itself at the very portal of their fair mansion must be destroyed. They will have neither France or Spain to guard the fruit of their delightful garden. They know full well the importance of New Orleans; they already consider that port as the Thermopyla of their country. It is there they will and ought to make a stand in defence of their liberties, and I pray to God that their struggles may be crowned with victory. SENATE. of the Mississippi, and denied us the right of deposit at New Orleans; and to crown the whole, had insultingly issued proclamation upon proclamation, interdicting the exercise of these rights. The gentleman, however, not content with this philippic against the Spanish Government, rashly charges our own Government with a total neglect of and criminal apathy to, the interests of the Western people. That no nation, either ancient or modern, had ever suffered such indignities, and that our Executive had taken no steps to redress the injury-not a soldier to assert our rights-not a soldier to avenge our wrongs; that the Western people would not-that they ought not to submit to it, but ought immediately to take possession of the mouth of the Mississippi, and for that purpose he submitted his resolutions, now before us. In considering this subject, he would endeavor to give such an answer to the several parts of the gentleman's observations as appears to him to deserve attention, as well as of those of the gentlemen who have followed him on the same side. He would take up the subject in the gentleman's own order. sels, and imprisoned our seamen. was no doubt. 2d. That they had permitted the French to fit out privateers in their ports to cruise against our commerce. This was also admitted. 3d. That they had permitted French Consuls in Spanish ports to condemn our vessels taken by French cruisers. This was not denied. Mr. WRIGHT-When the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Ross) was about to introduce his resolutions, after making very voluminous prefatory remarks, he touched on ground that was conceived to be forbidden, and was, therefore, called to order; and that the subject of order might be decided, without the disclosure of that which we conceived ourselves bound to conceal, a motion was made and seconded to shut the doors, which by a rule of the Senate, was therefore a matter of course, and his resolutions were not then submitted. Afterwards, on the day he presented them, he introduced himself by remarking, that on his previous attempt to present his resolutions, he had been called to order, and stopped from proceeding by a new mode, that of shutting the doors, and insinuated that the Senate wished to avoid a public discussion of his resolutions, and to conceal from the people what they ought to know; that we were afraid of the influence of his arguments on the public mind, when he well knew we wished only to conceal what we felt ourselves in honor bound not to reveal. But if he himself did not wish to conceal the truth, why did he not inform the House, or rather the public. for whom his speech was intended, that while the But he asked the honorable gentleman, if Spain doors were shut, it had been determined "so far has refused to make us compensation for the spoas related to the subject on which he had been liations committed on our commerce, by her own called to order, that it must not be touched on," subjects? He asked if Spain could avoid the acts and that a seal of secrecy had been fixed on his committed by the citizens of France in her ports, lips? Did he suppose we would suffer his un- when she herself had been constrained to sue for founded insinuations to pass unanswered? Or peace, and to accept it, on such terms as France did he feel himself justified in the suppression of inclined to impose? And he asked, if these agthis fact, because its relation would have exculpa-gressions did not happen during the late Admintel himself? The solution of this question must istration, when the gentleman and his friends rest with him; but thus, inauspiciously, he pre- were in full power; and whether it was then prosents himself in the opening of this business; posed to redress them by the sword? These things and as we pursue him. we shall find him incor- are well known, and that our Minister at Madrid rect in his premises, or illogical in his conclusions, was then charged to sue for redress for these agand more impolitic than either. Instead of en-gressions, and that they were all in train of addeavoring to support the measures of the Admin-justment, before the present Administration came istration, and to cultivate the arts of peace, he is into power; and he asked, if we have it not now attempting to excite the Western people to revolt entirely in our power to settle the spoliations on against the Government, by a seditious appeal to our commerce by the subjects of Spain, in the their passions, and to sound the trumpet of war same manner that former Administrations have in their ears, by a speech highly inflated with im- thought just and honorable, in like cases? And mature wrath, and rash declamation against the whether we have it not in our power to settle the Spanish Government. aggressions of French citizens, in the ports of Spain, for fitting out privateers, and condemning our vessels by French Consuls, upon the principles of strict morality, if not on the more defined principles of the law of nations? 