The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1808-01-04 00:00:00

National Intelligencer.
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. VIII.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. 1127.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM,
MONDAY, JANUARY 4, 1808.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
National Intelligencer.
EMBARGO.
The old story of French influence is again resuscitated, in the vain hope of enlisting popular odium against the embargo and the administration. This fiction has been so often propagated, and to so little purpose, that we could not have imagined that any rational being would have resorted to it on this occasion. For, if there be a measure of the strictest impartiality within the power of our government, the embargo is that measure. Being one intended too chiefly for our own security, even if it should have an unequal operation on the different powers of Europe, should we be under the less obligation to adopt it? Let one plain question be sincerely answered, and we shall be content. Supposing it merely probable that our whole trade is at this moment exposed to the most imminent peril, was there any other measure of equal safety that could have been adopted? If there was not, could any one expect us to omit protecting ourselves because in so doing we might injure others?
If an injury is inflicted on others it is not our fault; and if that injury operates unequally, the inequality arises from circumstances over which we have no control. For, is it owing to us that Britain is the mistress of the ocean, and that her enemies have few ships upon it? Is it owing to us that her power is there as irresistible as that of France on the continent? Did we, by any conduct of ours, give rise to the new principles interpolated by Britain into the laws of nations, or to the retaliations of her enemy, which, unfortunately, affect us in this instance more even than her? No. These are things in the existence of which we had no agency, and over the duration of which we have no direct control.
But we are, by no means, satisfied that the embargo will operate so unequally as some profess to think, or, perhaps, giving way to their fears, really do think. Admit that England will greatly suffer, will not the French and Spanish colonies, of whose productions we are the great carriers, suffer also? England carries on nearly the whole of her trade; consequently our withdrawing from the ocean will have on this trade but an incidental effect; while it will have on the trade between France and Spain and their colonies a direct and vast effect.
We repeat then that the embargo is a measure of strict impartiality, neither justly imputable in motive or effect to any foreign influence.
In addition to this reasoning, which we humbly presume conclusive, there are two extrinsic considerations, both of great weight.
The embargo is the measure proposed by the executive; by Thomas Jefferson. Has this man ever abused the confidence of his fellow-citizens? Has he ever crouched to foreign influence? Has he ever recommended a national measure, which has not promoted the public interest? It is true, that he has been charged ten thousand times, and in language almost beneath contempt, with yielding to French influence; but we demand the proof. It has not; it cannot be adduced. Events have invariably belied the prophetic spirit which has predicted a storm from every passing cloud. In such a crisis then as this, we say Thomas Jefferson deserves the confidence of the nation. We rejoice that he possesses it; and we know that this confidence will, if possible, be augmented by the angry invective of his enemies. Let us not be misunderstood. We are not the friends of a blind confidence in any executive; but we do say that at a period like this, when the whole world is convulsed, when justice is unknown by those nations with whom we have intercourse; when we have every reason to dread an explosion peculiarly fatal to us; when, from the organization of the executive power, he alone knows the precise ground on which we stand, and that on which, in future negotiations, it is meant to place us; when this executive too has uniformly manifested a love of peace; under all these circumstances we hesitate not to aver that confidence is the best of virtues, and that it is such a virtue as a true republican will not blush to own.
The other consideration, to which we have adverted, is, that without the existence of equal danger, the embargo of 1794 was laid under the auspices of Gen. Washington, and by a federal Congress.
The circumstances which gave rise to that act were these. Great Britain, in violation of justice, issued orders to seize all vessels destined to France with provisions.
To obtain security or redress, various propositions were submitted in Congress. One of which was a non-importation from G. B. and another a sequestration of British debts. These were not adopted. An embargo was preferred.
The danger evidently was not then so imminent as it now is, as France still retained some share of the dominion of the seas. Yet the same measure was adopted, by a vote probably unanimous, as the yeas & nays do not appear to have been called, by a federal Congress, in which we perceive the names of Goodhue, Sedgwick, Tracy, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Ames and William Smith, and on the same day on which it was proposed.
And yet we heard nothing in those days of French influence; we heard nothing of precipitance , although the embargo was passed at the same sitting in which it originated, while, in the present instance, four days were consumed, and there was as much debate as there generally is in eight days of ordinary discussion, and although the enemies of the measure, as we are told, were almost exclusively indulged with the floor.
We further find by the journals of Congress, that the embargo was laid on the 25th of March, 1794; for thirty days; and was extended, on the 17th of the ensuing month, for thirty additional days. The merchants then appear to have acquiesced, not seeing in it then, as some individuals now see for them, their complete destruction. Indeed, they did not merely acquiesce in it as a measure of security, but we find the merchants of the respectable towns of Salem and Wilmington were so sensible of its wisdom that they memorialised Congress for its further continuance.
One word more. In 1794 an embargo did not produce a war. We hope in 1807 it will avert it. If in this, however, we shall be disappointed it will at least yield us the means of waging it to better effect.
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
[Proceedings of Thursday concluded.]
Mr. Thomas moved that the resolution moved by Mr. Randolph should lie on the table.
But a motion made to consider, was agreed to.
Mr. Randolph said as it appeared by the declaration of the gentleman from New Orleans, that he did possess information, and as the House had a right to it, he wished the Speaker or some other gentleman to inform him of the manner in which it might be obtained.
[No order was taken on this point.]
Mr. Taylor moved that the resolution be committed to a committee of the whole, not on to-day or to-morrow, but at a distant day, that time might be afforded for consideration.
After debate, Mr. Taylor withdrew his motion.
Mr. Gardenier moved that it be referred to a select committee with power to send for persons, papers, &c.
Mr. Marion moved to strike out that part of this motion giving power to a select committee to send for persons, papers, &c.
Mr. Nelson made a motion to adjourn, which was negatived.
Mr. Smilie moved to postpone further proceedings on this subject till Monday; on which motion the yeas and nays being called for by Mr. Randolph, were 68 to 40.
On the foregoing motions a very lengthy & somewhat desultory debate ensued of about 5 hours. The debate turned on many incidental questions, amongst which, whether Congress had a constitutional right to request the President to cause the proposed enquiry to be made? To this it was answered that Congress had as much right to make this request as to request the President to lay before them public papers, either of which re-
quests he might refuse. It was also said, that in making this request, the House could not command more attention than was due to a respectable individual.
It was doubted whether a member could be called upon to give information in his seat, or at the bar of the House? In answer precedents were produced of cases in which members of the House had been interrogated at the bar.
It was also contended, that if delivered in his place, the communication would be liable to commentary or reply by any gentleman who might think proper to discuss it in the same manner as any other speech.
It was made a question whether this information could be more properly received by a committee of the whole, or a select committee, or by the House? It was said on this that it had heretofore been the course of procedure to empower chairmen of committees in such cases to administer oaths; that in the House a member could be compelled to give information if the House thought fit, but in committee of the whole he could not be compelled; that if information or evidence were to be received in the House, it would perplex their proceedings, by loading the table and journals with interrogatories, &c.
It was questioned whether it were proper to decide it now, to refer it, or to postpone it? On these points there appeared to be a great diversity of opinion, some thinking that the evidence which they had received was sufficient to induce them to pass the resolution without further consideration, being a mere request to the President to enquire; others wished further time and more evidence previous to giving their vote on the subject, considering it of great importance; others were in favour of a reference to a committee, to consider all the foregoing points as well as the propriety of the main resolution; some wished this committee to have power to send for persons and papers, to report to the House their opinion on the subject, together with evidence, believing that positive and satisfactory evidence should be produced before they adopted this resolution, and as it was impossible to understand precisely the evidence now produced from the mere reading of it; other gentlemen wished it referred to a committee without power to send for persons, papers, &c. as they conceived the House did not possess power to enforce their orders in such case, General Wilkinson being a military and not a civil officer, whom the President alone had power to remove.
None of these points were decided either directly or by implication.
In the course of this devious discussion, the succeeding observations on the main subject were made by different gentlemen.
Mr. W. Alston had heard nothing in the documents read to-day impeaching the character of Gen. Wilkinson more than what the newspapers throughout the Union had teemed with for two years, except indeed a letter from Mr. Power; and who was Mr. Power, or what credibility could be attached to anything emanating from him? Every person in the United States who could read knew his character. He was opposed to coercing evidence on considering a resolution proposing an enquiry, even if he were in favor of the enquiry.
