one point can we force from Great Britain, Not one can we expect from her kindness or that of her allies. From fear or from kindness then we can expect nothing. Our miserable cabinet bunglers have reduced us to a condition, in which our. hopes of peace can receive support but from two considerations. First: A gene The territorial independence of the United States is yet deemed secure. The rights of our seamen and the freedom of our commerce, are said to have been long insecure. These rights and this freedom have been declared so important, as to render it not only just, but expedient, to commence war. And now, what is our situation after two years continuance of ral peace in Europe, resulting from the subversion of the Bonapartean dynasty, may be made so as to include us. But who is to intercede for us, I cannot conjecture. Not the Bourbons, whose persecutors of all descriptions, jacobinical and imperial, have been held dear to our hearts. Not the Spaniards, whose ministers, in the days of her adversity and heroism, were spurned from us, while we fawned like spaniels under the insults of the imperial minion. Not the Russians, who have al this war? What sort of a peace are we able to force from the enemy? If the peace is to be no more advantageous, than our arms have been powerful, we can expect no peace, but such as our adversary may be good natured enough to allow us. Nobody looks forward to a better peace than this. Such a peace, however, we are not obliged to accept. But then we are either to continue a war, by which we can gain nothing; the only object of which will be, not to gain, but to preserve ho-ready been persuaded to abandon their mediation. nour: or else we are to submit to a peace Who is to intercede for us, such as the good will and pleasure of the then? And why should any intercede? enemy may vouchsafe us! This is our What we have to look to in the second condition. And the men who have place, is, the moderation, the justice, the brought us into it, are supported as the magnanimity of the British government, wisest of politicians and statesmen! at a time when her resentments, and even Will England be moderate and reason-her interests, may urge her to protract able in her demands? Already the instru- the war. The enjoyment of such comments of administration express their hopes that she will; nay, that the allies of England—of that Eugland who helped them to escape from the tyranny of Bonaparte, will insist that she shall treat us, who joined against them, with lenity and kindness; and that if she does not, they stand ready to quarrel and go to war AGAINST ENGLAND FOR US. To such deplorable, maniac fancies, are these miserable wretches now reduced. And yet they are as pert, as self-sufficient and supercilious as ever; and the staring eyes of ideot wonder gaze upon them with as much stupid admiration as ever! God help us, when the rulers of the nation give themselves up to such fantasies, and the nation es itself up to such rulers! mercial freedom, as we have a right, an undoubted, sacred right, to claim, depends upon her temper, and not upon our strength. I say again, to her fears we cannot appeal; for what have we done that she should fear us? To her kindness we cannot appeal; for what have we done to excite it? Can we then expect it from her moderation, her justice, or her magnanimity? What! from the moderation of her, who has so often, and even under the presidential hand, been charged with the design of universal monopoly? From the justice of her whose contempt of justice has been the theme no less of presidential denunciation, than general democratic anathema? From the magnanimity of her, whose baseness, corruption No! og det is simply this: Not and profligacy have for ten years been the theme of incessant reproach and clamour? If the democrats have, indeed, been right; if they have been right at all; nay, unless the British cabinet is as moderate, as it has been represented presumptuous and arrogant; unless it is as impartially and disinterestedly just, as it has been represented wicked and oppressive; unless it is as magnanimous, as it has been represented corrupt, profligate and tyrannical; unless it is equal to the utmost kindness of christian charity, we can hope for nothing but a protracted and ruin spreading war, or a disgraceful and debasing peace. For `what sort of a peace are we to have? Or can we obtain a peace at all? If we do get a peace, and especially if we get a good peace, in the circumstances we are now in, it will afford to my mind the strongest evidence possible, that we ought never to have been at war. If Great Britain in her prosperity is willing to give us a good peace, it will be in vain for those impostors, who have plunged us into war, to endeavour longer to persuade us, that she was unwilling to agree to one, in the days of her adversity, when peace with us was so much her interest. Or if prosperity shall have made her more yielding, than she was in adversity, it would only prove that her prosperity is our interest. But shall we have a peace at all? I doubt it. I am willing to allow that now that Bonaparte is gone, Mr. Madison will probably rush as precipitately into a shameful peace, as he did into an unnecessary and ridiculous war.But I very much doubt, whether even that will be allowed