1st. That they had captured our vessels, and imprisoned our seamen. 2d. That they had permitted the French to fit out privateers in their ports to cruise against our commerce. 3d. That they had permitted French Consuls in Spanish ports to condemn our vessels captured by French cruisers. These complaints ought, therefore, to have been out of the question, and ought not now to have been brought forward to foment the difference between the two nations; but were no doubt pur4th. That they had obstructed our navigation | posely intended to sour the American mind against Spain, and to prepare it to act intemperately on the present occasion. FEBRUARY, 1803. to our Ministers at Madrid and at Paris, to inquire into the aggression, and whether it was done by the authority of either of those Courts. He also inquired of the Minister of France, Mr. Pichon, resident near the United States, whether he could give any information on that subject, as it became at least equivocal in whom the territorial right of New Orleans then was; and therefore question 4th. That they had obstructed our navigation of the Mississippi. This he denied. But that the Intendant at New Orleans has put in force the law of Spain, interdicting the commerce of all nations with the Spaniards at New Orleans, and that he had construed it to prohibit our right of deposit there, he admitted; but that his construc-able whether the Intendant might not be acttion of that law is by the authority of Spain, he did not believe; and our right being secured by treaty, must be paramount to that law. That all America would unite in asserting our right of deposit, secured to us by the solemnity of a treaty, he had no doubt, nor had he ever heard any gentleman of either House express one; on the contrary, they had unequivocally declared their opinion, that the right was all important, and ought to be secured at all hazard; but as to the means of doing this, gentlemen widely differed. He, for his part, felt it due to Spain; he felt it due to our national character to know, whether the act was authorized by the Spanish Government, or justified by them, before he could ascribe it to them; and in this he was governed by the letter and the spirit of the law of nations, and also by the spirit of our own Government. ing under the authority of France; and here also we received assurances of the most friendly disposition, and that the Intendant was not acting by the authority of France. These were the natural, the legitimate, and indeed the only measures that the President could adopt, till the meeting of Congress. No sooner had Congress convened, than he officially informed us of this aggression on our rights, and was so much alive to the western interest, that he immediately after proposed sending James Monroe, Esq., a special Envoy, to be united with our Minister at Paris or at Madrid, as the case might require, to place our western interests on the most secure basis; who, going immediately from the United States, charged with our sensibilities on this recent violation of this invaluable right, would show that we were not only alive to the subject, but very much in earnest, and would furnish the best founded hopes of success. This Minister had been approved of, and was now on his way. This, sir, had been the conduct of the Executive. But we are told that we have not a soldier to assert our rights, not a soldier to avenge our wrongs; and this also is a charge against the Executive. What, sir! has the gentleman forgot that the President has no right to raise a single soldier? Has he forgot that the power of declaring war is vested in Congress alone? No, sir; these things he well knew, and that the Presi dent had done everything he was authorized to do, and that both Houses of Congress had approved of every step he had taken. But, sir, it is not difficult to account for gentlemen's extraordinary sensibility to the violated rights of the western people, or their pretended warmth and zeal to avenge their wrongs; it is all to be found in the political history of the times. It is with a design to stir up the western people to a belief that the Government is insensible to their sufferings, and But, sir, our own Government is charged with a want of sensibility to the sufferings, and a total neglect of the violated rights of the Western people, but how justly, the public will decide, on a candid review of their conduct. The moment the President obtained the information of this act of the Intendant at New Orleans, in arresting our right of deposit at that place, he applied to the Marquis de Casa Yrujo, the Minister of Spain, resident near the Government of the United States, who gave him the most positive assurances that he had no knowledge of the subject that would induce him to suppose that His Catholic Majesty had any intention to violate the treaty, by which that right had been secured; and gave every assurance