Mr. Smilie thought the debate which had already taken place on a reference totally improper. He had heard sufficient evidence on this subject to convince him that such an enquiry was necessary; he did not think that there could be any further doubt on the subject. The House could not try Gen. Wilkinson, he must be tried by another tribunal. They owed it to the country and to Gen. Wilkinson himself to request an enquiry, and he hoped there would not be a dissentient voice on the question of agreement to the resolution. He could not give an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of Gen. Wilkinson, but he thought it absolutely necessary that an enquiry should be had.
Mr. Gardenier was satisfied of the impropriety of proceeding on the consideration of any question of importance too hastily, more especially in a case so materially affecting an officer of high rank in the United States. He wished to have time to consider fully before he could vote on a subject of as
much magnitude as this; they should not act from first impressions. If the subject were referred to a committee with power to send for persons, papers, &c. the testimony on the subject would come before them in a proper shape, and not with the inaccuracy which must always attend information given in this manner, but in a condensed form in which its force might be fully felt. He did not wish to be precipitated into an enquiry too soon; neither did he wish an enquiry to be made because it was due to Gen. Wilkinson. If this enquiry was couched by, and this motion intended as a favor to Gen. Wilkinson, he was astonished that it had not been brought forward before. There certainly had been ground enough shown for an enquiry into his conduct; but if Gen. W.'s conduct had so far evinced his purity as not to excite in the administration even a suspicion against his character, if no enquiry had been made on the charges which had resounded from every part of the union. Mr. G. did not wish now, merely for the sake of doing justice to that officer, to press an enquiry which the Executive had not thought proper to make. Neither did he wish rashly to decide on this question, because in doing this they would add the weight of their accusation to the cries of the whole nation; the united force of which no individual could repel.
Mr. Chandler said this was a subject which had been long before the nation, and with which they were all acquainted; if that officer were innocent it was due to himself and his friends, that an enquiry should be made; if he were guilty it was due to the United States. The evidence produced was sufficient on which to ground an enquiry, and he was ready to decide without further time.
Mr. Nicholas had no doubt but an enquiry ought to be made; after what had been heard, if General Wilkinson were the lowest officer of the United States, he should be of opinion that an enquiry ought to be made, but he doubted whether this was a question on which they were now prepared to decide. For this reason he had seconded the motion for referring the resolution to a select committee who could consider whether this subject properly came under cognizance of the House; he considered the House as a mere legislative body except in the single case of impeachment. He was not prepared to say what was proper to be done with this resolution, but his first impression was against acting on it. It would open doors for receiving complaints of the misconduct of any officer; he did not think this power was lodged in the House, and he had no wish to assume powers which did not pertain to them. As to the question whether there should be an enquiry or not, no man could doubt. An enquiry must be made. Would it be said that an officer of this importance should be suffered to be retained by a man who had received a pension from a foreign government? He thought it could not, and therefore he wished an enquiry to be made into the truth of this charge.
Mr. Burwell was decidedly opposed to reference to any committee whatever. It seemed to be the universal opinion that an enquiry ought to be had on the conduct of the commander in chief of the army of the United States; and it was highly important that the subject should be acted on speedily. If the nation was (as appeared probable) to be involved in war, it was necessary that the commander in chief should possess the confidence of the army, the people, and the government.
Mr. Johnston said the good people of Kentucky were interested in this subject. Many reports to the prejudice of Gen. Wilkinson existed there; nothing certain had appeared against him, but the people entertained doubts on the subject, there were circumstances which they wished to be investigated; if nothing could be found against him, the sooner his innocence was known the better. Knowing this he should not hesitate to give his vote in such a manner as to dispose of the subject most speedily. The investigation was due to the people, and to the man himself.
Mr. Marion said if ever there had been a time since the year 1783, in which it was particularly necessary that those persons in office should have the confidence of the government and
of the people, that time had arrived. Could it be expected after hearing the information which had been produced that the people would have confidence in General Wilkinson? It was as important that the commander in chief should be free from suspicion as that the President or House of Representatives should be unsuspected. The commander in chief during the American revolution was irreproachable; calumny never assailed him, and he of course enjoyed the full confidence of the people. The evidence which had been this day read, they were told had neither been before the grand jury or the court at Richmond, and there was certainly sufficient on which to ground an enquiry.
Mr. Taylor observed, that he accorded with those gentlemen who had asserted, that in this important crisis it was of the highest importance, that the character of the commander in chief of the armies should stand fair and unimpeached; that on the first & hasty view he had taken of the subject, it had appeared a sufficient motive for making the request to the President, as expressed in the resolution; but from the ideas expressed from different parts of the H. U. he had been led to consider the proposed measure in a new and different point of view. The gentleman from Virginia had given the House certain information, and on that information had founded his resolution. It was true that this resolution contained nothing which would impeach any other person than the General; but gentlemen had called on the delegate from Orleans for information corroborating the statement of facts he had given; and the delegate had stated that he had at divers times given information to the Executive, and at other times endeavored to give it to the Executive, but that department had turned a deaf ear to his communications or the subject. The resolution then after this assertion, that the executive had turned a deaf ear to the subject, assumed a new character—it amounted to this; that as you have not heretofore done your duty, we the representatives of the people now request you to do it. Was the House prepared thus to publish to the nation their want of confidence in the Executive, upon the ex parte testimony which is now before them? Were they prepared now to interfere thus with a department of the government, which in this instance they had not constitutionally a right to control—and to say, as that department had not done its duty, they would assume to themselves the important charge of taking care that the republic shall suffer no injury? He hoped not. He hoped that neither the important crisis alluded to by gentlemen, nor the necessity of the case itself, or their sense of justice towards the gentleman accused, could draw them into such a commitment of themselves, in opposition too, to the declared sentiments of a great majority of the nation, who had recently declared that this Executive had deserved well of its country.
Gen. W. might be guilty or he might be innocent. Mr. T. had his own opinions, perhaps prejudices on this subject. When the constitution or the mandate of a tribunal which had competent authority to compel him, should demand of him a publication of those opinions, he should give them; but like the Delegate from Orleans, he would not volunteer the affirmative vote of this House, for if such vote should be taken, it would be volunteering; he should not vote with them; he believed that the Department of State was by the constitution free of their control, in respect to the proposed measure. They might, and he hoped would send the papers or documents, in the hands of the mover, to the executive, without any resolution on the subject. When they had given the information, they had fulfilled their duty. But, as respected the Gen. himself, would he stand the same chance of acquittal by a court of enquiry or court martial, or by executive scrutiny, when the prize and weight of an accusation from this House was set against him? He was for giving this officer fair play and the advantages of a fair and impartial trial.
Mr. Randolph said the gentleman last up was mistaken in supposing that the evidence which he had laid before the House had been offered to the President of the U. S. and rejected.