him. Soon I feel certain it will not. Why should it? Peace opens the ocean and the world to the enterprise of Americans. Shall Great Britain have nearly all the navigation of the world, to herself; or will she let us in, the most powerful competitors she can fear? time, therefore, when a wise administration would have taken what could have been obtained, and waited until increased resources and strength, would have enabled us to have insisted upon more. Until this moment I have wished for peace, because until the destruction of Bonaparte, it was the interest of Eugland to be at peace with us, and, therefore, reasonably good terms could have been fairly expected and probably obtained. But noware her pretensions not to increase with her power, now? The federalist who thinks not, is in my poor judgment, as much deceived, as the democrats have been. England is neither so wicked, nor so good, as she has been represented. And for one, I am free to declare, that I expect but little moderation, or justice, or magnanimity from her. We should not have been moderate, or just, or magnanimous to her, especially if we at all resemble Mr. Thunderbolt Williams. Nations are seldom found moderate, or just, or magnanimous, when powerful. And still more seldom towards those whom they have been made to despise. I think, therefore, that we are but at the commencement of our sufferings. I think we shall not be let off. With a European peace, and the necessity of employment for a great portion of her navy, why should it not be as easy and advantageously stationed on the American coast, as in the British Channel? Her armies-why should they not be employed in America? If Spain insists upon the restoration of Louisiana, what have the anti-yazoo men of Georgia to advance against it? If one single reason could be assigned why it is the interest of England to be at peace with us, I should hope for it. But I see none. But her justice and her magnanimity-I can only answer that by saying, I do not believe in them. If Great Britain possesses them, she possesses what no other nation ever did possess, what very few individuals possess. If upon this occasion, she practises them, she will be the ad She has struggled for existence and even during that struggle persisted obstinately in asserting and maintaining her maritime pre-miration of mankind, and I shall be happy to tensions. Will she abandon them now? Will acknowledge the error of these doubts. I her interests be changed? Will her temper care not from what cause a peace proceeds, if be altered? There was a time, when it was the interest of England to have peace with us; and that was the time, when she was in a temper to yield us all she could, under any circumstances, be induced to yield. That was the it be a good and an hon table peace. I have sighed for peace, while I thought such a peace within our reach. Whenever it shall be proved not to be, all we have to do, is to overwhen our rulers with our honest execrations, and place at the head of our affairs men capa ble of struggling with the increased difficul- the Indian country. They were gratified. ties and dangers with which we shall be sur-The destruction of Indian cornfields, the burnrounded. The nation will then be united in ing of Indian towns, the general slaughter of support of war, because whatever may have the men, have marked the progress of the been its character at the commencement-drama, since Harrison's expedition to Tippehowever unnecessary and execrable may have canoe. been its continuance, it will then have become an unavoidable evil. This is a wonderful war. In reality, it is not for the interests of the trade and sailors of the United States. It is a war against them. When a commercial vessel is spoken at sea, maritime usage recognises the propriety of inquiries concerning the vessel's name, depart If this gloomy state of things should exist, the distinction of party will be effaced; and the people, anxious for their preservation may perhaps be willing that the reins of government shall be placed in hands able to hold them, and our destinies committed to the pa-ure and destination. The usage is so entirely triotism and wisdom of men of integrity and of talents. We are in the crisis of our fate. We have courted our own ruin, by all the means in our power. It remains to be seen, whether our efforts will have insured success. COMMERCIAL POLICY. Some of the best lands between the Mis reasonable, that a vessel without any clearance or other evidence relative to departure or destination, would incur the suspicion of being employed for a purpose not warranted by the law of any civilized country, and might be stopped and taken into port accordingly. This being understood as indisputable, the ulterior inquiries present the controversial topics. There are three classes of questions con 1. The ownership of the vessel. sissippi and the Atlantic, are covered by In-cerning maritime commerce. As far as the lands are wanted for white settlements, the Indian title might be extinguished peaceably, at twenty cents per acre: Although the Indians would not be content with two cents per acre for such lands as are sold by the United States at the rate of two dollars. Indian villages are seen in flames, and the ashes are glutted with the blood of their war riors. The ruins offer rich planting grounds; and the exterminating service opens large tracts for land speculations. Money is drawn from the seaboard to defray enormous charges for the land forces, amidst loud declamations about maritime rights: Millions and tens of millions are expended already. What must be the whole cost of extinguishing the Indian title by military execution! 