of His Majesty's friendly disposition towards the United States: he at the same time sent despatches to his own Government on the subject; and in his honest zeal for peace between the two nations, immediately despatched a boat to the Intendant at New Orleans; and also sent despatches to the Governor at Havana. He also assured our Government that the Intendant, and the Governor at New Or-inattentive to their interests; it is with a view to a leans, differed in the construction of the orders given to the Intendant by the Spanish Government, which were," to put in force the law heretofore in operation in the Spanish territory, prohibiting all kind of commerce with all nations, with that province," which had been suspended during the late war, by virtue of which, the Intendant, (although not a word was said about prohibiting our deposit at New Orleans,) thought himself bound to prohibit the citizens of the United States from contracting with the Spanish merchants at New Orleans, for the storage of their goods at that place, which had been secured by treaty. The President immediately gave it in charge revolution in the political opinions of the western people, but which they will see too plainly, to be beguiled from their path of political rectitude; and the division in this case will show it to be a party question, particularly when it is known that every republican member of both Houses of Congress, even those from the western country, approve of the pacific measures that have been adopted. We are told that no nation, either ancient or modern, had ever suffered such indignities, and we are now emphatically called on to avenge them by the sword, without asking for redress. Can this be right? No, sir; the honorable gentleman from New York (Mr. CLINTON) yesterday proved, by a train of arguments not to be resisted, that it had been the practice and usage of the nations of Europe, to endeavor to settle their differences, first, by negotiation, and not to appeal to arms till redress had been denied; and he would now show, by the law of nations, that the act of the Intendant is not to be ascribed to the Spanish Government, unless done by their authority or approbation, and that if the act had been done by authority, it would be violative of both the pre cepts and practice of our own nation to avenge it by the sword, till negotiation had been tried in vain. To the first point, he would show, by Vuttel, 252, sec. 73, "That as it is impossible for the 'best regulated State, or for the most vigilant and absolute Sovereign, to model at his pleasure the 'actions of his subjects, or to confine them to an 'exact obedience, it would be unjust to impute to the Sovereign the faults of his subjects; we ought not to say we have received an injury from a nation, because we have received it from one of its members." Again, sec. 74: "But if a nation approves the act committed by a citizen, it makes the act its own, and the offence 'ought then to be attributed to the nation." But the honorable gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. WELLS) tells us, that, to excuse Spain from the act of the Intendant, we ought to prove that the King of Spain did not authorize it. What, are we to prove a negative? He presumed not; but if we have recourse to the evidence in the case, which is all that time and circumstances will admit, we shall have no doubt on this subject. The Spanish Minister tells us, it is not by the authority of Spain. The French Minister tells us, it is not by the authority of France. The Governor at New Orleans says, it is by no authority; but a misconception of the Intendant's order. And the order of the Intendant itself, shows, that it is to put in operation a law interdicting the right of all nations to trade, barter, or commerce with the Spaniards in that province, without mentioning our right of deposit, secured to us by treaty, posterior and paramount to the law, which must be satisfactory, (being the best, nay, the only evidence to be now expected.) that the act is without authority. Yesterday we were told by the honorable gentleman from Delaware (Mr. WHITE) that there was a private letter in town from New Orleans, "that the act was by the authority of France." To-day he presumed that was given up, as his honorable colleague (Mr. WELLS) tells us that he understands the President has received a letter on this subject, "avowing the authority of Spain to do the act." This he conceived equally incorrect. Can it be believed, sir, that the Executive can be in possession of a document of such importance, and, while we are acting on the subject, secrete it from us? No, sir, it would be to make him an accessary; it is impossible-it cannot be true. There is then no evidence that it is the act of Spain, unless we substitute our inclinations for evidence, and thus violate the law of nations, by unjustly ascribing it to her. This, he trusted, would not be done. But, sir, if it had been done by her authority, still he should insist, that it would 7th CoN. 2d SES.