full credit to them. The vessel which has arrived at Baltimoreand, by the way, by its valuable cargo of specie, hides, and tallow, gives evidence of a commerce worth pursuing - brought some rumor of a difference between Artigas and the authorities of Buenos Ayres. With respect to the Banda Oriental, which is said to be occupied by Artigas, it constitutes but a very subordinate part of the territory of the United Provinces of La Plata; and it can be no more objection to recognising the nation, because that province is not included within its power, than it could have been to our recognition, because several states held out against the adoption of the constitution. Before I attach any confidence to a letter not signed Charles Thomson,' I must know who the man is who writes it, what are his sources of information, his character for veracity, and so forth, and of all those particulars, we are deprived of the information, in the case of the recent intelligence in the Baltimore papers, as extracted from private letters.

But we are charged, on the present occasion, with treading on sacred ground. Let me suppose, what I do not believe to be the case, that the president has expressed an opinion one way and we another. At so early a period of our government, because a particular individual fills the presidential chair-an individual whom I highly respect, more perhaps than some of those who would be considered his exclusive friends-is the odious doctrine to be preached here, that the chief magistrate can do no wrong? Is the doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance, are the principles of the Stuarts, to be revived in this free government? Is an opinion to be suppressed and scouted, because it is in opposition to the opinion of the president? Sir, as long as I have a seat on this floor, I shall not hesitate to exert the independence which belongs to the representative character; I shall not hesitate to express my opinions, coincident or not with those of the executive. But I can show that this cry has been raised on the present occasion without reason. Suppose a case-that the president had sent a minister to Buenos Ayres, and this house had been called on to make an appropriation for the payment of his salary. I ask of gentlemen, whether in that case they would not have voted an appropriation? And has not the house a right to deliberate on the propriety of doing so, as well before, as after a minister is sent? Will gentlemen please to point out the difference? I contend that we are the true friends of the executive; and that the title does not belong to those who have taken it. We wish to extend his influence, and give him patronage; to give him means, as he has now the power, to send another minister abroad. But, apart from this view of the question, as regards the executive power, this house has the incontestable right to recognise a foreign nation in the exercise of its power, to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Suppose, for example we pass an act to regulate trade between

the United States and Buenos Ayres, the existence of the nation would be thereby recognised, as we could not regulate trade with a nation which does not exist.

The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Smyth), the great champions of executive power, and the opponent of legislative authority, have contended that recognition would be cause of war. These gentlemen are reduced to this dilemma. If it is cause of war, the executive ought not to have the right to produce a war upon the country, without consulting congress. If it is no cause of war, it is an act which there is no danger in performing. There is very little difference in principle, between vesting the executive with the power of declaring war, or with the power of necessarily leading the country into war, without consulting the authority to whom the power of making war is confided. But I deny that it is cause of war; but if it is, the sense of congress ought certainly in some way or other to be taken on it, before that step is taken. I know that some of the most distinguished statesmen in the country have taken the view of this subject, that the power to recognise the independence of any nation does not belong to the president; that it is a power too momentous and consequential in its character, to belong to the executive. My own opinion, I confess, is different, believing the power to belong to either the president or congress, and that it may, as most convenient, be exercised by either. If aid is to be given, to afford which will be cause of war, however, congress alone can give it.

This house, then, has the power to act on the subject, even though the president has expressed an opinion, which he has not, further than, as appears by the report of the secretary of state, to decide that in January last, it would not be proper to recognise them. But the president stands pledged to recognise the republic, if on the return of the commissioners whom he has deputed, they shall make report favorable to the stability of the government. Suppose the chairman of the committee of foreign relations had reported a provision for an appropriation of that description which I propose, should we not all have voted for it? And can any gentleman be so pliant, as, on the mere ground of an executive recommendation, to vote an appropriation without exercising his own faculties on the question; and yet, when there is no such suggestion, will not even so far act for himself as to determine whether a republic is so independent that we may fairly take the step of recognition of it? I hope that no such submission to the executive pleasure will characterize this house.

