MAY, 1797.]

[H. or R.

should exist, and it was not possible that any danger should arise from it. And if a proposition of this kind was not agreed to, they had no evidence to suppose very conciliatory steps would be taken ; they had reason, indeed, to suppose the contrary. He was afraid he might be charged with going

Let something, then, said Mr. N., be brought forward which does not stare in the face the established opinions of many members of that House; but perhaps it may be thought of little consequence what are the opinions of those members; but he believed the people were not less divided in their opinions than the members of that House, and a measure so carried, he conceived, was not calculated to intimidate an enemy. He knew his constituents would go into the war if directed to do so, but they would exercise the opinion which the Constitution has placed in them, of displacing from their seats the men who had involved them in such difficulties. He knew that if a war were to take place, that the discontents of the people would increase every day. He knew they would abandon the delicacy and nicety of feeling which was now urged. He knew it was his duty to take as moderate ground as was consistent, because he knew the public opinion, though now irritated above it, would come down to it.

If it were of consequence that the people should enter unanimously into any hostile measure which eventually might be found necessary, (though he hoped and trusted it would not,) he thought that unanimity might be secured by agreeing to the proposition which he had moved.

In making concessions to England, it was not considered as disgraceful; what was now wished was, that England and France might be put upon the same footing with respect to this country. To do this was the only way in which unanimity could be obtained, and it appeared to him that there could be no serious objection to it.

It may be said, and probably will, that this proposition interferes with the business of the Executive, and that we ought not to dictate to him with respect to the proper steps to be taken. He was so well accustomed to the business of the House, that he knew gentlemen would entrench themselves under the pretended restrictions of the Constitution in this respect; but it was his opinion that the measure which he proposed was strictly Constitutional. The President was to negotiate, but it was the duty of the Legislature to deliberate on the proper measures to be taken. Government, he said, could never be carried on, except the Executive and Legislature were influenced by the same spirit. The President might go on for ever to negotiate, if he did it contrary to the views of the other branches of Government, without coming to any conclusion. It was absolutely necessary, therefore, that such a power

pect, from the persons with whom the President might be supposed to advise, that very moderate steps would be taken. It was not to be supposed that they would abandon the opinions they had so strenuously maintained. He thought, therefore, it was the business of that House to say, that, in their opinion, it is proper that such steps would be taken.

Mr. N. concluded with observing that he had gone over the subject, he feared, not without being considered tedious by the committee; but he felt himself greatly interested in the present decision. He believed any additional irritation in their measures would place peace out of our reach. He believed, therefore, it was their business to avoid it. He believed it would be for the honor and happiness of the country to do so.

Mr. W. SMITH said, as the gentleman last up had taken a wide range of argument, he must excuse him if he confined himself, in his reply, to those parts of his observations only which appeared to him essentially to relate to the subject under consideration.

He believed the question was, whether they should alter the report in the manner proposed; that is, whether they should strike out words which expressed the sensibility of this House at the unprovoked insults offered by the French Republic to our Government and country, or adopt the gentleman's amendment, which he read.

If they agreed to this amendment, they must necessarily expect from the French Republic fresh insult and aggression; for it seemed to admit that hitherto no insult had been intended.

The amendment might be divided, Mr. S. said, into two parts. The first went to vindicate the French from any intentional insults towards this country; it even held out an idea that the Executive ought to offer some concessions to France, and even designated the kind of concession. He should, therefore, without taking notice of what the gentleman had said about the political parties of this country, or what he had said respecting himself personally, confine his observations to the points in question.

The first point was, whether the conduct of France was justifiable in rejecting our Minister, and sending him from the Republic in the manner they had done?

He thought the committee had abundant materials before them completely to refute the first proposition; and he was surprised, knowing that these documents were in the hands of every member, that the gentleman from Virginia could expect to impress their minds with the idea that no indignity whatever had been offered by the French Government to this country in that transaction.

