure, it would also increase the facility of captures.

In considering the tendency of the amendment which had been proposed, he had not spoken of the possible operation of agreeing to the Answer, as reported, especially when carried by a small majority of that House, and contrary to the wishes of a great part of the people of the United States. If the measure were carried by two, three, five, or ten votes, did gentlemen expect this would an