1809.

MACON'S BILL NO. 1.

357

that we have not? If she can stop and seize and confiscate our ships because they carry on a trade she sees fit to forbid, may not we seize her ships for carrying on a trade we see fit to forbid? If she may turn our vessels into her ports to pay a duty and take out a license before they may go to Holland, may not we do the same to her vessels on their way to Brazil and the Spanish Main? Undoubtedly we may; for to say that we have no right to do to England what England does to us is to say that she may demand without limitation and that we must submit without complaint.

While the House was considering some of these resolutions and laying others on the table, that approving the conduct of the President in the Jackson affair came down from the Senate, and brought on a warm debate on the behavior of the English Minister. The debate began on the nineteenth of December, and, save for a few days' recess at Christmas, went on continuously till the fourth of January. So bitter did it become that on the last day the Speaker was nineteen consecutive hours in the chair. Then, in the early gray of morning, but while the lamps were still burning, the clerk was bidden to call the roll. As he did so, seventy-two members said Yea, forty-one said Nay, and the resolution was carried. The vote was strictly partisan. Every Federalist answered Nay; every Republican answered Yea. Of the fortyone nays, four came from North Carolina and four from Virginia. The rest were from men sent by the people of New England and New York.

Having thus pledged itself to vigorous measures, the House went on to take into consideration a long bill. This bill was the work of Gallatin, but was reported by the select committee on so much of the President's message as related to foreign affairs, and was known sometimes as "The American Navigation Act" and sometimes as "Macon's Bill No. 1." Of the provisions, some were to take effect at once and some on April fifteenth, 1810. All were to expire with the next session of Congress. Those to take effect at once provided that no ship, public or private, flying the flag of France or England should be suffered to enter any port of the United States; and that no merchandise should come, directly or indi

rectly, from any of the ports or colonies of France or England unless they came in ships owned by citizens of the United States. Those to go into force on April fifteenth provided that after that day all trade with France and Great Britain must be direct; that if either belligerent recalled or so changed her decrees that she no longer violated the neutral trade of the United States, the President should declare this by proclamation; and that, the proclamation having been issued, trade should at once be renewed with the power that had modified her decrees.

Concerning the first section, which shut out the armed ships of France and Great Britain, and the eleventh section, which repealed the Non-intercourse Act of 1809, the House was of one mind; indeed, not a member who spoke had a word to say against either. The section which parted the House, which produced a long and tiresome debate, which gave the bill the character of a navigation act and was finally carried by an almost strictly party vote, was the fifth. By this all trade with France and Great Britain was, after April fifteenth, to be carried on in ships built and owned in the United States.

We object to this bill, said the Federalists, who opposed it to a man, because no good can come of it; because it is a shameful submission to the decrees of Great Britain and France; because it is a continuation of the old restrictive system; because Great Britain will retaliate; and because it can not possibly be carried into effect. The bill, indeed, is nothing but an old remedy in a new form. Four years ago we tried it in the shape of non-importation. Two years ago, in the form of an embargo. Last year it was a non-intercourse act that was going to do wonders, and now it is again before us as an American navigation act that cannot fail to be a panacea. But it will not be a panacea, for it is, if possible, more detestable than any other one of the shameful series to which it belongs. In the Embargo Act we said to Great Britain: We cannot fight you; your navy is too great; but we will not submit. We will shut our ports, we will destroy our commerce, we will not leave one ship on the ocean to gratify your insatiable love of plunder; but obey your orders we will not. This was the language of freemen. To talk, however, is one thing; to act

1809.

MACON'S BILL DEBATED.

359

is quite another. The law could not be enforced. Evasion followed evasion, and supplementary act followed supplementary act, till the series ended with the Force Bill and the people rose in righteous anger and wiped it from the statute-book. Then came non-intercourse. In that we said to France and Great Britain: We will renew trade with all the world save you and your dependencies. With you we will have nothing to do. You shall not come to our ports. We will not go to yours, for you are lost to every sense of justice and of honor. Yet even this law cannot be carried out. The people are determined to trade where they will; and the name of Amelia Island, which one year ago was unknown to half the members of this House, is now as well known as the names of the days of the week. Disobeyed at home, powerless to effect any concession abroad, non-intercourse is in turn condemned, and we are again asked to pass an American navigation act-another name for submission. Trade is now to be renewed even with England and France, provided it be direct and carried on in American ships. What is this but saying, We submit; we have been wrong; we accept the conditions you are pleased to lay down; we will forget the insults, the injuries, the black treachery of the past; we will take your hand, red with the blood of Pierce and the slaughtered seamen, open our ports to your goods, go to such markets as you allow, and furnish you with all the means necessary to keep on oppressing us? And will she not keep on oppressing us? Does any one doubt for a moment that she will retaliate?