Nor was this at all a question of confidence or otherwise in the Executive, and he was astonished that any gentleman should attempt to convert it into a question of that sort. It was no such question. A member in his place had offered to the House a copy of an order of a Spanish governor (or rather a translation of which the original could be produced) to pay 9640 dollars to general James Wilkinson; he had also offered a copy of a letter, certified by the governor of Natchez, and immediately after governor of Louisiana, which, unless possibly forged, established beyond a doubt the fact of the guilt of this commandant, not under the articles of war, for it had been this day suggested to Mr. R., as an officer was not amenable to military law for an offence committed so long ago—nor did he say under the common law or statute law—but that sort of offence which incapacitated that officer from the situation which he now held, and from which the President of the U. S. alone was competent to remove him. What did they ask the President of the U. S. to do by passing this resolution? To enquire: they left the mode of conducting that enquiry to his discretion. It was to enquire merely, and surely it was a strange doctrine to say that asking the President to enquire respecting the conduct of persons in high office under him, was an expression of diffidence in the Executive. Far from it: if any thing it would shew a confidence in the executive, expressing a conviction that he would institute an enquiry, and upon the result of that enquiry do what was proper to be done. And what had this to do with diffidence in the executive? They would make a question of adjournment before long a question of confidence; or on every question which came before the House would sound this tocsin, this whoop of want of confidence. The gentleman from New Orleans did not say that he had given evidence to the President of the U. S. and that the President had rejected it, if he understood him aright; he thought the gentleman said, that filling as he did an office of trust under the government of the U. S. he had given that department of government with which he corresponded to understand that he possessed information of an important kind touching this character, and that he had received no intimation from that department of a wish to receive it, and had therefore been discouraged from communicating the information which he possessed. The knowledge which that gentleman possessed related to information which the House had not yet heard, and not to that which Mr. R. now held in his hand; to that information which he hoped the House would use its authority (but respectfully) to compel that gentleman to give. If the House acted on this subject at this time, could it be said that they acted from information of the gentleman from New Orleans who had given none? If overtures to give information had been neglected, what had that to do with the information which Mr. R. had in his place laid before the House? The question was extremely simple. Had they power (to which he was astonished to hear an objection) to make this request? If they had, had they seen sufficient ground on which the prayer of the request should be granted? If they had the right to make the request and he had laid before the House substantial ground for an enquiry, there was an end to all other questions on the subject. In the prosecution of the present business it would perhaps be found peculiarly difficult to adduce proof—and why? Because in taking possession of New Orleans, the commissioners—and who were they? He wished the House to reflect upon that—suffered the archives of the country to be ransacked; even papers relating to land titles were taken away; and it must be believed, and could not be doubted, that if one of those commissioners found in the archives of the former government, in the Spanish bureau, evidences of his own guilt, he would not be so far lost to a sense of his own safety, as not to destroy such evidences as far as in his power. Fortunately, enough had been preserved to establish that point beyond all possibility of doubt; and it remained for the House to say whether it constituted a sufficient ground for enquiry or not. Whatever might be the decision of the House, said Mr. R. I shall respectfully submit; but be the decision what it may, I shall conceive a great object which I had in view in bringing this subject forward, to be completely answered. Mr. CLARK said that the information which he had heretofore attempted to convey, did not particularly relate to the subject now before the House. He then knew that various attempts had been made by the Spanish government to detach the Western country from the Union; he
had thought it incumbent on him, holding a commission under the United States, to state these facts to the Executive. When first he had the honor of being presented to the Executive, he had twice attempted to state these facts to him who either did not or would not understand him, and changed the subject; at this he naturally felt hurt, and had not renewed personal communication on the subject. Some time subsequent to this, when the French were preparing to take possession of Louisiana, believing that they would discover those who were before attached to foreign government and secure them in their interests, he had thought it a duty incumbent on him to write to the Secretary of State as the constitutional organ of communication, & had stated his grounds of suspicion. He had twice attempted to make this known, and had officially written to learn whether he was understood. Of these letters no notice had been taken. He had then stated that the proofs in his possession might not be sufficient for conviction, but if time were allowed proof sufficient might be procured.
Mr. THOMAS asked at what time these communications had been made?
Mr. CLARK. To the President of the U. S. in 1802; to the Secretary of State in 1803.
Mr. SLOAN said, that although he could not consistently with the rules of order impeach the motives of the member who brought forward this resolution, he could question the propriety of passing it; the papers now adduced in evidence in his opinion amounted to no more than what had long before appeared in newspapers. He said that gen. W. had been formerly charged with mal-conduct before this House; Mr. S. said at that time he had declared that from what appeared, he considered general Wilkinson as deserving well of his country; that he had not discovered any cause to change his opinion; but contrarily considered the various charges and insinuations as arising from malice or envy against him for having acted as the saviour of his country. From what the gentleman from Virginia had last said, it appeared that this resolution was to rest on the question whether there were sufficient evidence of guilt in that officer before the House to require an enquiry to be made. Would not the House by passing this resolution, say that this was the case, and would it not be throwing the whole weight of the House of Representatives of the United States against him? It undoubtedly would. As yet nothing had appeared to induce Mr. S. to change his opinion, and till there was, he should oppose every proposition of this kind.
FRIDAY, JAN. 1, 1808. Mr. Morrow (Va.) obtained leave of absence for ten days from Monday next.
The House took up for consideration the bill supplementary to the embargo law; Mr. Nelson's motion for striking out the provision exempting fishing vessels in the first section being yet under consideration. After some debate, in which Messrs. Lyon, Rhea (Ten.) Macon, and Blackledge, supported the motion, and Messrs. Crownsfield, Southard, Newton, Sloan, Dana, and Holland opposed it—the question on the motion was taken by yeas & nays—yeas 40—nays 28.
Several verbal amendments were made to the bill. Mr. Rhea (T.) moved that the House adjourn.
Mr. Randolph called for the yeas and nays on the question.
Mr. Rhea withdrew his motion. After some further conversation on the details of the bill, it was discovered that there was not a quorum present, on which the House adjourned.
SATURDAY, JAN. 2.
Mr. M. Clay from the committee to whom the subject was referred, presented a bill to amend the several acts more effectually to provide for the national defence by organizing the militia of the United States; which was twice read and referred to a committee of the whole on Wednesday next.
The House took up the bill to amend the law laying an embargo.
The motion for amendment under consideration when the House yesterday adjourned being withdrawn.
The bill was ordered to a third reading on this day, and was afterwards passed, 73 to 16.
On motion of Mr. Findley the House went into committee of the whole on the report of the committee of elections on the contested election of John Culpeper, which declares his seat to be vacated on the sole ground that some of the inspectors of election were not sworn as required by the state law. After some debate, (in the
course of which a motion to postpone was negatived 50 to 27) the committee of the whole concurred in the report without a division, and reported it to the House.
The House immediately concurred in the report without a division. On motion of Mr. Blount, a resolution, was passed, 65 to 14, directing the Speaker to inform the governor of North Carolina of this decision, in order that he may issue a writ for a new election. The minority in this vote wished to enquire whether the person contesting (Duncan McFarland) was entitled to the vacated seat of Mr. Culpeper.
SENATE.
Mr. ADAMS—from the Committee appointed to enquire whether it be compatible with the honor and privileges of this House that John Smith, a senator from the state of Ohio, against whom bills of indictment were found at the circuit court of Virginia, held at Richmond, in August last, for treason and misdemeanor, shall be permitted any longer to have a seat therein, and to enquire into all the facts regarding the conduct of Mr. Smith as an alleged associate of Aaron Burr, and report the same to the Senate—submitted the following
REPORT:
Your Committee are of opinion that the conspiracy of Aaron Burr and his associates against the peace, union, and liberties of these states, is of such a character, and that its existence is established by such a mass of concurring and mutually corroborative testimony, that it is incompatible not only with the honor and privileges of this House, but with the deepest interests of this nation, that any person engaged in it should be permitted to hold a seat in the Senate of the United States.
Whether the facts, of which the committee submit herewith such evidence, as under the order of the Senate they have been able to collect, are sufficient to substantiate the participation of Mr. Smith in that conspiracy, or not, will remain for the Senate to decide.
The committee submit also to the consideration of the Senate the correspondence between Mr. Smith and them through their chairman in the course of their meetings. The committee have never conceived themselves invested with authority to try Mr. Smith. Their charge was to report an opinion relating to the honor and privileges of the Senate, and the facts relating to the conduct of Mr. Smith. Their opinion indeed cannot be expressed in relation to the privileges of the Senate, without relating at the same time to Mr. Smith's right of holding a seat in this body; but in that respect the authority of the committee extends only to proposal, and not to decision—But as he manifested a great solicitude to be heard before them, they obtained permission from the Senate to admit his attendance, communicated to him the evidence in their possession, by which he was inculpated—furnished him in writing with the questions arising from it, which appeared to them material, and received from him the information and explanations herewith submitted as part of the facts reported. But Mr. Smith has claimed as a right to be heard in his defence by counsel, to have compulsory process for witnesses, and to be confronted with his accusers, as if the committee had been a circuit court of the U. States; but it is before the Senate itself that your committee conceived it just and proper that Mr. Smith's defence of himself should be heard; nor have they conceived themselves bound in this enquiry by any other rules than those of natural justice and equity due to a Brother Senator on the one part, and to their country on the other.
Mr. Smith represents himself on this enquiry as solitary, friendless and unskilled, contending for rights which he intimates are denied him, and the defender of senatorial privileges, which he seems apprehensive will be refused him by Senators, liable so long as they hold their offices to have his case made their own. The committee are not unaware that in the vicissitudes of human events, no member of this body can be sure that his conduct will never be made a subject of enquiry and decision before the assembly to which he belongs. They are aware that in the course of proceeding, which the Senate may now sanction, its members are marking out a precedent which may hereafter apply to themselves—they are sensible that the principles upon which they have acted, ought to have the same operation upon their own claims to privileges as upon those of Mr. Smith, the same relation to the rights of their constituents, which they have to those of the legislature which he represents. They have deemed it their duty to advance in the progress of their enquiry with peculiar care and deliberation. They have dealt out to Mr. Smith that measure which under the supposition of similar circumstances they would be content to find imparted to themselves, and they have no hesitation in declaring, that under such imputations, colored by such evidence, they should hold it a sacred obligation to themselves, to their fellow-senators, and to their country, to meet them by direct, unconditional acknowledgment or denial, without seeking a refuge from the broad face of day, in the labyrinth of technical forms.
