Virginia Argus — Richmond, Va., 1810-03-06 00:00:00, page 2

f obi'g to that end had been struck out i
n the Senate. He said it was well un- I
rferstuodthat there were two parties
in this nation, one for war with Briiaih
and one for war with France. It be
hooved those’who wished to maintain
the peace of the nation to stand up for
tin: bil!. However others might give
up their opinions, he would not. As
he meant not to be driven from the
. ground he had taken and supported of
neuttalry as to both belligerents, he
meant to abide by the bill as it went
from the House.
Mr. Ro9» wae in favor of the amend,
ment of the Senate, for he considered
the* bill ar. it went from the House as
not calculated to assert the honor and
diguitv «f the natiort. As to preserv
ing peace, there was nothing in the
sections retained which was calculated
to irritate ©r disturb the feelings oi ei
ther belligerent. Therefore gentlemen
desirous of preserving peace had noth
ing, to fear from voting for it. It had
been allowed that the non-intercourse
was a nullity. Why then were gen
t tl- men alarmed at this shadow of a
shavle going to the tomb? He
thought the last section retained went
to do away a system, the doing away
of which would be the precursor of a
system better calculated to maintain
our rights. Its passage certainly would
not prevent other measures from being
adopted.
Motion tp adjourn—59 to 55.
Mr. Dana said that he as well as
the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Macon) was for peace ; and
therefore in that respect he und the
gentleman were of the same opinion.
He declared himself decidedly of the
American peace party ; and was there
fore lor the amendments to the bill be
cause they certainly could not produce
a war with either belligerent.
Mr. Johnson said that, connected
with the circumstances under which
this bill had come to the House, ht :
would as soon vote for a proposition j
to tear from the journals of the Old j
Congress the declaration of Indepen- I
deuce, as lor the amendments of the j
Senate. However weak, the non-inter- |
course might be, he would never vote )
for its repeal until a substitute was!
adopted. He considered that if the
bill passed as amended, it would be
that kind of submission from which
the nation never could emerge. With
11is consent th"s hall should never be
polluted bv the p assage of such an
act. wrri. ne certain me ruui wouia
fall and crush him after voting a
g iinst rhe amen Inunts, he would not
hesitate to die with his yote.
ivir. Fisk observed tSat he did not
rise to fatigue the House with a de
tailed speech. It had become almost
an offence ag inst the House to men
tion the insul 3 and injuries 'this nati
on had received from the belliger
ents. But a few weeks ago and a
resolution came from the Senate ap
prizing the House df their sense of
insot> nee in a foreign minister, and;
solemnly pledging the resources of
the nation to support the Executive in
repelling it. And nmv these amend
ments to the bill had been received
from the same body ! What is the
effect of the amendments ? To repeal
every shade, to destroy every pretence
of resistance to this system ofaggres.
sion of the belligerttits—-and why is
this to be done ? The mercantile jn
' terest requires it-—the merchants tre
uneasy. I, for one, sir, am tired and
the nation is weary of *his sort of
reasoning. In what a dilemma has
it placed us since 1805 ? Look to the
ac's ol government, look to their pro
ceedings, and then tell me if these
nieichants are consistent* Mr. F. I
took a review of the late measures of j
government and the uniform opposi. J
tion of the merchants. Gentlemen ,
might stnat the repeal ol the non
imercon.se law vras to make way ior
something mote energetic. Was it
' to be believed that those who could
n«»t bear to sec a few merchant vw
s Is confined in our harbors, were pre
paitAl for any thing more energetic ?
Concur in these am< ndments, (said
he) and it is the last you hear ol re
sistance I would as soon concur in
siirrerdcring .he right ol government
to the belli g< rents as I would vota for
this amendment.
A mo ion was then made to adjrnirn
and tan ud, 61 to 57.
February 23.
ROADS AND CANALS. »
Mr. P. 1). Porter, from the com
mittee appointed, im the subject of in
ternal improvements, reported a bill
for the improvement of the U. States
by public roads and canal % [ This
bill is essentially the ,same with that
originally rrpor.ed by Mr. Pope in the
Senate.] The bill was twice read and
referred to a eo mm liter df .he whole. t
FORTIFICATIONS.