We deny, said the Republicans, that England will retaliate; we deny that a navigation act cannot be carried into effect, and we deny that it bears any resemblance to the embargo or the Non-intercourse Act now in force. The embargo was a restriction on our own citizens; the Navigation Act is to be a restriction on foreigners. The embargo would not suffer an American citizen to send his cotton, his flaxseed, his rice, his flour, his salted fish, to any foreign port whatever. The Navigation Act leaves him free to send his goods to any port he pleases, and gives to the American ship-owners all the carrying trade between the United States, Great Britain, and France. We favor the bill because it will break up the law

less trade with Amelia Island; because it will confine the carrying-trade of the United States to American ships; because it will restore our commerce; and because we firmly believe that it will in the end bring not one but both of the belligerents to terms. Toward sundown, on the twenty-ninth of January, the question on the passage of the bill was put and carried. Seventy-three members answered Yea and fiftytwo Nay.

From the House the bill passed to the Senate, and by the Senate it was quickly killed. Every section save the first, which shut out the armed ships of France and England, the second, which laid down the penalties for refusing to obey, and the twelfth, which limited the act to the end of the next session of Congress, was stricken out, and, thus mutilated, the bill went back to the House. The House in a rage restored the sections and again sent it to the Senate. The Senate thereupon refused to concur and demanded a conference. The House voted to insist on their bill and granted the conference. But it might as well have never been held, for the Senate conferrees having made a proposition which the House conferrees would not accept, and the House conferrees having made a proposition which the Senate conferrees would not accept, they parted, and Macon's Bill No. 1 was lost.

The quarrel which thus sprang up between the two branches of Congress by no means disposed of the question in dispute. Indeed, a week after the Representatives had voted not to yield to the wishes of the Senators a new bill from the select committee on so much of the message of the President as related to foreign affairs was being hurried on to a second reading. This became known as "Macon's Bill No. 2."

As it came from the committee, the new bill contained. three sections. One repealed the third section of the amended. Non-intercourse Act of June twenty-eighth, which forbade American merchant-ships going to England or France. Another declared that all penalties incurred under the Embargo and Non-intercourse Acts should be collected. The third provided that if, before March third, 1811, either France or England should repeal her decrees and cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, the President should proclaim

1810.

MACON'S BILL NO. 2.

361

the fact, and that if, within three months after the issue of the proclamation, the other power did not likewise repeal her decrees the old Non-intercourse Act should be enforced against that power. But the bill had not left the House when a fourth and a fifth section were added. The fourth closed the ports of the United States to the armed ships of France and England. The fifth laid a duty of fifty per cent. ad valorem on goods, wares, and merchandise of foreign growth or make.

The measure at best was weak and spiritless; but, weak as it was, the enemies of Gallatin in the Senate would not approve it, and sent it back to the House greatly altered. The provision for a duty of fifty per cent. was stricken out. Every other section was in some way amended, and a new one, giving the President power to use the war-ships as convoys, was added. Most of the changes were merely verbal and were accepted without a murmur; but to drop the duty and keep the convoy provision was something the House stoutly refused to do. To restore the duty was something the Senate in turn refused to do. After a conference each yielded, and, during the last hours of the last day of the session, the House passed the bill without the provision for convoy and without the extra duty and sent it to the President. Madison, who, as was his custom at such times, was waiting in a committee room hard by, signed the bill at once. Not many minutes later Congress adjourned; the total Non-intercourse Act of March, 1809, expired by limitation, and Macon's law took its place and closed the series of commercial restrictions by which Congress sought to break down the encroachments of England and of France. First in that series was the partial Non-intercourse Act of 1806. Next was the embargo of 1807, its supplementary acts, and the Force Act of 1809. Then came the total Non-intercourse Act of March first, 1809, and, last of all, Macon's Bill No. 2. With it the long struggle for free trade and sailors' rights ended and the country drifted slowly but surely into

war.

The effect of the new law was to renew free trade with England and with France till March third, 1811. If before that day either belligerent revoked or so changed her edicts that they ceased to hinder the commerce of the United States,