The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1808-12-30 00:00:00

National Intelligencer.
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. IX.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAM. EL. HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. 1295.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1803.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MONDAY, DECEMBER 26. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
Mr. Barker presented a memorial from sundry inhabitants of Hanover, Massachusetts, stating that the Senate and House of Representatives of Massachusetts had illegally chosen the Electors of President and Vice President of the U. S. and praying measures to be adopted to guard against the establishment of so dangerous a precedent.
On motion of Mr. Wharton, the several petitions of the surviving officers of the old revolutionary army were referred to a select committee, Messrs. Wharton, Beaver, Helm, John Morrow, J. Campbell, Stanford, T. Moore, Heister, Winn.
Mr. Holmes reported a bill for the relief of Daniel Cotton—Twice read and referred.
Mr. Thomas reported a bill extending the right of suffrage in the Indiana territory—twice read and referred.
TUESDAY, DEC. 27.
Mr. Morrow presented a petition from sundry citizens of the state of Ohio, praying a further extension of time for the payment of the purchase money of Public Lands—Referred to the committee of Public Lands.
The bill for the continuation of the Mediterranean fund having been reported,
Mr. Tallmadge moved to postpone the bill for a fortnight.
Messrs. Tallmadge and Lyon supported the motion, objecting to laying this duty in this form, as the object for which it was intended, by the title of the bill, no longer required this revenue. No objection was made to the laying the duty, but to the laying it in this form, distinct from the general increase of duties proposed by the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, which subject would no doubt soon be reported on by the committee of Ways and Means.
Messrs. Campbell and Alston supported the bill, and opposed the motion for postponement, on the ground that a postponement would be equivalent to a rejection, the present law expiring on the first of next month; and that this fund was well understood in the nation under the name of the Mediterranean fund, and there was therefore no reason to change the name. It seemed to be similar to an objection to a man, however estimable, because his name did not please the ear.
The motion for postponement was negatived, Ayes 16—and the bill ordered to a third reading to-day.
Mr. Dana reported a bill for the relief of Edward Beeumont—twice read and referred.
Mr. Jackson from the committee to whom were referred the petition of R. J. Meigs and others evidence on the trial of A. Burr before the circuit court at Richmond, reported a bill making further compensation to the witnesses attending the trial of A. Burr, &c.—twice read and referred.
DEBATE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS.
[CONTINUED.]
December 5.
Mr. Love, I rise under circumstances of extreme discouragement, to address you, sir, while the sound of a voice which never fails to interest in a superior degree, still vibrates on my ear.
Any man whom I have ever yet seen stand on the floor of a deliberative body, who should be compelled to follow the gentleman last up, would, I confess, sir, have occasion for a great share of the politeness and condescension of his audience. It is because I so highly honor that disposition to indulgence, which this body has so often manifested, that I have now determined to obey the impulse of duty, at the hazard of, and while I feel myself transported beyond the restraint of personal considerations.
In the observations which I contemplate offering to the House, it shall be my endeavor to limit myself as much as possible to those important topics of discussion actually before us; and while I cannot consent to consider any thing properly admissible in argument, which does not relate to the great questions presented us by the report and resolution, I shall be excused in expressing my regret that the members of the committee which has led us to the view of this vast and extensive field of political survey, have hitherto refrained from a presentation of their statements in support of the measures which they recommend to our adoption.
The report must ever be acknowledged on all sides as a most able and correct exposition of the real situation in which the U. S. stand in relation to foreign nations; nor do I,
sir, consider the conclusions drawn by the committee as less entitled to the unqualified approbation of every American. I lament that it has not been the pleasure of the House to consider them both in a connected point of view, the latter as the natural and apt consequence of the former; and that a disposition has been evidenced even in the friends of this connected system still more effectually to disjoint it, by dividing the question on the first resolution. This seems indeed to be a kind of parliamentary mode, too fashionable with some gentlemen of this House. It has certainly however relieved the debate from some embarrassment, when gentlemen who argue in opposition to the measures recommended, have at length given some character to their arguments; for although the gentleman last up, did a few days ago very much insist on the entire futility of the first resolution then, as now, the subject of debate; he to day is willing to admit that he discerns in the measure consequences of the utmost and most substantial importance to our country.
The leading position stated in the report has certainly a strong claim, if true, on the serious attention of this House, and of the nation; it is that "those principles recognized by the civilized world under the name of laws of nations, which heretofore controlled belligerent powers, regulated the duties of neutrals and protected their rights, are now avowedly disregarded or forgotten by Great Britain and France. Each of these two nations capture and condemn all American vessels trading with her enemies or her enemies' allies, and every European power having become a party in the contest, the whole of our commerce with Europe and European colonies becomes liable to capture by either one or the other." Is this statement founded in fact, sir? Has the able illustration which follows it been contradicted? No, sir, no part of the vast accumulation of injury exhibited in support of this assertion of the committee, has any gentleman ventured to deny. Sir, it is a fact, that the Milan decree of December 17, 1807, was, as in its terms it purports to be, a complete rejoinder to the orders of the British government, closing every point of commercial right contended for by neutrals; in technical language it tendered an issue, which, for us it seems, has been too fatally accepted by the opposite party.