-6 SENATE, not only be contrary to the practice and usage of the nations of Europe, to draw the sword of vindictive justice, without a previous attempt at negotiation, as was yesterday proved by the honorable gentleman from New York, (Mr. CLINTON,) but highly repugnant to the milder precepts and principles of our own nation. And, as he did not wish to cross the Atlantic for authorities, having never been attached to the precepts or practices of kings or princes, or an admirer of the precedents of the Old World, he would leave them on the ground upon which they were placed by the gentleman from New York, (Mr. CLINTON,) and confine himself to the history of our own Government, and to the principles and practices of our Own WASHINGTON. Disregarding the maxims of despots, he would recur to the archives of our own short, though very important political history; and to the salutary principles of our own free Government; from whence he would prove that we ought never to appeal to the sword-that scourge of nations-that "ultima ratio regum," but from dire necessity. He would begin with our own political history, even before we had an independent existence, in order to correct the honorable gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. DAYTON.) who yesterday told us that when we were colonies, no sooner had Great Britain violated our rights, than we appealed to the sword. Sir, he asked, if America did not then by petition humble herself at the foot of the throne? Did she not address petition upon petition to the British monarch? Nay, he asked, if she did not, by her repeated remonstrances, drain the cup of humiliation to its dregs, in her supplications but for justice? Nor did we draw the sword until every effort had been tried in vain ; nor then till compelled to act on the defensive. Then, too, everything dear to us and to posterity was in issue-then were we called on to resist the treasonable claim of the British Parliament, to tax us, in all cases, without our consent, which they were about to enforce by the sword. This was not the partial invasion of a minor right; it was a vital stab at liberty itself. He asked, if by our temperate supplications our cause was injured, or if our confidence did not increase with our moderation, whereby we were enabled to secure by the sword what had been denied to our supplications; and whereby our virtuous struggle was crowned with independence? Again. No sooner had Great Britain acknowledged us independent, whereby we had taken rank among the nations of the earth, than she violated the compact that gave us our political existence, even while we lay in swaddling clothes in the cradle-in the infancy of our Government. Did she not take away our negroes? Did she not keep possession of our western posts? Did not Lord Dorchester excite the Indians with the tomahawk and scalping knife to massacre our peaceable frontier inhabitants, of all ages, sexes, and conditions? Did she not capture our vessels and impress our seamen? What then, I ask, was the conduct of the nation? Who then presided in her councils? Was it not WASHINGTON? Did he appeal to arms? No. sir; he sent a Minister to sue for redress, as has been done upon the present occasion. Were not the aggressions then much greater than the present? and will it be said that WASHINGTON was not a faithful guardian of the national interest-of the national honor? and were not the injuries redressed by the treaty of 1794 to the satisfaction of the councils of the na-' tion ? Again. Did not Spain commit spoliations on our commere and imprison our seamen? Did not WASHINGTON then preside? Did he appeal to arms? No, sir, he sent a Minister to sue for redress, as has been done upon the present occasion; and were not the injuries redressed by the treaty of 1795 ? Again. Did not France capture our vessels and imprison our seamen? Did not WASHINGTON then preside? Did he appeal to arms? No, sir, he sent Ministers to sue for redress. Were not these Ministers rejected? and thus insult added to injury; did he then appeal to arms? No, sir, Mr. Adams then came into the Administration. Did he appeal to arms? No, sir, he sent a new set of Ministers, who were received, and who made the memorable treaty which was ratified by Mr. Adams, in February, 1801. Again. Did not Spain capture our vessels and imprison our seamen? Did she not permit the French to fit out privateers in her ports to cruise against our commerce? Did she not permit French Consuls to condemn our vessels in her ports? Then Mr. Adams, who presided in our councils, sent a Minister to negotiate, and these aggressions are now in a happy train of adjustment, and there is little doubt will be settled on just and moral principles. FEBRUARY, 1803. 