2. The national character of the officers and crew. 3. The quality and ownership of the cargo. It is for the benefit of commerce to have these interests regulated so as to distinguish between the fair proceedings and the fraudulent. And to have them regulated so as to distinguish the interests of the country from foreign interests, would be for the national benefit. If these proper distinctions had been made by the government of the United States, with regard to the maintenance of American rights at sea, the war might have been avoided. These observations are founded on principles which extend to every subject of maritime controversy between the United States and any European power; and the whole may be understood in the exercise of common sense, if not perplexed by diplomatic verbiage. The influence of the politicians who are for To understand the whole, it is necessary to exterminating the Indians, in the west and have some distinct views of the respective south, could have given a different result to interests concerned in carrying on commerce the last presidential election, if their passions by sea. For want of such views, the mind were not to be gratified by expeditions into may grope amidst the mazes of abstraction, without ever arriving at any useful result. of maritime controversy are arranged in three For want of such views, the real interests of classes. And the general doctrine of docucommerce may be sacrificed to illusory the- mental evidence is applicable to each. All ory, and American rights become the victims may be regulated by legislative authority. of misguided friendship. For want of such In all the cases, it is important that the reguviews, political zealots may declaim and con-lations be such as to ascertain and favour the tend about the topics of the day, without sus-real interests of the country, without giving pecting their own ignorance of essential parts countenance to abuses which disguise foreign and principles. interests and frauds. And such are proper objects of maritime legislation. In every case where a vessel is employed in trade, there are three descriptions of interests The first class extends to all inquiries proconcerned, and they are well known to men per to be made at sea, concerning the ownerof business. Amidst all the noise from the ship of vessels employed in trade. With rewest and south about maritime rights, there gard to all this class of cases, this country is are persons of consideration who may be wil-not involved in any controversy. This is a ling to understand the subject. Such persons broad fact. It is open to the knowledge of might know, and men skilled In the affairs of the world. And the truth is so familiar as commerce do know, that the interest of the scarcely to attract attention. Yet it offers a ship owner is distinct from the interest of the key to unlock the whole controversy about sailors employed to navigate the ship, and other maritime interests. that the interest in the cargo is distinct from The freedom of this country from all con either. Although the three descriptions of troversy concerning the ownership of vessels, interest are embarked together, they are is not the effect of any specific treaty or diclearly distinguishable in every commercial plomatic arrangement, either formal or invoyage. And the distinctions ought to be ob-formal. It is because the laws have distinserved, as founded in the nature of maritime guished between our countrymen and foreigncommerce. It is as proper to observe them ers, with reference to the interest in shipping. in adjusting the general regulations of commerce, as in settling the particular accounts of a voyage. On this subject, therefore, it has not been within the power of executive agency to blend and confound the interests of American citi As public armed vessels are not commer-zens and foreigners. rial, they have appropriate characteristics. As the provisions of law have guarded When known to be regularly commissioned by against abuses relative to the ownership of government, they are not liable at sea to any vessels, we are not, on this subject, involved foreign visitation or search whatever. The in war and diplomatic anarchy. The specific government, by public officers appointed for provisions are well known to persons who have the service, exercises authority on board ex-examined the laws of shipping in the United clusively, and is responsible accordingly. It States. They prescribe the manner of asceris otherwise with private vessels employed in taining the American ownership. And docutrade. These are liable to be visited or ments worthy of credit, relative to the title searched at sea. And the general objects of and country of the owners, are issued to ac inquiry are such as have been mentioned-company the vessels. the ownership of the vessel-the national In providing against foreign abuses and character of the officers and crew-the quality frauds, relative to the