Permit me, sir, to occupy a small portion of the time of this House, in placing in as obvious a point of view as I am able, the effects upon our prosperity of those injurious violations of rights. This has indeed been already done by other gentlemen most ably, and I shall now only so far concisely notice the subject, as may be necessary to the introduction of my argument. It was true, indeed, that antecedent to the late blockade of some of the West India islands, which we have seen advertised by a British admiral, there was left to us a few of the crumbs of commerce, not, however, worth picking up; but in the present complete state of exclusion, either positive or virtual, there is nothing left for the commercial enterprise of this country, but certain loss and destruction, should it be permitted to venture on the seas—France, as active as the crippled state of her marine will allow her to be, consigns to the flames our vessels if met with on the ocean, and truly, in the spirit of that retaliation which both nations avow as the rule of their conduct, thus destroys our vessels, lest they should fall into the hands of her enemy. Even as the Briton served the Dane, so has the American to a lesser extent suffered under the most outrageous and aggravating system of violence, which has ever disgraced the annals of civilization. It is admitted on all hands, that unless the produce of our soil can find its way to the continent of Europe, it is in vain that the raisers of it may expect a price adequate even to its freight across the ocean. It is therefore only urged, sir, either from a want of consideration, or from a disposition to delude and deceive the people of the U. S. (that part of them I mean who are not conversant in commercial affairs) that it is insisted that the tobacco, and other heavy articles of our produce, may still be transported with any chance of profit to any part of Europe. If to England, it has been ably shown that the superabundant supply would so far overstock that market as to reduce it below the price of its freight, even if it could be insured against French risks; but if bound directly to France, it is proved to us, sir, not by speeches in parliament, or ministeri-
al pamphlets, but by the examination on oath of men all their lives conversant in trade, that the risque is considered as equal to 90 per cent. since the emanation of the British orders of blockade of November the 11th, 1807. To go directly to France or the ports of the continent under her control, is out of the question. England has forbidden it, and she has the physical means, the mechanical force, which carries her orders against us into effect to almost an absolute certainty.
The only practical course left open for our commerce is a transportation of its articles in the first place to England, and then, sir, we are condescendingly told, and it is said to be yielded as a mitigated measure of strict justice on the part of his Britannic majesty, that we may on the payment of a tax and an acknowledgment of his right to tribute, proceed to a nation where we might find a demand for our products. Let us suppose then, that there is an American who could be found base enough in the pursuit of gain, thus to make a formal, unqualified surrender of everything which pertains to the honor and dignity of his country. He pays a tax to England, & under the royal licence he departs from the British port, into which he has been forced. No difficulty will follow with such men, I know, sir, in using the arts of fraud, perjury and corruption, to put on the false shew of having made a direct voyage. Indeed, the mean spirit which could stoop to dishonor the flag of its country, is in my opinion past all other censure. He arrives in a continental port, and under the mask of deception, puts off his polluted wares; he receives in return a cargo of the products of the country which has afforded a high price for his tobacco, or other article of American growth, he takes a clearance for the United States, but again when at sea, upon the calculation of ninety per cent. against his safe return to America, he is compelled again to visit and pay his tribute to England; independent of the disgraceful surrender of the sovereignty of his nation; where are the profits, which under such circumstances could ensue to the agriculturist, a price equal to the freight even of the article? The estimate of taxes has been already made by other gentlemen, who have had the patience or curiosity to make a calculation on the subject, and it has been proved, that on the score of profit, no inducement would be offered for such a prostitution of character.
Thus, sir, we find that such has been the actual state of all our commerce in the products of our country, ever since the British and French decrees have been in operation, that neither the fair and honorable conduct of the American merchant, nor yet the mean and corrupt submission of those who would barter for gain all sense of the independence, and dignity, of their country, would secure a price for our commodities. No doubt can exist on the mind of any man who will take a candid view of the real situation in which our external commerce was placed by the conduct of the belligerents, but that the embargo has from a particular operation, and the state of sentiment among our merchants, had the effect of keeping up the prices of our produce, beyond what they would have been, had we permitted our commerce to be exposed to the capture of foreign nations.