Mr. Clopton, Irom the committee
on so muchotihe meisag ; of the Pre
7 y ;
siidntof the United State* a* relates (
to the fortifications of the ports and
harbors of the United States, made a
detailed report, stating that in the o
p:nion of the committee it was unne
cessary at this time to appropriate any
additional sum for th>t onrpose.
MRS. HAMILTON’S CLAIM, /
This being the day set apart for
private business, the House resolved
ifself into a committee of the whole,
Mr. Macon in the chair, on the re
port of the committee of claims on tire
petition of Elizabeth Hamilton.
•Messrs. -Johnson, Ross, Quincy,
Pitken, and Fisk advocated the claim,
and Messrs. Alston, Bacon, Holland
and Root opposed it.
The committee rose 55 to 54 at half
past four, without coming to a decisi
on, and obtained leave to sit again.
A motion w^s made bv Mr. Ghol
son to adjourn over to Monday, and
negatived 61 to 40*
vAnd the House adjourned*.
Saturday, Feb. 24.
Mr. Root presented the methoriW of
Gen. Barton and others, of the state
of Rhode island, praying compensati
on for their services in the revolution*
Mr. R. said that reports had hereto
fore been made favorable to the jus
tice of the claim. He moved now to
refer itrto the same committee of the
whole which had under consideration
the report on the petition of Elizabeth
Hamilton. He said he wished, if the
rampart which defended the Treasury
department was to be broken down,
that other* besides Mrs. Hamilton
should be admitted. He wished also
to know whether the zeal which gen
tlemen displayed in favor ef this claim
was a general zeal to break down the
barriers of the limitation law, or whe
ther it wa3 a zeal lor this woman a
lone.
This motion produced a desultory
debate of two hours, in which Messrs.
Root, Smilie, Love, Alston, Southard,
Bovd, and Montgomery supported, &
Messrs. Pitkin, Key, Gardenier, Ghol
son, Dana, Lyon, Gold, Ross, Fisk aud
Johnson, opposed the motion. The
debate turned chiefly on a comparison
of the nature of the two claims. I’he
great objection to the reference was,
that it wa3 an unusual course to refer
a petition to a committee of the whole,
before an investigation into the facts ;
and that it would be doing injustice to
both claims to blend them togeth
er.
The motion was negatived, by Yeas
and Nays, 63 to 62.
Monday, February 26.
Mr. Love reported a bill to incor
porate the Washington Navy Yard
Mechanical Society ; and a bill to in
coriwate a Fire Insurance Company
in tm; town of Alexandria. Twice
read and referred to a committee of
the whole.
Mr. L«ve presented the petition of
the First and Second Chambers of the
city Council of Washington, praying
an extension of their powers. Re
ferred to the committee on the Dis
trict of Columbia.
On motion of Mr. Newton a reso
lution was adopted directing the com.
mittee of Commerce and Manufac
tures to enquire whether any amend
ment is necessary in the laws making
compensatiori to the collectors of the
customs of the United States.
COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE.
The House resumed the considera
tion of the amendments of the senate
to the bill concerning commercial in
tercourse with G. Britain and France
and their dependencies, and for other
purposes.
Mr. Mumford expressed a hope
that the House would not concur in
the amendments of the Senate ; for
they had struck out all that part of the
bill which was good for any thing.
Govern ment, he said, was instituted
for the protection of life, liberty and
property. IT the House adopted the
bill as a nended, they abandoned the
protection of property—and if they
refused to protect commerce, the lib
erty ot the citizen would also be un
protected, as it had been violated for
seven years past. He said he him
•clf bad been a witness of the lacera
tion r*f one of our citizens in such an
Inhuman manner that he had expired
under the last castigation inflicted on
him. This was in punishment for an
attempt to regain his liberty. Proper
ty afloat on the ocean could be defen
ded by insurance } bilt th# liberty of
the citizen could not be insured. Mr.
M. called upon gentlemen in the name
of tht- seamen, who locked to tbe gov
ernment for protection, to adopt some
measure for their security. His sys
tem, He said, w»s that ot convoy. It
w..» not a item of to day ; his oppo
sition to the bill as it went from the
House had not been an opposition fur
opposition’s s.ike j on the one hand he
had opposed it, but he had offered a
substitute on the other.
