Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

H. OF R.

Conduct of the British Minister.

JANUARY, 1810.

ion, has all this authority by the Constitution, exacts, what becomes foreign Ministers near it, not to without any law on the subject. This authority infer that the misconduct of its own representative will is given by the Constitution by necessary impli- be viewed in the same light in which it has been recation. The principle is, that wherever the Con-garded here." stitution or a law makes it the duty of a person to do a certain thing, it, by implication, gives him all the authority necessary to enable him to do the thing with propriety.

Why shall we refuse to give Great Britain a fair opportunity to fulfil the expectations of our Executive? Why do we threaten "to call into action the whole force of the nation," if the BritIn the present case, if the President has not ish Government shall presume" to stand" by Mr. gone far enough; if he has not sufficiently cen- Jackson? Why, indeed, do we threaten with sured Mr. Jackson; if he has not punished him war that nation, if she shall dare to justify her in due proportion to his offence, by breaking off Minister; for the resolution on your table amounts all correspondence with him and dismissing him, to that-I cannot understand it otherwise? Indeed let him proceed to send him out of the country; to my mind, it will not admit of any other conand, indeed, if the President thinks proper, let struction. Do we really mean to go to war with him send the Minister home to his Sovereign. It Great Britain about these insinuations, after all is a subject within his sole province, and it is to the encroachments upon our neutral rights-the be managed according to his discretion; and to injuries and the outrages on the real causes of him belongs the whole responsibility. On the war, that gentlemen talk so loud about? Why, other hand, if Mr. Jackson has already been suffi- sir, the people will not very well understand this. ciently chastised by the Administration, why Our yeomanry will not very well like to support should we step aside from our appropriate sphere, a war waged upon so nice and punctilious a point to add to his chastisement? If we pass the reso- of honor. The farmers will not wish to yield up lution on your table, we punish him in his public their hard earnings, their cattle, their grain, the and in his private character. He, in the course varied produce of their labors-the fruit of the of this debate with how much propriety I will sweat of their brows, to support a foolish and not say has been called the Copenhagen Jack-fantastic war, about "expressions implying an son, a legalized spy, &c. insinuation" and expressions, "conveying an idea," and all the other shadows of shades of diplomatic etiquette.

But, Mr. Speaker, if we are to interfere at all, why do we do it before we know whether his Government will justify his conduct? This is leaping, indeed, before we come to the stile. Is Congress, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. STANFORD) observed, in debate, the other day, to oppose itself to Mr. Jackson, as an individual? For Congress to marshal itself against a single individual, is derogatory to the dignity

of the American nation.

However, sir, the resolution is such a one as I cannot approve or vote for, on account of the provisional declaration of war contained in it, if I had no other objection to it. It is calculated to compel Great Britain, whether she be disposed to or not, to justify the conduct of Mr. Jackson. It is not to be denied, that Great Britain is a proud nation-a nation that has high and lofty notions of honor. And there is an etiquette as to the point of honor among nations, as well as individuals. If you apply to an individual, whose servant has done you an injury, and threaten him with chastisement in the outset, if he justifies the servant, he will not condescend to consider whether the servant has done right or wrong. He, perhaps, will reply to you, that when you come to him in a manner conformable to the rules of decorum, he will take the case into consideration; until then he has nothing to say to you. This is a principle founded in human nature, and it applies to nations as well as to individuals.

Now, sir, the President is confident that Great Britain will condemn the conduct of her Minister. In the fifth page of the Message of the President, of the 29th of November last, we find him expressing himself on this topic, as follows:

"And it would indicate a want of the confidence due to a Government, which so well understands, and

Again: It is within the province of Congress to decide when this nation shall, in fact, go to war. The Constitution says, Congress shall have power to declare war, &c. Ought we, sir, before we come to the question, to commit ourselves? Shall we be a proper, an impartial tribunal, to decide the important, the awful question, whether we shall have war with Great Britain, in case she should justify the conduct of her Minister, Mr. Jackson, if we pass the resolution? No, sit, we shall have committed ourselves—we shall have pledged ourselves for war, at all events.

conditional declaration of war against Great Brit But, sir, the resolution not only amounts to a ain, but it is at war with the President's Message, with the Secretary's letter of the instructions to at the opening of this session of Congress, and Mr. Pinkney, of the 23d of November last. The President, speaking of the rupture with Mr. Jackson, in the fifth page of the Message, says:

"The British Government will learn, at the same time, that a ready attention will be given to communications, through any channel which may be substi

tuted."