In examining the question whether these forms of judicial proceedings, or the rules of judicial evidence, can or ought to be applied to the exercise of that censorial authority which the Se-
nate of the U. S. possesses over the conduct of its members, let us assume, as the test of their application either the dictates of unuttered reason, the letter and spirit of the constitution, or precedents, domestic or foreign, and your committee believe that the result will be the same—That the power of expelling a member must in its nature be discretionary, and in its exercise always more summary than the tardy process of judicial tribunals.
The power of expelling a member for misconduct results on the principles of common sense, from the interest of the nation, that the high trust of legislation should be invested in pure hands. Where the trust is elective it is not to be presumed that the constituent body will commit the deposit to the keeping of worthless characters. But when a man, whom his fellow-citizens have honored with their confidence, on the pledge of a spotless reputation, has degraded himself by the commission of infamous crimes, which become suddenly and unexpectedly revealed to the world, defective indeed would be that institution which should be impotent to discard from its bosom the contagion of such a member; which should have no remedy of amputation to apply until the poison had reached the heart.
The question upon the trial of a criminal cause, before the courts of common law, is not between guilt and innocence, but between guilt and the possibility of innocence. If a doubt can possibly be raised either by the ingenuity of the party or of his counsel or by the operation of general rules in their unforeseen application to particular cases, that doubt must be decisive for acquittal, and the verdict of not guilty, perhaps in nine cases out of ten, means no more than that the guilt of the party has not been demonstrated in the precise specific and narrow forms prescribed by law. The humane spirit of the laws multiplies the barriers for the protection of innocence, and freely admits that these barriers may be abused for the shelter of guilt. It avows a strong partiality favorable to the person upon trial, and acknowledges the preference that ten guilty should escape rather than that one innocent should suffer. The interest of the public that a particular crime should be punished is but as one to ten, compared with the interest of the party that innocence should be spared. Acquittal only restores the party to the common rights of every other citizen—it restores him to no public trust—it invests him with no public confidence—it substitutes the sentence of mercy for the doom of justice, and to the eyes of impartial reason, in the great majority of cases, must be considered rather as a pardon than a justification.
But when a member of a legislative body lies under the imputation of aggravated offences, and the determination upon his cause can operate only to remove him from a station of extensive powers, and important trust, this disproportion, between the interest of the public and the interest of the individual, disappears; if any disproportion exists it is of an opposite kind. It is not better that ten traitors should be members of this Senate, than that one innocent man should suffer expulsion. In either case, no doubt, the evil would be great. But in the former it would strike at the vitals of the nation—in the latter it might, though deeply to be lamented, only be the calamity of an individual.
By the letter of the constitution, the power of expelling a member is given to each of the two Houses of Congress, without any limitation other than that which requires a concurrence of two thirds of the votes to give it effect. The spirit of the constitution is perhaps in no respect more remarkable, than in the solicitude which it has manifested, to secure the purity of the legislature, by that of the elements of its composition. A qualification of age is made necessary for the members to ensure the maturity of their judgment. A qualification of long citizenship to ensure a community of interests and affections between them and their country. A qualification of residence to provide a sympathy between every member and the portion of the union from which he is delegated. And to guard, as far as regulation can guard against every bias of personal interest, and every hazard of interfering duties, it has made every member of Congress ineligible to office which he contributed to create, and every officer of the union incapable of holding a seat in Congress. Yet in the midst of all this anxious providence of legislative virtue, it has not authorised the constituent body to recall in any case its representative. It has not subjected him to removal by impeachment—and when the darling of the people's choice has become their deadliest foe, can it enter the imagination of a reasonable man, that the sanctuary of their legislation must remain polluted with his presence, until a court of common law, with its pace of snail can ascertain, whether his crime was committed on the right or on the left bank of a river—whether a puncture of difference can be found between the words of the charge and the words of the proof—whether the witnesses of his guilt should or should not be heard by his jury—and whether he was punishable, because present at an overt act, or intangible to public justice, because he only contrived and prepared it. Is it conceivable that a traitor to that country, which has loaded him with favors, guilty to the common understanding of all mankind, should be suffered to return unquestioned to that post of honor and confidence, where in the zenith of his good fame, he had been placed by the esteem of his countrymen, and in defiance of their wishes, in mockery of their fears, surround-
ed by the public indignation, but inaccessible to its bolt, pursue the purposes of treason in the heart of the national councils? Must the assembled rulers of the land listen with calmness and indifference, session after session, to the voice of notorious infamy, until the sluggish step of municipal justice can overtake his enormities? Must they tamely see the lives and fortunes of millions, the safety of present and future ages, depending upon his vote, recorded with theirs, merely because the abused benignity of general maxims, may have remitted to him the forfeiture of his life?
Such in very supposable cases would be the unavoidable consequences of a principle which should offer the crutches of judicial tribunals, as an apology for crippling the Congressional power of expulsion. Far different in the opinion of your committee, is the spirit of our constitution. They believe that the very purpose for which this power was given, was to preserve the legislature from the first approaches of infection. That it was made discretionary because it could not exist under the procrastination of general rules—That its process must be summary because it would be rendered nugatory by delay.
Passing from the constitutional view of the subject, to that which is afforded by the authority of precedent, your committee find that since the establishment of our present national legislature there has been but one example of expulsion from the Senate—In that case, the member implicated was called upon in the first instance, to answer whether he was the author of a letter, the copy of which only was produced, and the writing of which was the cause of his expulsion. He was afterwards requested to declare whether he was the author of the letter itself, and declining in both cases to answer, the fact of his having written it was established by a comparison of his hand writing, and by the belief of persons who had seen him write, upon inspection of the letter. In all these points the committee perceive the admission of a species of evidence, which in courts of criminal jurisdiction would be excluded—and in the resolution of expulsion the Senate declared the person inculpated guilty of a high misdemeanor, although no presentment or indictment had been found against him, and no prosecution at law was ever commenced upon the case.
This event occurred in July 1797. About fifteen months before that time, upon an application from the legislature of Kentucky, requesting an investigation by the Senate, of a charge against one of the members from that state, of perjury, which had been made in certain newspaper publications, but for which no prosecution had been commenced, the Senate did adopt by a majority of 16 votes to 8, the report of a committee, purporting that the Senate had no jurisdiction to try the charge, and that the memorial of the Kentucky legislature should be dismissed. There were indeed very sufficient reasons of a different kind assigned in the same report, for not pursuing the investigation in that particular case any further, and your committee believe, that in the reasoning of that report, some principles were assumed and some inferences drawn, which were altogether unnecessary for the determination of that case, which were adopted without a full consideration of all their consequences, and the inaccuracy of which was clearly proved by the departure from them in the instance which was so soon afterwards to take place. It was the first time that a question of expulsion had ever been agitated in Congress since the adoption of the constitution. And the subject being thus entirely new, was considered perhaps too much with reference to the particular circumstances of the moment, and not enough upon the numerous contingencies to which the general question might apply. Your committee state this opinion with some confidence, because, of the sixteen Senators who in March, 1796, voted for the report, dismissing the memorial of the Kentucky legislature, eleven, on the subsequent occasion in July 1797, voted also for that report, which concluded with a resolution for the expulsion of Mr. Blount. The other five were no longer present in the Senate—yet if the principles advanced in the first report, had been assumed as the ground of proceeding at the latter period, the Senate would have been as impotent of jurisdiction upon the offence of Mr. Blount, as they had supposed themselves upon the allegation against Mr. Marshall.
Those parts of the fifth and sixth articles mandatory to the constitution, upon which the report in the case of Mr. Marshall appears to rely for taking away the jurisdiction of the Senate, your committee suppose can only be understood as referring to prosecutions at law. To suppose that they were intended as restrictions upon powers expressly granted by the constitution to the legislature or either of its branches, would in a manner annihilate the power of impeachment, as well as that of

expulsion. It would lead to the absurd conclusion that the authority given for the purpose of removing iniquity from the seats of power, should be denied its exercise, in precisely those cases, which most loudly call for its energies. It would present the singular spectacle of a legislature vested with powers of expelling its members, of impeaching, removing and disqualifying public officers, for trivial transgressions beneath the cognizance of the law, yet forbidden to exert them against capital or infamous crimes.