Mr. S. said. that it appeared most clearly that the French Directory intended to treat this Go

H. OF R.]

vernment with marked indignity; for though the gentleman from Virginia suggested an opinion that their refusal to receive Mr. Pinckney was owing altogether to his not being invested with extraordinary powers, this was evidently not the case, as the Directory had been well informed as to the character in which Mr. Pinckney came, before they received his letters of credence, as appears by the letter of M. Delacroix to Mr. Monroe, styling Mr. Pinckney his successor, and by other documents communicated by the President, (which he read.) There was no doubt, then, with respect to the Directory being well acquainted with the character in which Mr. Pinckney went to France. viz: as Minister Plenipotentiary or ordinary Minister; but, after keeping him in suspense near two months, on the day after the news arrived of Bonaparte's successes in Italy, he was ordered, by a peremptory mandate, in writing, to leave the French Republic. This mandate was accompanied by a circumstance which was certainly intended to convey an insult; it was addressed to him as an Anglo-American, a term, it is true, they sometimes used to distinguish the inhabitants of the United States from those of the West India Islands, but, in his opinion, here evi- | dently designed as a term of reproach, as he believed no other similar instance could be mentioned. Upon this circumstance, however, he laid no stress, the other indignities which our Minister had received were too great to require any weight to be given to this circumstance.

But, says the gentleman from Virginia, after the Directory had seen his letters of credence, and discovered that he had no power to make concessions, they refused to acknowledge him. What would he have required his letters of credence to have said? Were they not "faithfully to represent the disposition of the Government and people of the United States, their disposition being one; to remove jealousies and obviate complaints, by showing that they were groundless; to restore that mutual confidence which had been so unfortunately and injuriously impaired, and to explain the relative interests of both countries, and the real sentiments of his own?"

What more than this could have been said in letters of credence? But, adds the gentleman, his instructions did not authorize him to make any concession, or to satisfy their complaints with respect to existing treaties. How does he know this? Will the gentleman undertake to say that his instructions do not give him this power? It certainly would not have been proper to have stated in his letters of credence what he was authorized to concede, or to exhibit to the French Government his instructions until it was known what they were disposed to do. We had complaints to make as well as they. They had committed spoliations upon our commerce to a great amount. Was it right, then, to say, instantly on his arrival, "I am come to offer you all these concessions," without knowing what they were disposed to offer in return? Will the gentleman undertake to say it would have been right to have communicated his private instructions to the Di

[MAY, 1797.

rectory even before he was received? If we were a colony of France, indeed, it might have been expected that he would have laid not only his instructions, but have prostrated himself at the feet of the Directory. But, independent as we are, he trusted no gentleman would say this was proper in any man, much less was it to be expected from Mr. Pinckney. What were his private instructions was unknown. A thousand conjectures might be formed respecting them, but they were vague and uncertain.

This being the state of the transaction, he thought it clearly established that Mr. Pinckney was not refused because he bore the character of Minister Plenipotentiary, without extraordinary powers; the question then was, why was he sent away?

We all, said Mr. SMITH, remember the complaints of Mr. Adet against our Government. It was not necessary to go into a minute recapitulation of them; it sufficed to say that they fell under the following heads: 1st, complaints of violation of our Commercial Treaty with France; 2d, of the treaty we had made with Great Britain; 3d, of the proceedings of our Federal Courts; and 4th, of the act of Congress of June, 1794, which act this House, after it had heard his complaints, had re-enacted without opposition the last session.

Now, what does Mr. Delacroix say on the arrival of Mr. Pinckney? He did not condescend to say it to himself; that would have been paying him too much respect: he did not say it to the Minister of the American Government, but to the recalled Minister, Mr. Monroe, to whom Mr. Delacroix writes a letter, declaring "that the Directory will not acknowledge nor receive another Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States, until after the redress of the grievances demanded of the American Government, and which the French Republic has a right to expect from it."

Now, what, Mr. S. asked, were the grievances contained in Mr. Adet's note, and to which the Directory here refer? They were very numerous; but they chiefly fell under the four heads he had mentioned. According then to this declaration of the French Government, what were we to do? We must, said he, annul the British Treaty; repeal the law of June, 1794, which was last session very unanimously re-enacted; and we must, by some proceeding or other, which he supposed even the ingenuity of the gentleman from Virginia would find it difficult to point out, annul the decrees of the Courts of the United States. Yet, though all this must be done before the Directory would condescend to receive our Minister, the gentleman did not believe any indignity whatever had been intended against this Government; and we must not express ourselves as if we thought or felt there had been any. It was, at the best, a mere matter of etiquette on the part of France; it was meant to convey no insult, no indignity; our Government had given offence by a failure of etiquette, and therefore to heal the breach, we must send an Envoy Extraordinary to make the necessary concessions, and all will go well.

H. OF R.]

ized.