In the 88th page of the printed document, we find the President's Secretary addressing our Miaister at London, as follows:

"You are particularly instructed, at the same time, in making those communications, to do it in a manner that will leave no doubt of the undiminished desire of the United States to unite in all the means the best calculated to establish the relations of the two coun tries on the solid foundation of justice, of friendship, and of mutual interest."

Shall we, sir, counteract the President, by ob

[ocr errors]

JANUARY, 1810.

Conduct of the British Minister.

structing the channel of farther negotiation, while he is endeavoring to keep it open? While he is presenting the olive branch of peace, shall we, by passing this resolution, fulminate a declaration of war? Must there forever be some stumblingblock thrown in the way of adjusting our controversies with Great Britain? I hope not.

But, were there no other difficulty with the resolution, I could not vote for it, on account of the very awkward situation in which it will place the President. This has been stated and illustrated by a gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. PITKIN.) The two Houses might, separately or jointly, approbate the conduct of the President in the form of separate addresses, or a joint address, without reducing him to the very ridiculous dilemma, of putting his signature, officially, to a resolution pledging himself to stand by himself, or, by omitting to do it, virtually refusing to stand by himself. A joint address, according to a rule of the House, might be presented to him in his audience chamber, by the President of the Senate, in the presence of the Speaker and both : Houses.

I have, sir, intruded much longer on the patience of the House than I intended. The magnitude of the subject, and the deep impression it has made on my mind, form my only apology.

I have attempted to show what was the real question before the House, and how far the various topics, discussed in the course of this debate, were irrelevant.

First. As the supporters of the resolution have wholly failed to make out the charge against Mr. Jackson, and, as I believe in my conscience, it is false, I cannot vote for the resolution.

[ocr errors]

H. of R.

now on the table, I cannot but hope that a majority may he found to postpone.

It was my intention, sir, at an early stage of this debate, to have submitted my view of the correspondence between the Secretary of State and Mr. Jackson. If I could have obtained the floor, I intended to have examined the late arrangement made with Mr. Erskine, and the nature and extent of the powers under which he acted, inasmuch as the correspondence in question grew principally out of those subjects. I feel confident, from a careful examination of the whole corre spondence, that the insult, complained of by Mr. Smith, and asserted in the resolution, cannot be found; or, if insinuations have been made which induced his dismission, still the resolution on your table cannot be justified.

The subject of the late correspondence has been so thoroughly discussed, that the bare recital of those letters has become unpleasant to some, and absolutely disgusting to others. My principal object in making any remarks at this time, is to induce gentlemen to reflect before they vote, and not to suffer themselves to be misled by passion or prejudice, either of party politics, or from the recollection of grievances which Great Britain may have inflicted; but to examine the resolution with coolness, and then determine whether, on principles of fair construction, it can be justified by the correspondence on which it is professedly founded. The great object of our assembling here, is to communicate our sentiments freely to each other, for our country's good, and if we are faithful to ourselves and to our constituents, their peace and happiness will he kept continually in view.

In considering the question now pending before Secondly. Going upon the ground, for argu- the House, two broad propositions, or inquiries, ment's sake, that the charge alleged against Mr. would embrace all the remarks I had purposed to Jackson in the resolution was true, I have en-submit for the consideration of this assembly, viz: deavored to show that it would be inexpedient to pass it.

In the third place, I have attempted to evince, that the resolution ought not to be adopted, because it amounts to a conditional declaration of

war.

I have stated various other points in the resolution, on account of which I could not vote for it. Indeed, sir, it is, in my opinion, so bad and mischievous in all its bearings and consequences, in the matter and in the form, that I feel it my duty to protest, most solemnly, against it.

Mr. TALLMADGE.-If, at this late period of the debate, any gentleman can rise and address this House, believing that he can command their attention, he has more confidence in himself than I have. If I can throw any light upon the subject, in the remarks which I shall make, so that gentlemen shall be induced to give it a more thorough investigation, it will afford me peculiar satisfaction. Although I cannot promise the House that I shall occupy ground entirely new, on a subject which has been so long and and so ably discussed, yet, I hope I shall be able to present it in a light somewhat new. If I should be so fortunate as to induce gentlemen to pause and to reflect, although they may not consent to reject the resolution

First. Whether the declarations contained in the resolution now under debate, are substantially founded in truth?

And secondly. Is it expedient, at this time, to adopt them?