Th® bdl «• amrmled, Mr Mnmford said,
ras a tacit oca wvrledg'iient to tas belli *
gcrcnts that Vre Have been all tothe wrong
for seven years past, and that they, have
been whoHy right t 'and in proportion-a^«
we receded, they would certainty advance.
For hi ms if, he wanted nothing ot the
belligerents but common justice; but, if
the nation would not assert its rights
at this time, we should indeed become
hewers-of wood and drawers of water.
He said he was in favor ot the embargo
srlgmally— he believed it a w»se me.ufuve,
and'had no doubt it had saved a hundred
millions of dollars to the nation ; and, if
Sower had been put in the hands ef the
resident to enforce it, there would have
been none of the smuggling which was
oriw com planted of. The fault lay in
trusting too. much to the perfectabiMty
of human nature. Laws never Were
made to restrain good m n but to
bind rogues i and some power therefore
was necessary to carry them into effect.
Mr M. quoted the journals to show that the
bill to author***5 *-he President to employ
the naval force to enforce the embargo
had been postponed indefinitely. He men •
tioned this becaUS* the violation ot the em.
bargo system had been charged on the ner.
chants generally, whose character he de^
fended from a charge of being habitual
violators of the laws. There might be bad
men amongst them, as there was in ev«ry
class of society, but that was no reason
[ to impeach the integrity of the whole. He
hoped, before the-House should consent to
the amendments to the bill, *that they,
would fall upon some system to defend the
liberty of the citizen. He said he .could
take care of his own property—but when
he returned home, he could not bear to be
galled on by the fathers, mothers and re
latives of these impressed citisens to know
\yhat had been done for their relief, and
not have it ia his power to answer them
satisfactorily
Mr Love declared his belief that since
the forma ion of the constitution the A
merican Congress had never been called
upon to deliberate on so vitally important
a question as that now propo-.ed to (hem,
whxh in fafi\ involved a dereliction of
the principles of the declaration of
independence. He said he had not been
a warm advocate for the bill as it went
from this House ; he had thought it a
recession from the high ground hereto,
fore taken ; but, as returned, it appeared
to him to be bottomed on the dofilrine of
non-resiy.ance and absolute dependence.
Mr L- took a view of th.e various injurious
measures and decrees of the belligerents
and of the measures adopted by the U.
I States in consequence. Had the state
of things altered since these measures
| were adopted ? Rid there been the least
{ relaxation ? He quoted the proceedings
j of the Senate and House of RepresSna.
I lives twelve months a^o When, by a ma
jority of one hundred and t\ven y one to
two, this House had resolved “ that the
United States cannot, without a sacrifice
of their rights, honor and independence,
submit to the late edifils of Great Britain
and France.** And now it was proposed
to sbbmit to those very edi&s—yes, to go
■_i ^ i_^_i_• •_ r _
uiai ouuuiiaoiuu —iui | auioc lilat
time the nation had received additional
insults* Mr Love said he wished, howe.
! ver, more particularly to call the attention
of the House to the substantial question
of a dereliction of the spirit of our essen.
tial rights of properly and liberty. The
bill as sent from the Senate now merely
contained (hat resistance which the fe.
gislature thought proper to oppose to the
aggressions of British Reels or crurzer*
i entering our harbors and committing pre.
| meditated or wanton assualts and vioiati
ons; but contained no other resistance.
If the House were to acquiesce in the a.
menriments of the Senate, the bill would
be such a recognition of the assumed
rights of the belligerents as, by the law
of nations, could never hereafter be con.
troverted. He said it was a principle that
a weak nation; when an Irresistible force
was employed to aid the views of a great,
er, could submit without disgrace* But
was that the situation of the JU. States ?
Should it be left to posterity to say that
the present generation were unable
to support their lights, when they had a
million of men into whose hands muskets
and bayonets could be pul, and a solid ca
pita! which would produce five hundred
millions of ddtlars? Posteriy might blush
for the degradation of the present geno.
I ration if the bill passed, but could not
' urge in their excuse the plea of weakness.