Therefore some advantage was secured to France, for if Great Britain had confiscated our vessels going to France with provisions, it would certainly have damped the ardor of our citizens employed in that commerce; but under this regulation our merchants were certain of being paid for their cargoes, whether they arrived in France or were carried into England. These were the three grounds of objection which the gentleman from Virginia had stated as grounds of complaint by the French against the British Treaty.

Before he went further, he would observe that, admitting (which he did not admit) that there had been solid grounds of objection against the British Treaty, before it was ratified, yet they ought now to be closed. It had received a full discussion at the time; it had been carried into effect, was become the law of the land, and was generally approved of by the country. Why, then, endeavor to stir up the feelings of the public against it by alleging it to be just cause of complaint? If the committee wanted any proof of the approbation which that instrument had received, he thought it might be gathered from the general approbation which had been given of the administration of the late President on his retirement from office, in doing which the people had doubtless taken into view the whole of his conduct. Nor did he think the people had shown any hostility to the treaty in their late election of members to that House. Indeed, he believed that the approbation which the treaty received in creased in proportion as the subject came to be understood.

Admitting further, that the treaty had changed the existing state of things between Great Britain and France, by having granted commercial favors to Great Britain; by the 2d article of our treaty with France, the same favors would immediately attach to France, so that she could have no reason to complain on that ground. Indeed France had herself new modified the treaty between that country and this, and had taken to herself what she deemed to be the favors granted to Great Britain. [Mr. S. read the decree on this subject of 2d March last.]

Mr. S. said, he believed he had examined all the observations of the gentleman from Virginia, relative the treaty, which were essential to the subject under consideration. He did not wish to go much farther on the present occasion, because he agreed with him, that it was proper they should keep themselves as cool and calm as the nature of the case would admit; but he thought whilst so much deference was paid to the feelings of France, some respect ought to be paid to the feelings of America. He hoped the people of America would retain a proper respect and consideration for their national character; and however earnestly he wished that the differences subsisting between the two countries might be amicably settled, yet, he trusted that our national dignity would never be at so low an ebb, as to submit to the insults and indignities of any nation whatever. In saying this, he expressed his hearty wish to keep the door of negotiation with France

[MAY, 1797.

unclosed; but at the same time he strongly recommended to take every necessary step to place us in a situation to defend ourselves, provided she should still persist in her haughty demeanor.

He trusted they would convince the French and every other nation, that they were determined to preserve the right of self-government, and that they were able to frustrate every attempt which should be made to influence our councils. That such attempts had been made he knew some gentlemen would deny, but to him it was evident that all the Ministers of France, who had resided in this country, had endeavored to obtain an undue influence over our affairs. It was now become a serious question whether we were to make concessions to France of the most humiliating nature, and thereby provoke future aggression, or act a firm and determined part in expressing our indignation at their insults, and resolving to resist them if they were persisted in.

He did not wish unnecessarily, he said, to excite indignation; but it was necessary, on this occasion, to take particular notice of the insulting speech of President Barras, in replying to Mr. Monroe's valedictory, a speech evidently calculated to separate the American people from their Government.

After the Directory knew that Mr. Monroe was no longer the Minister of this country, after he had presented his letters of recall, and Mr. Pinckney had presented his letters of credence-after the Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. Delacroix, had said that they considered America as having no Minister in France, the President of the Directory delivered the insulting speech above alluded to, in which he tells our late Minister, at a public audidence, in the presence of several foreign Ministers, to go home and tell his Government that his country owes its liberty to France." We have never denied, said Mr. S., that we received great services from France; but was it not degrading to this country that their late Minister should be thus addressed? The address was throughout couched in terms studiously marked with indignities to this country, and an attempt to separate the people from the Government.

Notwithstanding all this, the gentleman from Virginia is wonderfully afraid of using language which might irritate France. Mr. S. wished France had not given just cause of irritation, but those who had read the correspondence which had been laid before them, for a few years past, must have seen reiterated insults to this country.

It was sufficient to call to their recollection the many indelicate and offensive expressions used by the various French Ministers, in their diplomatic letters. Indeed, were he inclined to aggravate the aggressions we had received, he might display a whole volume of Genet's abuse. He should, however, satisfy himself by presenting some elegant extracts from the letters of Citizen Adet. Mr. S. here quoted a number of offensive epithets and expressions such as "disguised under a cloak of neutrality," "the veil of dissimulation," "tyrannicaland homicidal rage," "insidious proclamations of neutrality," "the chicanery of its courts," "pre

MAY, 1797.]

senting a poignard to cut the throat of its ally," "all submission to the will of England," "prostituting its neutrality," &c., &c.