I have been compelled to take this short notice of the situation of things produced by the British orders of November 11, 1807. And before I proceed give me leave to say that to my astonishment, I have heard the gentleman from Virginia, last up (Mr. Randolph) assert more than once on this floor, that this state of things was not known to us, and that we were not informed of the British orders in council, at the time the embargo was laid. It is a fact, sir, that those orders were understood at that time, or might have been so by every gentleman in Congress, for by a recurrence to a newspaper, (The National Intelligencer,) printed in this city, on the 18th of December; the day I believe on which we received the President's message, it will be found that in no less than three extracts from British papers, two I think from London, and one from Liverpool, those orders were said to have issued, on the day they are now found to bear date, and their import and effect are as well defined in those publications, as I believe they have since any where been. The paper I allude to was read by gentlemen of every description of political opinion, and indeed by those of no description, if we have such in Congress; and I recollect some gentlemen did in debate urge the weight of this intelli-
gence. I well remember, that many, and myself among others, did insist on the probability of those retaliatory measures on the part of England, as soon as it was known there that France, meant to act on the decree of November 1806, against American commerce; but I do not pretend to say, that the gentleman heard this, or any other argument used on that occasion.
It appears to me, Sir, far from improbable, that our government might have had information at that time although not of so authentic a nature, or perhaps of too delicate a one to disclose it, that the British orders would certainly issue; when we recollect that our minister who had been resident at London, and at his own request had returned, did actually leave England from the 10th to the 14th, I believe of November, and was on the 18th of December, either at this place, or somewhere in the United States, where he had an opportunity of corresponding with the members of the government, I think the probability, of a pretty certain intimation of their existence, very much enhanced.
The debate on the subject of the embargo, I have always considered, sir, as disorderly, in the present discussion. The time is to come when it will probably not be so, it will then be in time to see whether this measure has had its expected effect; but I have felt myself compelled to notice so much of the statement of the gentleman last up, lest false impressions might be made on the minds of others, as to the whole ground which influenced the measure: The message and so much of the documents accompanying it, as the reading of, has been called for, I also admit were important in forming a decision, but I do not acquiesce under the charge so often here and elsewhere repeated, that this house was solely governed by the reasons assigned in the message for the measure.
I beg the pardon of the House for having suffered myself to be led from the subject of discussion before us. I shall now proceed to consider the system of measures recommended by the committee; it is time indeed I admit to adopt some course which shall be strongly calculated, to produce an effect on our enemies; and whatever may be the construction made by different persons, on the character of the embargo, and whether that was a measure of coercion or otherwise, I do not hesitate to avow, that we should now pursue a course of policy avowedly retaliatory, having reprisal for its direct object. Neither our interests nor our honor permit us longer to hesitate. The measures indicated by the second resolution, are in my opinion wisely designed, and eminently calculated for this purpose. Even the gentleman from Virginia sees in them a strong and energetic character; they are indeed of a distinct description from the embargo. That was perhaps a measure of a mixed character, intended for immediate self-preservation, and with a probable ulterior design of coercion on our enemies. The one of those effects has been realized to a most salutary extent. The other I believe, sir, would have been so had not the means of counteraction, which have been so painfully, and so often dwelt on, been resorted to, by the unprincipled part of the mercantile community, often in combination I believe, with a foreign power.
If Mr. Canning is correct in the assertion contained in his letter of the 23d September, that the ruin of the commercial prosperity of Great Britain must annihilate her existence, the contemplated inhibition of commerce with that kingdom will have a direct effect, and act coercively upon her. When we reflect upon the situation of Europe, and find that there remains no place of importance to which England can export the articles of her manufacture, upon which her people depend for subsistence and life; and when we recollect that from the estimates before us, since the occupation of British goods from the European continent, the importations to this country have increased in one year fifty per cent. the effect of a total non-importation cannot be misapprehended. It must, it will, retort upon her the most aggravating part of her system of outrage on this country, it will affect her interior relations, as she has attempted to affect ours.
I hazard nothing, sir, by asserting that whatever may be the result, this measure is calculated to have a most powerful effect, on both France and England.
But, was it not a call which the honor and independence of our country has made on us, to offer some means of retaliation and reprisal, if it must be notorious to every man of reflection, that the safety of our own country, & its real resources call for an immediate suspension of intercourse. I have shown that so long as the present state of things continues in Europe, it is impossible the heavy articles of our produce can find a competent market. If the manufactures, however, of those countries are continued to be imported, our merchants will continue to make remittances: Those remittances can be in nothing but money, and thus we shall be drained of the little specie, which under the disadvantages of our commerce has yet been left among us; our own safety therefore not less than the desire which must actuate the bosom of every American, prompts the contemplated measure.