The principles of the bill as it went to
the Senate were the last stage on this
side submission- if resistance had never
been attempted, the omission would not
have displayed so muck weakness as it
would now to withdraw it. What
would be the consequence of now rece
ding from resistance i According to their
former declarations, Mr I.ove said, by
such conduct the House would ackuow.
ledge their aubmission. Tlit.e were nu«
merous instances recorded in history,
which tested the position that non.resis*
tance sanctioned usurpation. What was
the fad in relation to the rule of '56 l. It
was then for the Rrsttime that G. Britain
had advanced the principle known by that
name—and what, (said Mr L.) do the
writeis of the present day, what does the
| author of W .r in Disguise tell you f
I Why, that neutral powers had asicnted
to thu principle by submitting to its ap
plication. And, if we now adopt the a.
mead mints of the Senate, posterity will
be told that we recognized and sancti
oned the principle, b:cause we submitted
to it in ptecltctt.
Mr L next spoke of the prices of pro
duce, of which so much was said. It of the
improbability of their being better un.il
tranquility should be in some measure re*
stored in ihe European world. Could the
U. S.a'its remove ail restriction* on trade,
could they restore prace in Europe, then
' \
*nl no’, till Ihen miglit <Mr cvteenat
e’joy the benefit of a commerce.' I!
the news this day received were corrc6t
r»i«at Britain must follow the example of
France in rescinding her decrees or must
abide the consequences of a war with us
If she does no wan*, war with us, he said
she would prompdy recede, and then
something like a fair price for produce
might be expected. But it «»» useless
to exp.-61 a fair price whilst England wa..
the only na'ton \vi;h whom we could trade
and we were excluded front intercourse
with ail the continent, .
Before he was called upon to repeal
thi non intercourse, Mr. L. said he wish
ed to see some m^t^ure proposed as a
substitute which should sustain the honor
of the nation. If any gentleman would
bring forward 4 p^hposition which should
include that principle of resistance to the
decrees of the belligerents which duty to
God and their country enjoined on them,
he would vote for it. Let us not, said he,
be deluded by the idea, that after we pass
this bill and (bus prostrate the honor *of
the nation, we may be pet mitt d in ano -
ther way to express our onposition to the
injurious dec-ees. N o, sir, let this bill
once be rivetted on us—we may wash*
'our strength in midnight 'sessions, bu*
you never wo^Jd again bp able to place
the countrjr in the honorable a thud-.- in
which it now stands. I feel an abhor.ence
for the measure in the point ot view in
which it strikes my mind. Ii I knew
that th’s amendment had been advised’
by a member of ibe administration, I,
should not hes*tate to give my vote Tor his
immediate impeach nent, and I would
charge htoi with treason against the li
berties and independence of his country ;
but the motives whidh produced it must
be honorable* Others may have despair,
of su-tce tsful resistance. ‘But, rr, Tfet ifa
follow the example of the father of his
coun'ry. When sbrroundcd by the bat.,
talbns of the enemy and wa chel by the
the to-ies did he despair of success? He
did not. Let us then al<o advance and no
retrogade as proposed by the bill
Mr Bibb remarkelthit the gentleman
I from New York.. (Mr Mumfovd) who, now
the embargo was gone, was singing ho.
sannas to its praise, was the first in the
House who suggested the to’al or partial
repeal of that measure. The obj-6l of
Mr Bibb’s rising at tlit3 time was to de
cla-e that he should vote against tha a
mendments of the Senate, contrary to an
intimation before given to the House,
b(jcaure he understood that the construdli.
on given to th; remaining sections w.»3,
that they repealed all penalties incurred
under the embargo laws*
Mr Gardenier declared himself much
pleased with the amendments of the Sen
| ate, and hoped th=ty would be concurred
in. He ridicul-d t bs idea of their invol.
viug submission ; for he stidj that the bill
wi a icoisia ibC*
Hitherto the U H. had done those things
which the belligerents had ordered them
to do, and left undone those things
which they had ordered the (ft not to
do. He wished o see the system
changed. There could be no rational ob.
je&ion to the amendmen s. Gentlemen
might have a quesiio . of consistency to
settle with them selves, if they voted lor
them ; but he begged of them notto surren
der the vital interes’s of the country to the
preservation of their repu'a sou for consis
tency consistency in evdcould produce
no benefit Nothing but filly and obsti
nacy, he said, could urge to a perseverance.