Mr. S. said, as he knew indecent and harsh language always recoiled upon those who used it, he did not wish to adopt it; but, at the same time. it was due to ourselves to express our feelings with a proper degree of strength and spirit. He was not in the habit of quoting anything from M. Genet, but there was one expression of his which he thought contained good advice, "all this accommodation and humility, all this condescension attains no end."

After the gentleman from Virginia had dwelt sufficiently upon the danger of irritating the French, he had emphatically called upon us to recollect our "weakness." It might have been as well if he had left that to have been discovered from another quarter. He hoped we had sufficient confidence in the means of defence which we possessed, if driven to the last resort; and he believed if there was any one more certain way of provoking war than another, it was that of proclaiming our own weakness.

He hoped such a language would now be spoken as would make known to the French Government that the Government and people of this country were one, and that they would repel any attempt to gain an influence over our Councils and Government. The gentleman had said that there did not appear to be any design of this kind, and had endeavored to do away what was stated as the opinion in France, in General Pinckney's letter. He did not mean to rest this altogether upon the reports of an emigrant, whom General Pinckney mentions as having represented this country divided, and of no greater consequence than Genoa or Geneva, but he took the whole information into view. [He read the extract relative to this subject.] It was evident, Mr. S. said, from this information from France, that an opinion had been industriously circulated there that the Government and people of this country were divided; that the Executive was corrupt and did not pursue the interests of the people; and that they might, by perseverance, overturn the Administration, and introduce a new order of things. Was not such an opinion of things, he asked, calculated to induce France to believe that she might make her own terms with us? It was well known what the French wished, and it was time to declare it plainly. His opinion was that they designed to ruin the commerce of Great Britain through us. This was evident. They talk of the British Treaty; but they suffered it to lie dormant for near twelve months, without complaining about it. Why were they silent till within a few weeks before the election of our President? Why did they commit spoliations upon our commerce long before the British Treaty was ever dreamt of? Their first decree, directing spoliations of our property, and the capture of our provision ships, was on the 9th of May, 1793, a month before the provision order of Great Britain, which was dated June 8, 1793: and why have they, from that time to this, been committing spoliations on our com

[H. OF R.

merce? The British Treaty was published in Paris in August, 1795; a year after, in July, 1796, they determine to treat us in the same way that we suffer other nations to treat us, and this decree was not made known to our Government till the October following, a few weeks before the election of President.

But this was not all; the French had pursued similar measures towards all the other neutral Powers. Sweden, in consequence, had no Minister in their country, and was on the eve of a rupture. The intention of the French evidently was, to compel all the neutral Powers to destroy the commerce of Great Britain; but he trusted this country had more spirit than to suffer herself to be thus forced to give up her commerce with Great Britain; he trusted they would spurn any such idea.

Mr. S. hoped the observations which he had made would not be construed into a wish to see the United States and France involved in a war. He had no objection to such measures being taken for preserving peace between the two countries as should be consistent with national honor. It was a delicate thing for them to suggest what the Executive ought to do. It was out of their province to direct him. The Executive had various considerations to take into view. We had injuries to complain of against France, for the spoiliations committed upon our commerce. If the Executive conceive we have a right to redress, that subject will of course constitute a part of our Envoy's instructions. Would it then be proper, said he, for this House to interfere with the Executive, to obtrude its opinion and say, "you must give up this point; we take upon us (without any authority by the Constitution) to give carte blanche to France, without any indemnification or redress."

The gentleman says it is the object of the amendment on the table to recommend to the Executive to remove any inequalities in the treaties; that was alone sufficient to vote it out.

There had been no period since the Revolution which had so powerfully called on Americans for that fortitude and wisdom which they knew so well how to display in great and solemn emergencies. It was not his intention to offend any one by stating the question in such strong terms: but he was persuaded that when the present situation of our affairs with respect to France was well understood, it would be found that to acquiesce in her present demands was virtually and essentially to surrender our self-government and independence.

The independence of a nation, he observed, might be destroyed in various modes. Whether a preponderating influence was obtained in her councils by seduction, intrigue, or terror, or by a direct and open invasion of her territories, and consequent subjugation, was immaterial. Indeed it would be safer for us if a foreign Power were at once to attempt our subjugation by invasion; for, in that case, there could be but one opinion among Americans about a vigorous resistance; but the slow approaches to our subjection, by the