Before the motion for an indefinite postponement was made, I should have thought it proper to have examined the first proposition very minutely. But, on a motion of postponement, it does not appear to me to be strictly within the rule of orderly debate, to discuss the main question, although, by your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of this House, I know it has become the practice. From this view of the subject, I will pass over all that part of my argument which relates to the first proposition; in doing which, I persuade myself, I shall relieve some gentlemen from attending to a painful investigation. I cannot, however, wholly dismiss this part of the subject, without calling the attention of the House to one important fact, which, by the resolution, is made the climax of insult. It is therein asserted, that Mr. Jackson had published and circulated through the country a circular letter, dated 13th of November, 1809, calculated, through false and fallacious disguises, to excite distrusts amongst the people, and resentments against their Govern

H. OF R.

Conduct of the British Minister.

ment, dishonrable to their character, and ruinous to their interests. I solemnly ask this House to inquire, on what this bold assertion rests. Admitting the fact, that Mr. Jackson wrote the letter thus alluded to, to the Consuls of His Britannic Majesty, where is the proof that it obtained publicity by his direction? Is it not incumbent on the advocates of the resolution to prove the fact. before they venture thus solemnly to assert it? Sir, I have no hesitation in declaring that, on this point, we are without the least evidence to support the declaration, and, of course, that it would be assuming and undignified in this House, to suffer that part of the resolution to remain upon their files.

I now proceed to the second point of inquiry, viz: is it expedient to adopt the resolution at this time, and in its present form?

As the question is presented to my mind, I shall consider and discuss it in a three-fold aspect. First. As it respects the President of the United States.

Secondly. As it respects the people of the United States.

And thirdly. As calculated to bear upon Great Britain.

JANUARY, 1810.

tlemen be serious, when they declare that it is necessary for the Legislature to play off this solemn farce to repel a supposed insult, offered to our Secretary of State by a foreign Minister? Is it not rather to fulminate the denunciations of Congress against the Minister, who cannot now be heard in his defence? I am constrained to pronounce the measure, now proposed for our adoption, to be wrong in principle, and unsupported by fact; for I must insist upon it, that, as the House of Representatives, we have nothing to do in this business. His Sovereign has sent him on a mission to this country, and our sovereign, so far as we have one, has received him, and dismissed him for alleged misconduct.

But I have another pointed objection to the resolution, which induces me to urge its indefi nite postponement. It purports to be a joint resolution of the Senate and House of Representa tives of the United States. In the Constitution of the United States, article one, under the 7th section, are found these emphatic words:

[ocr errors]

Every order, resolution, or vote, to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary, except on a question of adjourn ment, shall be presented to the President of the United Although I should occupy some time in exam-States, and before the same shall take effect, shall be ining these three positions, I hope the House will do me the justice to acknowledge that I do not frequently claim their attention in this way.

approved of by him, or, being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limita tions prescribed in the case of bills.”

Now, sir, what is proposed to be done with this resolution? Having come to this House, under the sanction of a co-ordinate branch of the Legis

I proceed, then, to consider the resolution in relation to the President of the United States. It will be necessary, while attending to this part of the subject, to bear upon our minds the peculiar structure of our Government. That I may illus-lature, we are now called upon to adopt it in the trate my ideas with greater precision, I beg gen- House of Representatives. After this shall be tlemen to turn their attention to that part of the done, (which, Heaven forbid!) probably the ComConstitution where the great legislative functions mittee on Enrolled Bills will present it to the of the Government are defined. It will occur to President of the United States for his approbation every gentleman, that the Legislature consists of and signature. Suppose, sir, the President should the Senate and House of Representatives, and refuse to sign it; is there a Constitutional majorthat the President of the United States makes aity on this floor who would be willing to repass third branch, having a qualified negative on all it, and thus place the President in so delicate a our laws. But the President has one peculiar situation, as to declare that he would stand by and essential feature in his character; that is, that and support himself in his Executive conduct? I he has the sole power of receiving foreign Minis- hope not. But the President, with great propri ters, and the implied right of dismissing them ety, might inform Congress that, in his Constituwhenever he shall think proper. What has he tional character, he had done all that was necesdone in the case, which originated the resolution? sary to be done on the subject. He might further He has received Mr. Jackson, the British Minis- tell us, that we had no right to interfere with his ter, in due form, and at a period when he thought duties in this case; that the Constitution gave us proper, he has notified that Ambassador, that no no control over foreign Ministers, but had vested further communication would be received from in the Executive the sole right of deciding in rehim. Thus far, the proceeding appears to have lation to their functions. Could any gentleman, been carried on within the Constitutional power holding the Constitution in his hand, dispute the of the President. Now, sir, what are we called correctness of such conduct, on the part of the on to perform by the resolution on your table, President? Surely not, sir. Do not gentlemen which, I trust, every member has read, and heard recollect (for some who are now present were read, over and over again? We solemnly pledge members of the House of Representatives at that ourselves to the nation and to the world, to stand time) the case which occurred in the year 1796, by and support the Executive Government in when the illustrious WASHINGTON presided, and its refusal to receive any further communications the House made a call for papers? The honorfrom Francis J. Jackson, and to call into actionable the Speaker, who now presides over the de the whole force of the nation, if it should become necessary, in consequence of the conduct of the Executive Government in this respect. Can gen

liberations of this House, was then a member, and I find, by the Journal, he was among those who favored the call. To illustrate this point, I

JANUARY, 1810.