Those two articles were in substance borrowed from similar regulations contained in that justly celebrated statute, which for so many ages has been distinguished by the name of the great Charter of England. Yet in that country, where they are recognized as the most solid foundations of the liberties of the nation, they have never been considered as interfering with the power of expelling a member, exercised at all times by the house of commons; a power which there however rests only upon parliamentary usage, and has never been bestowed as in the constitution of the United States, by any act of supreme legislation. From a number of precedents which have been consulted, it is found that the exercise of this authority there has always been discretionary, and its process always far other- wise compendious, than in the prosecutions before the judicial courts. So far indeed have they been from supposing a conviction at law necessary to precede a vote of expulsion, that in one instance a resolution to demand a prosecution appears immediately after the adoption of the resolution to expel. In numerous cases the member submits to examination, adduces evidence in his favor, and has evidence produced against him, with or without formal authentication; and the discretion of the house is not even restricted by the necessary concurrence of more than a bare majority of the votes.
The provision in our constitution which forbids the expulsion of a member, by an ordinary majority, and requires for this act of rigorous and painful duty, the assent of two thirds, your committee consider, as a wise and sufficient guard against the possible abuse of this legislative discretion. In times of heat and violent party spirit, the rights of the minority might not always be duly respected if a bare majority could expel their members, under no other control than that of their own discretion. The operation of this rule is of great efficacy both over the proceedings of the whole body, and over the conduct of every individual member. The times when the most violent struggles of contending parties occur, when the conflict of opposite passions is most prone to excess, are precisely the times when the numbers are most equally divided. When the majority amounts to two thirds, the security in its own strength is of itself a guard against extraordinary stretches of power. When the minority dwindles to the proportion of one third, its consciousness of weakness dissuades from any attempts, to encroach upon the rights of the majority which might provoke retaliation. But if expulsion were admissible only as a sequel to the issue of a legal prosecution, or upon the same principles and forms of testimony, which are established in the criminal courts, your committee can see no possible reason why it should be rendered still more imbecile by the requisition of two thirds to give it effect.
It is now the duty of your committee to apply the principles which they have here endeavored to settle and elucidate, to the particular case upon which the Senate have directed them to report. The bills of indictment found against Mr. Smith, at the late session of the circuit court of the United States, at Richmond (copies of which are herewith submitted) are precisely similar to those found against Aaron Burr. From the volume of printed evidence communicated by the President of the United States to Congress, relating to the trial of Aaron Burr, it appears that a great part of the testimony which was essential to his conviction upon the indictment for treason was withheld from the jury, upon an opinion of the court that Aaron Burr, not having been present at the overt act of treason alleged in the indictment, no testimony relative to his conduct or declarations elsewhere, and subsequent to the transactions on Blennerhassett's island, could be admitted—and in consequence of this suppression of evidence, the traverse jury found a verdict "that Aaron Burr was not proved to be guilty under that indictment by any evidence submitted to them." It was also an opinion of the court that none of the transactions of which evidence was given on the trials of Aaron Burr did amount to an overt act of levying war, and of course that they did not amount to treason. These decisions forming the basis of the issue upon the trials of Burr, anticipated the event which must have awaited the trials of the bills against Mr. Smith, who, from the circumstances of his case, must have been entitled to the benefit of their application;—they were the sole inducements upon which the counsel for the United States abandoned the prosecution against him.
Your committee are not disposed now to question the correctness of these decisions, on a case of treason, before a court of criminal jurisdiction. But whether the transactions proved against Aaron Burr did or did not amount in technical language to an overt act of levying war, your committee have not a scruple of doubt upon their minds, that but for the vigilance and energy of the government, and of faithful citizens under its directions, in arresting their progress, and in crushing his designs, they would in a very short lapse of time have terminated not only in war, but in war of the most horrible description—in war
at once foreign and domestic. As little hesitation have your committee in saying, that if the day light of evidence, combining one vast complicated intention, with overt acts innumerable, be not excluded from the mind by the curtain of artificial rules, the simplest understanding cannot but see, what the subtlest understanding cannot disguise—crimes before which ordinary treason whitewash into virtue—crimes, of which war is the mildest feature. The debauchment of our army—the plunder and devastation of our own and of foreign territories—the dissolution of our national Union, and the root of interminable civil war, were but the means of individual aggrandizement—the steps to projected usurpation. If the ingenuity of a demon were tasked to weave into one composition all the great moral and political evils which could be inflicted upon the people of these states, it could produce nothing more than a texture of war, dismemberment and despotism. Of these designs, a grand jury, composed of characters as respectable as this nation can boast, have upon the solemnity of their oaths, charged John Smith with being an accomplice. The reasons upon which the trial of this charge has not been submitted to the verdict of a jury, have been shown by your committee, and are proved by the letter from the attorney of the United States for the district of Virginia, herewith reported. And your committee are of opinion that the dereliction of the prosecution, on these grounds, cannot in the slightest degree remove the imputations which the accusation of the grand jury have brought to the door of Mr. Smith.
Your committee will not permit themselves to comment upon the testimony which they submit herewith to the Senate—nor upon the answers which Mr. Smith has given as sufficient for his justification. Desirous as the committee have been that this justification might be complete, anxiously as they wished for an opportunity of declaring their belief of his innocence, they can neither control nor disseminate the operation of the evidence upon their minds, and however painful to their feelings, they find themselves compelled by a sense of duty, paramount to every other consideration, to submit to the Senate, for their consideration, the following resolution.
Resolved, That John Smith, a Senator from the state of Ohio, by his participation in the conspiracy of Aaron Burr, against the peace, union, and liberties of the people of the United States, has been guilty of conduct incompatible with his duty and station as a Senator of the United States, and that he be therefor, and hereby is expelled from the Senate of the United States.
SUBSCRIBERS in Arrears are requested to forward without delay their respective dues. As this paper almost entirely depends for support on the regular payment of the subscriptions, this request must be complied with, otherwise the Editor will be constrained, however reluctantly, to discontinue the paper, notwithstanding the deeply interesting nature of the crisis.
CONVEYANCING. THE Subscriber having been deprived of his usual means of support for his family by an occurrence as unforeseen as distressing, is compelled to offer his services to the public as a Conveyancer, Accountant, & Copyist . Having been accustomed for many years to this kind of business, he flatters himself with being able to give satisfaction to those who may employ him in any of these professions. NICHOLAS B. VAN ZANDT, near the Capitol, Washington city. January 4—4t
WAS Committed to my custody as a runaway on the 24th instant, a negro man, who calls himself by the name of EDGAR, and says he belongs to a man by the name of John Love, living at the Old Court House, Fairfax county Virginia. He is about six feet high, and about fifty-five years of age, his clothing is so indifferent that they cannot be described. His owner is desired to take him away or he will be sold for his expenses according to law. JOHN FLEMING, Sheriff of Montgomery county, Md. January 4—3t
50 DOLLARS REWARD. RAN-AWAY from the subscriber, on the 26th December, a negro man, by the name of WILLIAM, calls himself WILLIAM CHASE, though I suspect he has changed his name. Said fellow was formerly the property of Wilkerson Brashears, deceased, who manumitted him, together with several others, all which have been since sold by order of the Chancellor for the payment of debts; I suspect said fellow has with him a pass, or a copy of his manumission—He is a stout fellow, and rather of yellow complexion, and lisps when speaking; has taken with him a considerable number of clothes; the clothing which he had on when he went away, was a round jacket and trousers of striped country kersey. I suspect he will make for the state of Pennsylvania. Whoever secures said fellow, so that I get him, shall receive the above reward, including what the law allows; if taken fifty miles from home, and so in proportion for a less number of miles. RICHARD DUVALL, Prince George's county, Maryland, January 4, 1808—3t
WASHINGTON CITY. MONDAY, JANUARY 4.
As customary, the President was on Friday waited on by a large concourse of individuals to congratulate him on the New Year. The company was composed of foreign ministers, members of Congress, the Executive and judicial officers, strangers and citizens, with a large and brilliant assemblage of ladies. Liberal refreshments were distributed, and pieces of instrumental music played at intervals. On no similar occasion has there been a larger or more respectable assemblage of persons.
It is no part of the character of a republican to be lavish of personal attentions on public men; but on this occasion the spontaneous tribute of respect to a man whose whole life has been zealously devoted to the service of his country was no less honorable to those who paid than to him who received it.
ASS ZE OF BREAD, For January, 1808. Single Loaf 27 ounces. Double Loaf 54 ounces. Price of Flour 5 dollars per barrel. ROBERT BRENT, Mayor.
We learn from Annapolis, that Mr. Spencer, a delegate from Queen Ann's county on Tuesday last, obtained leave to bring in a bill, "To prevent for a limited time the sale of lands or tenements, goods or chattels, on writs of execution, and for other purposes therein mentioned." We understand the object of this bill is, to prohibit, during the existence of the present embargo, sales of all real and personal property by execution; and thereby to prevent a general sacrifice of property, to monied capital, and nefarious speculation.