ownership of vessels, and ownership of the cargo. These are as- the regulations contained in the laws of shipcertained by proper documents, according to ping, have favoured the shipping interest of the regular course of maritime proceedings. our own country distinctly, and so far have And these are to be distinguished in attend-excluded national controversy. As they are ing to questions concerning the proper com- established on general principles, they have merce of the United States. In these three a systematic efficacy. They are for the bene classes, are seen the interests to be regulated, fit of American citizens as distinguished from the rights to be protected. foreigners; and thus they have an American According to these principles, all the topics character. Hence the understanding of the country is not insulted by any jargon in favour of foreign ship owners. The wisdom of the laws, and their systematic operation, have fixed the public opinion in favour of the real American interest on this subject. In a word, the citizens are entitled te privileges, which are not allowed to foreigners, by the laws of shipping. The great use of the whole has been found in distinguishing between citizens of the United States and foreigners. And thus the privilege of citizenship is of real value to a ship owner. All questions relating to the ownership of vessels, have been so completely settled by legislative regulations in the United States, that on this subject no special management, no official petulance, no electioneering artifice or combination, no state pride, no party zeal, no intrigue, no political illusion, no French logic could make out a war, or a mission across the Atlantic, on any sort of public controversy. On this subject, therefore, it would have been in vain to pretend that foreign abuses and frauds could be transmitted into American rights, by the display of some bunting for a flag. rest in a vessel is owned by a subject or atizen of any foreign prince or state, directly or indirectly, the benefits of a register are not allowed by the United States. Yet all the sailors, under tlie captain, may be foreign citizens or subjects, and the benefits be enjoyed as if they were Americans. When sailors are interested, the adminis tration compounds Americans with foreigners. And our countrymen are made the victims of administrative confusion. This is the mystery of diplomatic jarring, and the obstacle to any adjustment about seamen. It is the mystery of this wonderful war. It exhibits the subjects in mingled colours, so that attempts to ascertain the objects of the war, are perplexed and illuded by the changeable character of the whole. With reference to maritime commerce, there is not in this war any distinct American object. But foreign and American interests are confounded. This confusion is characteristic of the cabinet policy. It distracts opinions, and keeps alive the spirit of party. It is prejudicial to commerce. It tends to depress and degrade the commercial character, and to dissipate About other maritime interests, there have commercial influence. It operates against our been diplomatic discussions, or semblances of seafaring countrymen, as it tends to keep Ziscussion, for years. At length we have a them out of employment, and encourages fowar. And the principal controversy is suppo-reigners in taking the means of subsistence sed to concern the crews of commercial ves- from Americans. gels. That the cabinet policy is, in fact, unfriendly to the sailors of the United States, is proved by the cabinet's pertinacity in confounding our seafaring countrymen with foreign sailors, and making war avowedly on account of such confusion. Are we to suppose the cabinet and the leaders of the cabinet party, are so ignorant of maritime concerns as not to know, that this is essentially disadvantageous to the Yet the war is not for the benefit of sailors of the United States, as distinguished from foreigners. On the contrary, the claim advanced in this war, is to favour foreign sailors as if they were Americans. In cases of this class, American citizens could be, and lave been, confounded with foreigners; because the provisions of law have not guarded against such abuses. Nothing short of a proper sys-sailors of our own country! tem of maritime legislation will remedy the evil completely. This is wanted for the maintenance of American rights at sea. As a national basis it is essential. Here is the source of controversy. It is because the sailors of the United States are not properly distinguished and favoured by government, in preference to foreigners. It is because our own seamen are not systematically patronised as such. In a word, the privilege of citizenship is not made valuable to a szilor, as it is to a ship owner. If any inte In this blending and confounding of American interests, there is a mixture of artifice and absurdity. The operation of the strange compound is anti-commercial and anti-American. Yet this confusion has furnished a sort of maritime colouring for this wonderful war, with its enormous charges by land, and its train of debts, and taxes, and sufferings. If no American interests were mingled and confounded with the foreigner, the war would be without any semblance of maritime apology. And if there were no forcign Interest inter |