Conduct of the British Minister.

[blocks in formation]

To this request, that great and good man made the following reply, selecting only such parts as have a bearing on the present question :

"With the utmost attention, I have considered your resolution of the 4th instant. In deliberating upon the subject, it was impossible for me to lose sight of the principle which some have avowed in the discussion; or to avoid extending my views to the consequences which must flow from the admission of that principle. I trust that no part of my conduct has ever indicated a disposition to withhold any information which the Constitution has enjoined upon the President as a duty to give, or which could be required of him by either House of Congress as a right. And, with truth, I affirm that it has been, and it will continue to be, while I have the honor to preside in the Government, my constant endeavor to harmonize with the other branches thereof, so far as the trust delegated to me by the people of the United States, and my sense of the obligation it imposes, to preserve, protect, and defend, the Constitution of the United States,' will permit." "As it is essential to the due administration of the Government, that the boundaries fixed by the Constitution between the different departments should be preserved; a just regard to the Constitution and to the duty of my office, under all the circumstances of this case, forbid a compliance with your request."

[ocr errors]

"GEO. WASHINGTON."

These were the sentiments of that illustrious personage in the year 1796. When a call was made by the House of Representatives, for almost anything not palpably wrong in principle, it needed the wisdom of the statesman, and the fortitude of the hero, to refuse a compliance. WASHINGTON had the firmness, from a sacred regard to the Constitution which he had sworn to support, to resist that call, although supported by this popular branch of our Government. I well remember the impression which this conduct of the President made upon my mind, as well as the remarks which were made by my countrymen on that memorable occasion. Give me leave, sir, to apply that precedent to the present case. President WASHINGTON thought that the House of Representatives had no right to interfere with the peculiar function of the President of the United States, of which he judged the call, then made, was a case in point. It does not appear to have been any objection, in his mind, that an exposure of the correspondence would have been injurious to the Government; but it was an improper in terference with the duties of the Executive Department which induced the refusal. This is pre

H. OF R.

cisely my view of the present case; and, under that impression, I object to the resolution, and, for that reason, urge its indefinite postponement.

I know it has been said by some, who advocate the passage of this resolution, that, by the Constitution, the Congress of the United States is defined, as consisting of the Senate and House of Representatives; but, if gentlemen will examine the powers vested in Congress, they will be convinced that it requires the three branches of the legislative government, to give them proper effect. Hence, I infer that the resolution. if adopted, must be sent to the President for his approbation and signature.

Again: Suppose the resolution should be presented to the President, and he should neither sign nor return it, I inquire, where shall it be found, and what would be its true character? If it was a bill, the Constitution has provided for this case; but if a joint resolution, I know not what will become of it, unless it goes through the same formalities. As I do not wish to embarrass the President with so delicate and so novel a case, I hope it will be indefinitely postponed. asmuch as I believe it is without a precedent in I have another objection to this resolution, inthe annals of our country. On examining the Journals of this Government, I have found no case which compares with the present; and, until gentlemen shall turn us to the case, I must believe no such instance exists. I know the cases of Genet and Yrujo have been quoted, but I contend that each of those cases, so far from militating against, do, in fact, serve to establish my position. Omitting to detail the atrocious conduct of Genet, what was done in relation to him on that memorable occasion? The President of the United States, on being informed of his outrageous conduct, in his Executive character alone, took notice of it, and requested the recall of the Minister. But no vote nor resolution was passed by the Senate or House of Representatives sanctioning this conduct of the Executive, nor does it appear that any motion was made in either House to this effect. So, also, in the case of Yrujo, although his insult was palpable and direct, the Executive Magistrate alone took notice of the offence, and no aid or interference was called for, or given, by the House.

It has also been urged, that the approbation proposed to be given by this House to the President of the United States at the last session, is similar to this. What was that case, sir, and what was the resolution proposed? The resolution was offered by a gentleman from Virginia, and is in the following words:

[blocks in formation]

H. OF R.

Conduct of the British Minister.