'ed and refused, or unreasonably delayed." By the treaty with the Creek nation of Indians, artícle eighth, and by the treaty with the Delaware nation of Indians, article fourth, it is expressly stipulated "that their nation shall not avenge the wrongs committed by the citizens of the contracting parties, but that the offenders shall have an impartial trial, and the peace of the nations be preserved." So far is our peace secured by the stipulations in treaties; and he would next show that it had been established as a principle, to preserve the peace of the nation, and to regulate its equanimity; that where we had a treaty with one nation, we are bound to treat all nations in like manner, although we have no treaty to that purpose. (See the letter of General WASHINGTON, dated 5th September, 1793, to G. Hammond, Esq., in the 2d vol. laws of the United States, 493.) "We are bound by our treaties with three of the belligerent nations, by all means in our power, to protect and defend their vessels and effects in our ports or waters, or on the seas near our shores, and to recover and restore the same to the right ' owners when taken from them. If all the means in our power are used, and fail in their effect, we are not bound by our treaties with those nations 'to make compensation." : 6 6 "Though we have no similar treaty with Great Britain, yet we should use towards that nation the same rule which, under this article, was to govern us with the other nations; and even to extend it to captures made on the high seas, and brought into our ports, if done by vessels that had been armed within them." Thus, sir, had it been shown what had been the practice and usage of foreign nations; and thus had he shown what had been the practice and Thus, sir, you see what has been the practice usage of our own nation in the cases that had ocand usage of the United States since they have curred during our short history, and that all nations been an independent nation, and that too under the are entitled to equal justice; and all these cases imposing auspices of a WASHINGTON. He would have occurred under the venerated WASHINGTON, now show that, so tenacious had been the Gov-except the memorable French Federal treaty ernment to cultivate the arts of peace, she had under Mr. Adams, in February, 1801. And yet guarded it in her Constitution, and ingrafted the we were yesterday told by the Hon. Mr. WHITE, principles in her treaties. By the Constitution,that WASHINGTON would have borne no such the power of declaring war is vested in Congress, insults." No, sir; that he believed, not without and not in the President, lest the caprice of an seeking redress; but whether in a peaceable, legitiindividual might commit the peace of the nation.mate manner, as has been pursued upon the presBy the treaty with Prussia, made under the auspices of the immortal FRANKLIN, in 1785, the great principle was first established, that in case of a war, neither captures nor reprisals shall be made. It is stipulated in the 23d article, "that, in case of 'a war between the two nations, all merchant ves'sels employed in exchanging the products of dif'ferent places, and thereby rendering the necessaries, conveniences, and comforts of human life more easy to be obtained, and more general, shall 'be allowed to pass free and unmolested; and neither of the contracting Powers shall grant or issue any commission to any private armed vessel to 'take or destroy such trading vessels, or interrupt such commerce." By the treaty with Great Britain, in 1794, it is stipulated "that no reprisals shall be made for spoliations till an attested statement ent occasion, or by the sword, as is now proposed, from what has been already shown, there can be no question. But the same gentleman, (Mr. WHITE.) after charging France with this violation of our rights, in the fervor of his mind, exclaimed. "If this be peace, God give us war!--which God forbid, as every good man in the nation must deprecate war. WASHINGTON, however renowned in war, was certainly the friend of peace, and very much contributed to the establishment of our national character, "to prefer the pacific olive to the bloody laurel"-a character too dear to us to be now sullied by an unexampled departure from its Christian principles, or ever to be sacrificed on the altars of vengeance against any particular nation. Federal, it is presumed, because every republican ' of the damages is presented, and justice demand-Senator voted against it. But some gentlemen speak of a war, on this occasion, with seeming pleasure, as necessarily leading to a connexion with Great Britain, and thereby drawing us into the vortex of European politics and perpetual war. The honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Ross,) and the honorable gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. WHITE,) have both declared that we ought to take immediate possession of the mouth of the Mississippi, predicating their arguments on the violation of our rights and the magnitude of the subject. The Hon. Mr. WELLS has gone further, and declared that he was for taking possession of New Orleans at all events, whether the act complained of was authorized or unauthorized; that the possession of that place was of such importance that we ought to possess it; and after telling us (but with a bad grace) that there is no reliance on the faith of treaties, and after reprobating what he called the profligate doctrine of the nations of Europe, "that treaties were no longer binding than it was their interest to respect them," advises us to adopt that infamous principle by taking immediate possession of New Orleans, supposed to be the property of France, who had not offended; that if