Balt. Ev. Post. The Legislature of Jamaica have resolved that the Commissioners of Correspondence be directed to instruct the agent to apply to his majesty's ministers in the event of a war between Great Britain and the United States of America, that such measures may be taken as will enable the governor or lieutenant governor of this island to grant licences to vessels of that nation trading to this country, with the articles they are now permitted to bring to, and take from, this island, in a manner similar to the existing licenced trade between his majesty's West India dominions and the enemy's colonies, under the provisions of the present free port law. Kingston paper.
From the London Morning Chronicle.
It has been much reported these few days, that ministers have it in contemplation to adopt some "vigorous measure," as it is called, to counteract the effects of Bonaparte's hostility to our commerce. It certainly is very desirable that such hostility should be counteracted; but the question is, how? And it seems that most of the projects of this sort, instead of being fitted to counteract, are admirably calculated to co-operate with that hostility. To declare France, and all the States she occupies or controls, in a state of blockade, is very easy, & perhaps it would not be difficult to render commercial intercourse with these states extremely difficult, without our permission; but what then? Is it probable that by declaring and enforcing that blockade we should attain the grand desideratum of compelling Bonaparte and his allies, or vassals, to purchase every thing they want after it has paid duties in England? If such an effect could be realized, it would indeed be very satisfactory to this nation. But that seems rather a specious and boastful pretension, than a calculation on which a Statesman can venture to proceed. It is to be observed, that Bonaparte's mandates and prohibitions, though earnestly meant for the destruction of our commerce, can have but a limited success. Many of the articles with which we supply the continent, made necessary from habit, could not easily be dispensed with. By the innumerable evasions to which nations to whom particular articles are useful or necessary always resort to procure a supply of them, such goods find their way to the consumer, and the prohibition only makes him pay the more for them. But these evasions are practised by neutrals, and it is perfectly notorious that perjuries, fabricated papers, &c. have been resorted to in the intercourse England had with hostile states in defiance of Bonaparte's proclamations. By adopting, then, a measure which absolutely takes away all neutral navigation, we should give effect, nay certainty, to that which Bonaparte has in vain attempted. France admits no vessels coming from England. England (now as to several flags) permits no vessels to enter the ports of France, and this very regulation adopted by England becomes a rule to detect all simulated and fabricated papers, and thus, as far as England is concerned, Bonaparte by the aid of her own acts, gains his object in putting a stop to her commerce. The English government co-operates with him as to this end as effectually as his battalions of tide-waiters and custom house officers.
But then it is said, France and her allies would be deprived of all the commodities they receive from other nations, and of a market for her own produce; and therefore Bonaparte would either be obliged to buy, and let his vassals buy whatever they wanted, after it had paid duties to England, or would be compelled to do without them. Of the two alternatives, the latter is that which seems more likely to be fulfilled, if not completely, yet pretty nearly. In peace and in war, it has been Bonaparte's policy to make France manufacture for herself in every thing; and in forcing the success of manufactures (whether on the whole that forcing of manufactures be wise, is not the question), prohibitions, and high duties tending to prohibition, of foreign rivals, have always been among the principal contrivances employed. Now Bonaparte's prohibition being so strictly enforced on his views of policy, it seems by no means likely that he will submit to become tributary in the way proposed, for those articles, which France derives at present through neutrals. In reasoning on this subject it is easy to see that colonial produce is the principal thing to which men look, even when they profess to reason generally. With respect to our manufactures, it seems pretty clear that Bonaparte wishes totally to exclude them, and that he will neither indirectly or directly enter into any compromise to obtain them. It is colonial produce then which we expect to make him take after it has paid English duties. Now, whatever may be thought in London, we believe there are few persons acquainted with the present state and manners of France, who consider colonial produce as indispensable to that nation. Nay, we are much inclined to think, that so far from mitigating his prohibitions, and consenting to admit colonial produce which has paid duty in England, Bonaparte is quite disposed to prohibit it entirely in the present circumstances, provided he can, along with it, prohibit English colonial produce being consumed in France, and if no neutral shall be able to bring it to France but through England (which the vigorous measures proposed assume) it is quite certain that he would prohibit it. The consequence would be, that either the cultivation of the French islands would be stopped altogether, or possibly a part of their produce would come to England. But if the prohibitions in France and her dependants were maintained with strictness, which is probable, it is by no means clear that we should get the sugar and coffee brought to England off our hands. We might bring all the sugar raised in the West Indies to England; but if neutral navigation were placed upon the footing to which the regulations of Bonaparte, on the one hand, and the auxiliary regulations of England on the other, would reduce it, it is extremely doubtful, whether there would be a market for an article now raised in a much larger quantity than is required. In fact, it is this excess of quantity beyond the effective demand, that is a main cause of the distress of the West India planters. The removal of the competition of the French and Spanish sugars now brought to Europe by the Americans, might tend to raise the value of ours, unless the prohibitions of Bonaparte, and our own vigorous measures against neutrals, co-operating with him, did not in the end discourage the consumption in foreign parts, and lessen the demand on the whole. Thus, even this measure, so sanguinely represented as the one thing needful, might be of no service whatever to the West India planter.
Upon the whole, it appears probable that the vigorous measures talked of would assist Bonaparte's objects, and facilitate the rendering both France and other countries, from the habits of privation, either able to dispense with our manufactures, or by the encouragement given to their domestic industry, enable them to supply themselves. It is well known how many manufactures in England have been forced by such prohibitions, and the supply taken out of the hands of foreigners. The cheapness and excellence of our manufactures enable them to overcome great difficulties; but we rather incline to think, that if, in addition to Bonaparte's prohibitions, we were, by putting down neutral navigation, to impede still further their circulation, the foreign consumption of them might in the end be greatly reduced, and either the use of them be abandoned, or by their dearth other nations would be tempted to manufacture for themselves.
It perhaps may be doubted too, whether by all the strictness of blockade we could maintain, and by keeping France on the lowest allowance of what she herself produces and manufactures, we should cause any very considerable pressure upon her, so as to bring her to a pacific disposition. In the mean time we should, in all probability, narrow the consumption of every article we raise or sell. The idea of making England the grand depot, and compelling, even in time of war, all nations, friends and foes, to buy from us alone, is a vapour. It is the visionary rant of speculating projecting merchants which may impose on shallow people; but it is supported by no experience. It is contrary to probability, and though proceeding upon them, it makes no allowance for those extraordinary circumstances of Europe which it is thought require the attempt to be made, but which, in a particular manner tend to disappoint its success.
The justice of retaliating upon France those difficulties she endeavours to impose upon us may readily be conceded, but we do not think the policy of the measures spoken of sufficiently demonstrated.
WASHINGTON CITY. JANUARY 4, 1808.
Mr. Monroe left this place last evening for Richmond.
It is rumoured that Mr. Rose still remains on board the frigate Statira in Hampton Roads. He is said to have caused certain explanations to be asked relative to the treatment the frigate would receive. The collector of Norfolk being absent his deputy declined taking upon himself the responsibility of any definitive reply. As, however, the proclamation of the President explicitly provides for this very case, it is scarcely conceivable that any serious difficulty can occur. But it is to be regretted that any trivial circumstance should have caused the delay which will in all probability be produced.
The Enquirer of the 31st ult. says it is reported in this city (Richmond) that Mr. Rose had taken a pilot boat, and sailed up the Potomacmac for Washington.
New York, December 30. The British Packet got under way and stood to sea this morning, having been detained since yesterday by a calm and head winds. Lest some misapprehension should arise at a distance in consequence of the fact stated in last evening's paper, that she was brought to and stopped by a Gun-Boat; we are desired to add, that this proceeded entirely from a misconstruction of his orders by the captain of the Gun-Boat, and that orders were sent off in a gig for the release of the Packet, immediately on Captain Chauncy's being advised of the circumstance. Capt. C. also came directly over from Brooklyn, and explained the accident to the entire satisfaction of the British Consul.
Extract of a letter from a respectable correspondent in London, dated Nov. 30, 1807. "Cuba, Martinique and Guadaloupe, will be, it is believed, declared in a state of blockade in a few days. We also expect to see further restrictions on neutral trade to the continent."
We have received Halifax papers to the 19th inst.—In the late papers we find an address, presented to Vice-Admiral Berkeley, from the House of Assembly of the province of N. Scotia, expressive of their "high respect, esteem and gratitude for his services to the country." In Ad. Berkeley's reply, dated Dec. 17, we notice the following extraordinary assertion—"As yet, I have no official intelligence of my removal from this command."