House of Representatives alone; the other is a joint resolution to be passed by the Senate and House. One was a simple vote of approbation of an act of the President of the United States, with which nothing further was to be done, than to present it to him as an expression of our public approbation of his Executive conduct; the other is a denunciation of a foreign Minister, accompanied with a threat, that we will go all lengths in support of this conduct. If nothing more was intended by this joint resolution, than to assure the President of the support of both branches of the Legislature, surely this would not be the correct course. A joint address, or separate resolutions, would better express our opinions on the occasion. This would be a measure entirely different from the joint resolution now proposed to be adopted.

JANUARY, 1810.

not evils to be apprehended, if the resolution on your table should be adopted? All attempts of this sort are calculated to waste the national character; to hold up to view a prominent fact, which I utterly disclaim, that we are to emblazon our own glory by resolutions and proclamations. This, in my judgment, is a great evil, and the people have viewed it in the same light for many years. I wish to see an end to everything of this sort. National honor is a treasure of vast importance to a country, of too much value to be trifled with; and a treasure, too, however vast, that ought not to be drawn upon, but with a sparing hand. If we make too heavy drafts upon it. we shall depreciate its value, in the opinion of the world, and certainly in our own.

unpalatable to our constituents. They have heard and seen so much of this national bombast, that they have become fatigued by the farce.

Another weighty objection against the resolu tion is, that it is couched in harsh, uncourtly, and illiberal language. Can this course have become necessary to heal the wounded honor of our Government? I do maintain, sir, that, from the commencement of our struggle for independence, we stand on high ground in respect to our State papers. The resolutions and addresses of the Old Congress, as well as the correspondence of our public functionaries with foreign Ministers, and especially the addresses of General WASHINGTON to his fellow-citizens and fellow-soldiers, for sound. ness of matter and eloquence of composition, stand unrivalled in the history of the world. This is a treasure of literary reputation of which I would not deprive my native country by passing this resolution. I utterly object against lavishing this rich fund of national character on such pitiful resolutions as these.

As another evil, resulting from this resolution, I am almost constrained to believe that it is meant Having examined the resolution in relation to for nothing but gasconade, as it relates to ourthe President of the United States, I come to the selves. What possible good, sir, can it accomsecond proposition, which was to consider the plish? Is it not most apparent that its object bearing it would have upon the people of the cannot be beneficial to our country; that, in truth, United States. If it can be shown that no good it can effect nothing; and, of course, that it is can possibly result to the people of the United good for nothing? We have resolved over and States from the passage of this resolution, I pre-over again, until the subject has become stale and sume it will be sufficient to induce gentlemen to pause; but, if I should be able to prove, not only that no good can result, but that it is fraught with manifold evils, I hope the House will consent to postpone. Let us, then, in the first place, inquire, what good can result from the adoption of this measure? Do gentlemen expect, by passing this resolution, to give further information to their constituents, respecting our foreign relations? Will it throw any light on the correspondence between the Secretary of State and the British Minister? It certainly is not calculated for that purpose. The resolution abounds with certain bold asseverations, not, in my opinion, founded on fact, and gives no new information whatever. If no new information is communicated, I inquire, in the second place, is it calculated to rouse the dormant spirit of the country? From the violent remarks of some gentlemen, I should suppose this must be one principal object in view, or why should the case of Jonathan Robbins, the murder of Pierce, and the attack on the frigate Chesapeake, be so frequently brought up to view? Why, but to inflame the minds and irritate the passions of the people, are our ears greeted with such animated harangues, which can have no possible bearing on the present question? If, indeed, this course has become necessary to raise the public indignation up to war proof, then is the pride and glory of our country departed; we are fallen, indeed. Can it be possible that it has become necessary for this Government to collect the most illiberal and opprobrious language, and fulminate the same, in the form of a joint resolution, against a foreign Minister, to rouse the passions of the people against the Sovereign and nation which he represents? Sir, such an attempt must be beneath the dignity of this House, and therefore cannot be the object of this reso

lution.

If, then, no good can hopefully result, are there

Having dismissed the two first propositions, I beg leave to call the attention of the House to the third and last, which was, to consider the bearing this resolution is calculated to have on the British Government. I will carefully endea vor to avoid entering into the relative merits of the correspondence, as I promised at the outset, although it may be necessary occasionally to glance at it, for the purpose of elucidating this part of my subject. If, indeed, an insult has been offered to the Government by Mr. Jackson, the President has done what he thought proper on the occasion, and I would not revise his conduct. I am not disposed to arraign the conduct of the President of the United States in this instance, for he is not on trial before this august tribunal; nor do I mean to arraign the Secretary of State, for he is not on trial; nor do I stand here to justify the conduct of the British Minister. I stand on

« AnteriorContinuar »