One more remark, and I have done. One gentleman told the house that the population of the Spanish provinces is eighteen millions; that we, with a population of two millions only, have conquered our independence; and that, if the southern provinces

willed it, they must be free. This population, I have already stated, consists of distinct nations, having but little, if any, intercourse, the largest of which is Mexico; and they are so separated by immense distances, that it is impossible there should be any coöperation between them. Besides, they have difficulties to encounter which we had not. They have a noblesse; they are divided into jealous castes, and a vast proportion of Indians; to which adding the great influence of the clergy, and it will be seen how widely different the circumstances of Spanish America are, from those under which the revolution in this country was brought to a successful termination. I have already shown how deep-rooted is the spirit of liberty in that country. I have instanced the little island of Margarita, against which the whole force of Spain has been in vain directed; containing a population of only sixteen thousand souls, but where every man, woman, and child, is a Grecian soldier, in defence of freedom. For many years the spirit of freedom has been struggling in Venezuela, and Spain has been unable to conquer it. Morillo, in an official despatch, transmitted to the minister of marine of his own country, avows that Angostura and all Guayana are in possession of the patriots, as well as all that country from which supplies can be drawn. According to the last accounts, Bolivar and other patriot commanders, are concentrating their forces, and are within one day's march of Morillo; and if they do not forsake the Fabian policy, which is the true course for them, the result will be, that even the weakest of the whole of the provinces of Spanish America, will establish their independence, and secure the enjoyment of those rights and blessings, which rightfully belong to them.

ON THE SEMINOLE WAR.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 17, 1819.

[THE Seminoles were a tribe of Indians inhabiting Florida, and parts of the adjacent country. During the war between the United States and Great Britain, from 1812 to 1815, the Seminoles and Creek Indians made attacks upon our frontier settlements in the southwest, and in consequence, general Andrew Jackson, then a major-general of militia in Tennessee, was sent against them, at the head of a considerable force, by which, after a sanguinary contest, the Indians were subdued, and a treaty concluded with the Creek nation, in 1814. After the peace of 1815, the Seminoles, being sheltered in Florida, at that time a Spanish province, made frequent depredations upon the people of the United States. In December, 1817, the department of war ordered general Jackson, who in 1814 was appointed a majorgeneral in the United States army, to assume the command of the forces in the southwest, and march against the Indians; also to adopt the necessary measures to terminate a conflict which has since been called the Seminole war.' In the early part of 1818, general Jackson took command of an army of regulars, militia, and friendly Creeks, and pursued the Seminoles into Florida, destroying their towns, and killing and capturing many Indians and run-a-way negroes. He also took possession of the Spanish fortresses of St. Marks, Pensacola, and the Barancas, during a period of peace between Spain and the United States. Two Indian traders, Arbuthnot, a Scotchman, and Ambrister, an Englishman, were taken prisoners, (being found among the Indians and Spaniards,) tried by a court martial, and executed by order of general Jackson. Two Indian chiefs, who were captured, were also put to death by his order, and sundry other cruel and high-handed acts committed, to which the attention of congress was called, at the session of 1818-19.

The subject having been referred to the committee on military affairs, that committee brought in a report, concluding with the following resolution: Resolved, that the house of representatives disapproves the proceedings in the trial and execution of Alexander Arbuthnot and Robert C. Ambrister.' To this resolution, Mr. Cobb, of Georgia, moved to add others, disapproving of the execution of Indian captives, and declaring that the seizure of the Spanish posts was contrary to the constitution, and so forth. The discussion on these resolutions caused one of the most exciting and interesting debates ever known in congress. Thirty-one of the most distinguished members of the house participated in the debate, which was opened on the eighteenth of January, in committee of the whole, and concluded on the tenth of February, when the question on the resolutions was taken, and decided in the negative, by majorities varying from thirty to forty-six, in a house of one hundred and seventy members present. General Jackson, besides his own popularity, as the victor of New Orleans, had the advantage of being sustained by the influence and power of Mr. Monroe's administration, the president being considered as implicated with him in some of his transactions in Florida, by having sanctioned the same. Among those who coincided with Mr. Clay, in condemning these proceedings, were Messrs. Cobb, of Georgia, Storrs, of New York, Colston, J. Johnson, T. M. Nelson, and Mercer, of Virginia, Hopkinson, of Pennsylvania, Williams, of Connecticut, Harrison, of Ohio, Tyler, of Virginia, (the two latter since presidents of the United States,) Lowndes, of South Carolina, and Reed, of Maryland; while, on the other side, Messrs. Holmes, of Massachusetts, Tallmadge, of New York, P. P. Barbour, and Floyd, of Virginia. Baldwin, of Pennsylvania, R. M. Johnson, of Kentucky, and others, made able speeches in support of the administration, and general Jackson's military course in this campaign.

Mr. Clay twice addressed the committee of the whole on the subject; the first speech only, is reported at length, as follows.]