France once gets foothold there, it will be too late. And although it is admitted that France has done us no injury, yet are we pressed to violate the faith of our treaty with that nation by taking possession of her territory; that nothing short of the possession of terra firma can secure us in the free navigation of the Mississippi. Thus are we invited, by the lure of interest, to commit the character of the nation, in violation of every moral principle, and contrary to the law of nations. SENATE. nia (Mr. Ross) tells us, that a right so important ought not to be held by a tenure so precarious. What better security can a nation exact to secure the enjoyment of her rights with foreign nations? Does he expect she will give us hostages? He presumed not. Treaties are the legitimate compacts to bind nations to each other; they are such as are known to the law of nations, by which are secured, in our foreign relations, our most important rights; and, he trusted, would be always so respected by all honest men, as to afford the utmost security; and he hoped that all infractors of them might be brought to condign punishment. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. J. MASON) said he was not for war; that these resolutions did not propose war. Would the gentleman consider it as war if a foreign army should land at Boston? Would he believe the herald that should proclaim that fifty thousand men, with arms in their hands, and with military equipage, who had landed in the city, had come only on a friendly visit? He presumed not! Sir, these resolutions are more than a declaration of war, they carry the war into actual effect, whereas the declaration only authorizes it; to his mind they presented the question of peace or war. We have been told that the Western people would take up arms to possess themselves of the right, or would throw themselves into the arms of a foreign Power, as they could not subsist without it. No, sir; there is not a good citizen in that country that would abandon his invaluable rights of a freeman, or the title of an American citizen, to be the subject of any nation upon earth; nor did he think it possible to alienate their affections from their own Government, or to shake their confidence in the present Administration; and, although the Administration is charged with indifference to their interest, they will not believe it; they know that the steps that have been heretofore taken in all past cases of our violated rights, have, with promptness, been taken in this case; they know that a Minister has been sent; and they well know that eighty thousand militia have been put in requisition, and arsenals established in that country, and a number of gun-boats ordered to be built for the protection of their commerce in the Mississippi: with this they ought, and will be satisfied, as they expect but equal justice with the other parts of the Union; and this they may with certainty expect. It has been emphatically asked, what would be our conduct if the Chesapeake was blockaded? He said, the same as if the Mississippi was blockaded-but that was not the case. He, for his part, should never be influenced by geographical distinctions; every part of the Union was alike entitled to the protection of Government, and should alike have his support in all similar cases. He did not believe the insinuation, that there was a spirit of sedition in that country that could be fanned into a flame against the Government. They well knew the attention that has been used from the earliest period of our Government to secure the navigation of the river Mississippi, by the treaty that secured us our independBut the honorable gentleman from Pennsylva-ence, and gave us existence as a nation; in the Vattel, 150, sec. 104, tells us "that the end of war must be lawful, to legitimate means; that the cause must be just; that one nation is not al'lowed to attack another for the purpose of aggrandizement; this is the same as if a private person should endeavor to enrich himself by seizing the wealth of another." Again, Vattel, 349, sec. 220, says, "The faith of treaties is holy and sacred between the nations, whose safety and repose it secures; and if people would not 'be wanting to themselves, infamy would be the share of him who violates his faith." And if it be the practice of the nations of Europe to disregard their treaties, he hoped we should not copy their vices, but that it might be confined to them; it was so demoralizing an idea, that he hoped it would never again be advocated on that floor; sure he was it could not meet, as it did not merit, the approbation of the nation. He wished for peace with all nations, and should therefore al ways observe the most exact and inviolable fidelity in the execution of the treaties between us and them. He, for his part, had no foreign attachments, no national feelings but those of an American; no rule but the law of nations and the existing treaties; and, however bad the bargain, they should rule his conduct, as the only sure means to preserve the peace of the nation, so much the desire of every good man; war, he conceived, justifiable only in self defence. |