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States.
I communicate to Congress the inclosed letters from governor Hull respecting the Indians in the vicinity of Detroit residing within our lines. They contain information of the state of things in that quarter which will properly enter into their view in estimating the means to be provided for the defence of our country generally. TH: JEFFERSON. Dec. 30, 1807.
Detroit, November, 1807.
SIR, In consequence of your letter of the 27th Sept. last, containing the instructions of the President, to be communicated to the Indians, I have called together a number of the Chiefs of different nations, and delivered to them the following speech:
MY CHILDREN, I have received a speech from your Great Father, of the seventeen fires, with directions to communicate it to you. I do it with pleasure, because the advice in it is a further evidence of his paternal care. It is designed for your own good and the good of your women and children—listen to it with attention, and seriously consider its contents.
Your Father the President of the United States, desires to recall to your minds the paternal policy pursued towards you by the United States, and still meant to be pursued; that the United States never wished to do you an injury; but on the contrary to give you all the assistance in their power towards improving your condition and enabling you to support yourselves and your families. He observes that a misunderstanding having arisen between the United States and the English, war may possibly ensue; that in this war it is his wish the Indians should be quiet spectators, not wasting their blood in quarrels which do not concern them; that we are strong enough to fight our own battles, and therefore ask no help; and if the English should ask theirs, it should convince them that it proceeds from a sense of their own weakness which would not augur success in the end; that at the same time as we have learnt that some tribes are already expressing intentions hostile to the United

States; we think it proper to apprise them of the ground on which they now stand, and that on which they will stand; for which purpose we make to them this solemn declaration of our unalterable determination; that we wish them to live in peace with all nations as well as with us; and we have no intention ever to strike them or to do them an injury of any sort unless first attacked or threatened; but that learning that some of them meditate war on us, we too are preparing for war against those, and those only who shall seek it: And that if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or driven beyond the Mississippi. He advises them therefore, if they wish to remain on the land which covers the bones of their fathers, to keep the peace with a people who ask their friendship without needing it, who wish to avoid war without fearing it; in war they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them. Let them then continue quiet at home, take care of their women and children, and remove from among them the agents of any nation persuading them to war, and let them declare to us explicitly and categorically that they will do this; in which case they will have nothing to fear from the preparations we are now unwillingly making to secure our own safety.
MY CHILDREN, Thus you see the interest your Great Father takes in your welfare; how anxious he is to promote your happiness; how desirous he is to prevent you from taking any measures which will involve you in ruin; how generous in advising you to remain quiet spectators of any differences that may take place between the white people; how candid in warning you of the fate of any tribe who shall have the hardihood to raise the hatchet against us.
MY CHILDREN, I expect from you a plain, decided answer, which I shall immediately transmit to the Great Council Fire of the nation.
To which Nanumme , a chief of the Pottawatomie nation, made the following reply.
FATHER, We have listened to what you said to us yesterday. We have had a council by ourselves, and I now speak the opinion of all my brethren present; and I believe I express the wishes of the whole Pottawatomie nation.
Father—We thank the great Spirit that our father of the seventeen fires does not wish to involve us in the quarrels of the white people. We hope they will have none. If they have any they had better settle them by themselves.
Father—We wish the British would give us the same advice as we receive from our great father the President of the U. S. We believe he is strong because he does not want any aid from us. We believe the British are weak because they want us to assist them.
Father—We remember former times, how they deceived us. When we pass the banks of the Miami, we see the ruins of the old British fort. It reminds us of our fathers who fell on those fatal plains. It reminds us how they were driven to combat against the Americans and the fatal consequences which followed. It reminds us of the ingratitude of the British; how they shut the gates against us when we were flying to them for protection. Father—We never will again place any dependance on them. They have deceived us once and we will not confide in them again.
Father—Why should we fight their battles? If they should be successful we shall gain nothing by the contest, if they should be unfortunate it will end in our destruction.
Father—We live in your country. We are under your protection. You feed us when we are hungry, you clothe us when we are naked, you receive every year money and valuable goods from our great Father the President. Although we have not the advantages of learning as you white people have, we have too much understanding to forfeit all these advantages. We have too much justice and gratitude to injure our friends and benefactors.
Father—It is true we were invited to Malden—we have been there some time—we have been promised valuable presents, we have received little besides promises.
Father—We have left them—we will not return to them—we will take the advice of our great Father of the Seventeen Fires, and remain quiet spectators of your quarrels, if you should have any—This is the determination of all the chiefs here present.
Father—When you first sent for us, we immediately prepared to come and see you. Capt. M'Kee prevented us from coming then; he renewed his promises of presents to us, and gave us a keg of spirits; that fatal keg then stopped us. We were stopped a second and a third time. At last without his knowledge we crossed the river; we are now happy on your shore and safe under your protection.
Father—Inform our great Father we take him by the hand—we will hold it fast, and always listen to and follow his counsel. May the Great Spirit ever protect him and the people of the U. States."
Then Pooqueboad , chief of the Chippawa nation, spoke as follows: "Father—Your red children present salute you.
"Father—Your red children, through you take their good and great Father, the President of the United States, by the hand, and to his advice make the following reply:
"Our Great Father, the President of the U. States—Bad birds hover about us, but our ears are shut to their advice; our ears are open to nothing but the counsels of our Great Father.
"Father—You cannot, you must not suppose our intentions bad, or that we are hostile to our Brethren, the Whites of the U. States—for do you not see us here, surrounded by our women and children counseling with you.
"Father—We are informed that it is possible a rupture may take place between the English and the Americans—if that event should happen we are determined not to take a part on either side, but remain quietly in our villages, taking care of our women and children, and cultivating our corn fields.
"Father—Your children wish to enjoy a continuance of the blessings of peace with you, our hopes are in you, our dependence is on you, our only wish is to remain forever with you.
"Father—Many of our people are ignorant, many of them are wicked—we cannot answer for their conduct. If some of them should raise the tomahawk they must answer for the consequences.
"Father—Our solemn determination is never to raise the hatchet against the U. States. We too well know the fatal consequences of it; for if we are hungry our Father feeds us; if we are dry, our Father gives us to drink; if we are naked, our Father clothes us; all which benefits we should forfeit by so doing.
"Father—If the war pipe is offered to us to smoke, we will reject it; we will send from among us all persons who give us bad counsel.
"Father—One of our war chiefs is going on a visit to see our Great Father, the President of the United States; we hope he will be received and treated as his son, and we pray the Great Spirit to return him to us in health.
"Father—Bad birds fly among the whites, as well as the red people; we hope you will not listen to them, but trust to the honor of your children. May the Great Spirit watch over us all."
The chiefs of the Ottawa nation and of the Wyandot nation, have made similar determinations, and I have great confidence in their sincerity.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your most obedient servant, (Signed) WILLIAM HULL. The hon. Henry Dearborn, Secretary of War.
Detroit, 24th November, 1807. To HENRY DEARBORN, Esq. Secretary of War.
—that before they gave an answer they held a council by themselves, and appointed Aubwayway to make their answer, which was as follows. That they had lived under the protection of the United States—that they were treated with justice and kindness by their great Father the President—that they had lately made a treaty in which they acknowledged themselves under the protection of the U. S. and no other power—that they had received and were entitled to valuable presents from the U. S. that their Great Father the President did not ask them to involve themselves in the quarrels of the white people, but to remain quiet spectators; that they were all determined to take his advice; that it was an evidence he was strong enough to fight his own battles; that after this council many of them left Malden, although they were all urged to remain.
I have every reason to believe this to be true; as many as seven or eight hundred have called here within two or three days on their way to their villages. I treat them kindly and give them what they want to eat. I hope in a few days they will go to their villages and hunting grounds and the issues of provisions will cease. You will find the issues of provisions the last month and this very large, on account of the treaty, paying them their Fort Industry money, and vast numbers of them returning from Malden. It is however nothing compared to what has been issued by the British; that you say is no rule for us. I think however we had better feed them, than fight them. The President's advice has a very happy effect on them.
I am very respectfully, Your most obt. humble servt. (Signed) WILLIAM HULL.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10.
Debate on the bill from the Senate authorising the building of gun-boats and for the defence of ports and harbors.
Mr. ELLIOT's Speech concluded.
But it is a popular system—the people are in favor of it—and this is an overwhelming answer to every argument that can be urged against it.