Gentlemen must know the system could'
produce no good. Let them then do a
noble aSt and recede at once; it will be
a sacrifice off their ovrn consistency to the
safety of the country It wa3 acknowl
edged on all hands that the non.inter
course ought to be repealed. Mr G. then
suggested the propriety of passing the
bill as amended., and reserving the par
stricken out for a separate bill. Vessels
were waiting at a great expence for (he
passage of the bill to goto sea, yet doubt
ful of the course which would be pursued..
Injury must result from this uncertain
wavering policy. The citizens of this
country, Mr G. said, had more reason to
be afraid of the restrictions of their own
government than of the a6l* of the belli
gerents. He wished an assurance to be
given, by putting an end to these restric
tions, that commerce sholud no longer
suffer interruption. l
Mr Ross was opposed to the bill as it
went from this House, for he tho’t he saw
in it not not only passive but afittve sub
mission. He thought he had seen in i
an agreement on the part of the U.iited
Hates that the orders in council sh uld
be adopted as part of the laws regulating
the commerce of the U, S. Much as he
wished the non.intercourse repealed, he
said he had raiher it sh >uld expire by its
own limitation at the end of the session |
than have it coupled with any injurious
restrictions. He therefore moved to post*?
pone the further consideration of the a.
inendments to the bill indefinitely.
The motion was negatived by Yeas k
Nays, as follow
YP.AS —Messrs. W. Alston, Bacon,
Bard, J. Brown,Calhoun,Champion, Clay,
Clopton, Crawford, Desha, Eppes, Find,
ley, Fisk, Gannett, Gardner, Ghoison,
Holland, Howard, Hufty, Johnson, Love,
Lyon, Mumford, Newbold, Nichobon,
John Porter, P. B. Porter, Rhea, (Ten.)
Rcharri*, (toot, Ross, Hammons, Jieybert,
Shaw, J. Smith, Stanford, Thomson, Tur
ner, and Weakley—39. *
NAYS.—Messrs. L. J. Alston, Bis^ett,
Bibb, Blaisdctl, Boyd, R. Brown, J. C.
Chamberlain, W. Chamberlin, Cobb,
Cochran, Co k, Cox, Crist, Cutu, Dana,
T/yvEnxftt,Franklin, GarH icier, Garland,.
Goodwyn, Gold, G ay, Hale, Haven,.,
Heis er, Hubbard, R. Jackson, Jenkins,,
Janes, Kennedy, Key, Knicksibacker,,
Lewis, Livermore, Livingston, Lyle, Ma
con, Marion, Matthews, Nl‘Bryde« M'fcee,,
Vf Kim, Miller, Milnor, Montgomery, N*. « ..
R. Moore, T. Moore, Morrow, Mosely,,
Newton, Pearson, Pickman, Pitkin, Pbttcr,,
Quincy, Rea, (Pen.) Roane, Sage, Scare/,’
Smelt, Stnilie, G Smith. S. Stnitfn Southw
ard, Standley, Stephenson, Spurges,.
S-voope, Taggart; Taylor, Tracy, Trowp*.
Van Dyke, Van Horn, Van Rensselaer*
Wheaton, Whitehill,. Whitman, Wilson*
8c Witherspoon—81* .
Mr Bacon observed that there was some,
ambiguity in the bill as to the repeal of
the penalties inctrred but not yet reco
vered under the embargo laws. It couldi
not be the intention of any one that at
doubt should exist on the subjedl. Rr.
was sufficient to authorise an amendment
that professional men. of respe£lable tali*
ents differed in the constru£lion> of thd
terms of the bill. He therefore, moved to>
add a new sedlion to this effcdl that J,>
all penalties incurred under the severall
embargo laws n^oy be recovered and dis
tributed in like manner as if said afils had!
continued in full force and virtue/*
Messrs, Dana, Livermore, Quincy, Key*
and Gold opposed the amendment, <,|| aj_.
pearing to dtlfs,- from Mr. Bacon as to
the construction of the law.
The amendment was, however, agreed!
to. Ayes 78..
_ /
CONVOV PRINCIPLE.
Mr Eppes said it would h- reco1le£ledl
that on a former occasion he had expres
sed a willingness to abandon the restric*.
ive system for the purpose of proi«^lHg
our property by an efficient force. Not
withstanding) art that has been said about:
restriclive measures, said Mr E. it is.
a 'fafil that they have had considerable ef
fect ; that they ameliorated the situation*
of the U. S. and that we stand on a high
er, a far more exalted' ground than we
should have done had they never been a
dopted. What was the si nation in which
:he United Sta es were placed at the time;
the embargo was la-d ? At that time by
the decrees of the b lligerents our whole
c'lmmerce was prostrated; bv a single
b'ow om* exports had bean reduced fromi
•108 millions to 7 millions annually. Buf
nat tha*. alone. American produce was
subje&ed in the first place to^o to Great
B usin, and in the next puce to pay a ve
ry heavy transit daty. And, sir, although
gentlemen have said that the restrfSlive;
system p oduced n» effefll, what was :he;
fa6l ? In the year in which trade with*
Englahd was wholly interduSad, Great
B. i ain lost in her export* fourteen million
pounds sterling. And it is believed to be
a fafil that even at ihe present moment.
uuiwiiuaiamiing ins unprincipled conduct
of that nation, three-fiuri&s of her for_
d^o trade is still carried on by Ameri
ca vessels -and this may fc3 a reason
why the American merchants h^ve a (Toil
ed to view tvitit Jndsflference what a few
years ago would have been 'the greatest
boon th--y would ask. Whatd d tlie bill:
passed by this (louse propose? ifb give:
loom- merchants the exclusive carrying
of all the trade of the country, and why*
do they reject it ? Because they are more
interested in carrying British goods th‘an>
in carryi ig the produce of the r o vn coun.
try. They had rather cVry these fiur
»een millions sterling to add .o the Strrnglhi
of G. Britain than b: employed in the:
carriage of our own produce*
The decrees ofU. Britain have beem
varied since the embargo was laid, and their
pressure much lessened—but wait the
actual and practical operation of them tu%
they now stand i Tn • decrees of France
( consider as equally iniquitous, but tota.ly
ineftectudas to us as th-.y are as to Great.
Britain—and therefore I do not take »he n
into account. I speak of that system w rich
G Britain can and does enforce, and w iiciv
goes to the destruction of my interest as am
agricultural man. The principle of t.ie
November order is as completely aban*loa»
ed as if it had never been issued. Whit
was its principle ? To force all our co n.
merce into her ports and make it p»iy tri—.
bute. Wkat is its principle now ? That o£:
blockade, which gentlemen on the otaer
side of the House themselves oppos d in>
1793, which in the administration of Wash
ington was considered a (hiring and b»se
attack on the rights of the country. Of th* ^
tobacco which is made in the southern conn.,
try, 14,000 hogsheads ar« consumed in Eh*
gland, the remainder in Holland, German
oy, France, See. That part suitable for the
English market mu9t be of a peculiar qua
lity. All the second quality of tobacco., J
which is e&iied light and dry, finds a mi:',
ket only on the continent. What is the ef«.
feet of this circumstance on the planter ?
Why, at the present moment, the tebac:o> J
to suit the British market has sold at nine ,
and a half dollars per hundred weigit,.
whilst that of second try quality tn worthi
nothing, I he Maryland tobacco brings,
only four or five do.lars, owing to the blmL
kading system of G. Britain, which keep*,
from market 46,000 hogsheads of tojacox
annually, or compels it to fcike an unhauu.
ral course through G Britain or Mirou^hi
the Norther* ports. Cotton and flour, ds
E. said, were in nearly a similar situation.
He said he taw ia 4 submission to this pru^* j
ciple the ruin of the agricultural mtereitt
ot tlie U. S—nay, more; He saw the ram
of tlie mercantile interest also, and wonder
ed that the merchants themselves did ant
I nee it. What have we beard ot the
lily of Southern men to commerce ¥ a-ke.l
Mr K.—ti. Britain has only to except iron*
the operation ol her blockad-ng system Cov- i
ton, tobacco and hemp—the interest o? tne \
merchant might, out that of the planter
would not, be affected by submitmg to ft.
dur I have never acted on that principle:
,1 have always been taught that govei niuent