With whom is it popular? Certainly not with the people in the northern states, for a very great majority of them are opposed to it. Within two or three years we have received addresses from the legislatures of New-York and Rhode Island, passed, I believe, unanimously in both states, in favor of an enlarged and more efficient system of naval defence. Those two states, of course, may be considered as opposed to this project. No one will set down Connecticut as friendly to gun-boats. Is it popular in Massachusetts? One gentleman from that state (Mr. Bacon) protests against being considered as the representative of a people hostile to this mode of defence: But that gentleman will not tell us that a very large majority of his constituents are attached to the system, or that, among those who are, one in fifty has any practical or even historical information upon the subject. Are your constituents, Mr. Speaker, in favor of this mode of defence? I presume not. When, two or three years ago, you opposed this establishment in its infancy, you undoubtedly represented their sentiments and feelings, as most certainly you supported their true interest. The representatives from N. Hampshire, & others from the eastern states, ask you to excuse them from accepting their proportion of these boats, & to give them a few frigates in exchange. You refuse their request—They ask for frigates, and you give them gun-boats. As it respects my own constituents, I have not been able to find any gun-boat men among them. It is probable, however, that there are some, as there may be men in that quarter as in others, willing to believe whatever the executive believes; but I trust there are fewer of these miserable minions in that district than in some others in the union. Here I cannot help remarking upon a singular expression of a gentleman from N. C. (Mr. Sawyer) that most honorable quarter, the North, used ironically, as we may presume, from his manner, in allusion to an observation, perhaps inadvertent, perhaps deliberate, of a gentleman from N. Hampshire (Mr. Durell) that he had the honor to come from the North. The people of the North, sir, are certainly an honorable people, no more so than those of the South; but as honorable a people as God was ever pleased to make. They know, they feel, that they have not their due weight in this Union; that their interest is improperly neglected by the present administration; but they are sincerely attached to the government of their country. They are men, high-minded men, who know their
rights, and knowing dare maintain them. To return to the subject. Suppose this despicable system of defence to be popular. Whence does its popularity originate? From what quarter came the original proposition? Ex quo fonte? From what fountain has descended this copious and overwhelming torrent of national delusion, degradation, and destruction? The answer is not difficult. Some years ago a strange passion for gun-boats seized upon one of the great departments of the government. Who believes that even ten men in the U. States would ever have raised their voices in favor of this plan of protection, had it not been understood to be a favorite executive measure? But I shall be told that this is inconsistent with the assertion that the President has not recommended it. I have proved, however, by his own documents, that it is his own measure. Every one knows the fact. It is true that he recommends nothing at present. He talks of a moveable force upon the water. This is very clear to some; but, in my view, never was Grecian oracle more inscrutable, more inexplicable, more irresponsible. But what course does the thing take? A committee is appointed to enquire what the executive wishes? One of his secretaries tells them that "it is believed, that, for the protection of our ports and harbors, there ought to be built 188 additional gun-boats." Why does not the secretary give us the grounds of this belief? Why not communicate some information upon the subject? Why not undertake to show the utility of a plan of defence, for which he asks us to appropriate millions? But by whom is it believed? Do we legislate, do we vote away five millions of the people's money, upon the belief of the secretary of the navy? Certainly not. It is but little less disgraceful, however, to do it upon the belief of the President. We all know that this business has long been cut and dried by the executive; you have long had upon your tables even the executive apportionment, to every port, bay, and inlet on your coast, of these weak, wretched, contemptible gun-boats; and this before it had been intimated to you that an appropriation of money was wanted for the purpose. I do not understand, or rather I understand too well, this mode of legislation in a republican government. It is miserable management, despicable legislation! If we are sent here to carry into effect the will and the wishes of the President, let him express that will and those wishes in the constitutional way, and not in a secret, sideways manner, through the intervention of secretaries and committees.
It may be proper again to remark that this is but a new edition of the proclamation and gun-boat system, which has reduced the republic almost to the lowest point of degradation and disgrace. Every page of our recent annals affords some melancholy evidence of the fact. The President issues a proclamation, forbidding certain British armed vessels to come within the waters of the United States. Disregarding the proclamation, one of those vessels enters one of our harbors. One of our officers sends the commander notice of the proclamation, and an order to depart. The British officer answers, that the proclamation of the President would disgrace the most petty power of Barbary, and is worthy only of the bloody reign of a Robespierre; and that he shall consult his own convenience in the case. What course is then pursued by the American commander? He sends an express seven hundred miles to inform the President that he has received a most extraordinary letter, which he knows not how to answer, and asks for further instructions from the government. The interdicted vessel continues within your jurisdiction in defiance of the whole power of the nation. Is this the boasted energy and efficacy of the proclamation and gun-boat system? If so, its annihilation ought to be most anxiously desired.—I am astonished to behold so many gentlemen who detest this system, support it with their votes. A gentleman from New York (Mr. Gardenier) to whom I always listen with pleasure and often with improvement, assures us that he has no faith in the scheme, that he has often laughed at it, and yet he will vote for it! The executive wishes it, and he is willing the experiment should be made. But it is right for us to vote away the people's money by millions upon experiments which we know to be vain and delusive? Can it be consistent with our duty, on the eve of a war—when some gentlemen say we are actually in a state of war—to squander the treasure of the nation in such a manner and upon such objects, to gratify the unaccountable passion or whim of the executive for a species of naval machinery, which, probably, has not a solitary advocate in the union, who does not borrow his impressions
upon the subject from that executive? Shall we thus add the weight of our voices to that thunder which denounces every man of genius, talent, and independence, who refuses to subscribe to the executive or popular dogmas of this disastrous moment? While the storm of war comes roaring over the Atlantic, the angry demon of denunciation howls within our own borders! The wretched system of the government, however pure may be its motives, tends to cherish party spirit when it should not be known in the land; and to persecute and proscribe genius and talent, when genius and talent alone can save both the government and the nation from ruin. The time must come—it must and will come—when the talents and integrity of our country must be combined. Not to save the people from themselves—I am not an advocate for that doctrine—but to save the republic from discord and destruction. It is one of the political dogmas of the present period that he that doubteth is damned; that he who does not believe in the absolute perfection of the present administration is guilty of the worst of all political heresies. I have never been a subscriber to this confession of political faith. And I will soon give a pledge of the sincerity of my attachment to republican principles, in which it is not probable that I shall find a single imitator in the union. I will retire from this station—and I shall retire rich in the confidence of those who have so long confided in me—and from that moment I will never consent to receive the suffrages of any portion of the people for any office in their power to bestow. Malice, and I will never affect to be totally insensible to its cruel lacerations, will attempt to trace conduct of this kind to the source of disappointment. But the effort will be in vain. I entered into public life under circumstances which precluded the possibility of disappointment. I entered it with a determination never to wait for one moment in the anti-chambers of the presidential palace; never to solicit or cause to be solicited for myself a single favor from the executive department of the government. This is a determination which, in my opinion, every representative of the people ought to form; and, in my own case, it has rendered it impossible for me, so far as respects the executive, to have been personally disappointed.
In an administration, thus patronizing weak men and measures, thus destitute of the energy and talent which the times require, it is impossible for me to repose great confidence; and as conscience will compel me to make this declaration to every one of my constituents, it may as well be made at once in the presence of my country and the world. When the miserable and futile scheme of gun-boats is substituted for that great and glorious system of national defence which the crisis demands, who can believe the government an able and a wise one? Hailing the day which first smiles upon me as a private citizen, free from the toils, the perplexities, and the calumnies of public life, as the happiest of my existence, and abandoning forever the field of political ambition, my opinions will be of little consequence to the government or my fellow citizens. But to the government of this nation the attachment of the northern people will always be of immense importance. They are anxious to support the national honor, but they love and are anxious to preserve peace; and in their name I will venture to protest against any measures calculated to plunge them into the horrors of war upon mere points of etiquette. If we can obtain substantial satisfaction for the great outrage which the nation has sustained, we will not refuse it because other and older subjects of dispute remain unadjusted. If we can obtain the desired dish of reparation, we will not go to war because it is presented to us in a silver bowl instead of a golden one. If the conduct of the government shall be just and wise, we shall continue to support it; if it shall improperly involve us in the miseries of war, it will inevitably lose our confidence. If, "in the full tide of successful experiment," it shall devolve to persecution and proscription, the patriotism and wisdom of the nation, it will no longer receive the support of an enlightened and virtuous people.
To have spoken thus long has required an effort far beyond my strength. One part of the remarks which I intended to make must be suspended. The description of certain politicians to whose disastrous influence upon our concerns I alluded at the outset, would be a task as ungrateful as it is unnecessary. A sense of duty alone has till this time kept me from my seat. In resuming it, I again protest, in the name of the people whom I represent, against a worse than wanton waste of the public treasure for a worse than useless object.