It is not to principles of reasoning alone, however strong and imposing they are, that we may resort for the support of the course recommended. There is an example, sir, an illustrious one, one which I trust will ever be of high authority on this floor, it is the example of the House of Representatives of the session 1793-4. Then as now, harassed by a superior naval power, and our produce alike intercepted by the hostile grasp of an European nation, a non-importation law was determined on, by a great majority of the popular branch of the government; the resolution of Mr. Clark was introduced and supported by names of the highest authority in this country. We find among them a Madison, a Dearborn and others, some of whom I have now the honor to stand on this floor with, and to think, and I trust to act with, on this subject. Had the measure at that day, been carried into effect, as was the wish of this branch of the government, we should not now be obliged to detail the humiliatings insults and injuries we have received. The adherence to that system of policy, would have taught our enemies that we did not prize their gold, more than our own independence—another course was however pursued which has never failed to produce vexation and loss upon the community.
Sir, in recurring to the transactions of former times, would it not have been more profitable to us, as well as more laudable for the gentleman last up (Mr. Randolph) to have searched for an example, something applicable to the present great crisis rather than industriously hunting up fanciful charges, against the man who has so lately triumphed in the hearts of the people? I had hoped the occasion had now passed by, when a resort to such attempts would be thought necessary. Indeed, sir, it was little to be expected, that any gentleman would at a period even less ominous than the present, have made before this body another charge against a man high in office, unless it was grounded on something better than a production, ushered on the community under an anonymous authority, and the strongest suspicion of falsehood. The source of this production is supposed to be understood, and give me leave to ask of gentlemen, who act upon it, as the ground of crimination, whether it is intended by the author, that he should have another appeal to the people? Sir, the people have at this day decided; what is next to be done? And how many cruisers against reputation are we now to have fitted out in this House?
The gentleman has indulged himself by repeating to this House some of the predictions of a very great man who was a member of the Virginia convention, which ratified the United States constitution. Great, sir, as were the talents of the deceased patriot alluded to, his foresight had not enabled him to look forward to a crisis like the present. He has indeed expressed an opinion, that America would never have any thing to fear from Europe, that as to dangers from that quarter, we might go to sleep, were the emphatic expressions of this most eloquent man; and his capacious mind comprehended a state of things like the present; it is obvious, we should not have seen him, so zealous in opposing the new system of union. Had he been able to foresee that in twenty years from the time he urged this argument, against the increase of power in the federal government, the state of Europe could be so completely changed that a single monarch was to wield the empire of the continent, while Great Britain was at the same time to command an entire and undisputed sovereignty over all the seas of the world—he would not willingly have afforded an argument.
(Continued on last page.)

(Mr. Choate's speech, cont. from last page) to me it appears indispensable that we should examine attentively, and minutely not only the situation of this country in relation to France and Britain, but also the injuries and aggressions they have committed upon our neutral rights.
In doing this I regret extremely that I shall wound the delicate taste and exquisite sensibility of my learned colleague (Mr. Randolph) who addressed you yesterday. I shall take no pleasure in the retrospection which seems so much to disgust that gentleman; but I do not know how else to find justification for the measures we, I trust, shall pursue, and to expose the profligacy of our enemies. The regular discussion of the first resolution would seem naturally to lead us to a review of the edicts of Great Britain and France. When we say we will not submit to their edicts, it cannot be amiss, although I acknowledge, sir, the undertaking is an unpleasant one, to enquire into the nature and extent of those edicts. I therefore will endeavor, within a narrow limit as possible, to exhibit to the view of the indignant American the various wanton aggressions which have been committed by both these powers upon his commercial rights. And sir, whenever we look for the chief source of our difficulties, we must turn towards Great Britain. Then let us first examine the principal items in her account.
On 6th June, 1793, the British government issued an order of council to stop and detain for condemnation vessels laden with corn, flour or meal, and bound to France, whose people were then almost in the act of starving, and of course we were deprived of an excellent market for those articles.
On 6th Nov. 1793, an order issued to stop and detain ships laden with the produce of, or carrying provisions to, the colonies of France.
On 21st March, 1799, she issued a proclamation declaring the United Provinces in a state of blockade and thereby excluding neutral commerce without any actual investment.
On 16th May, 1806, a proclamation declaring the blockade of the coast from the Elbe to Brest inclusive.
On 7th January, 1807, an order prohibiting neutral vessels from trading from one port to another of the enemy or his allies.
On 11th May, 1807, a proclamation declaring the blockade of the coast between the Elbe, Weser and Ems.
On 11th May, 1807, a proclamation declaring the blockade of the Dardanelles & Smyrna.
In October 1807, a proclamation ordering British officers to impress from American vessels all such of their crews as might be taken or mistaken for British subjects.
On 11th Nov. 1807, orders in council were issued interdicting all neutral commerce to any port of Europe from which the British flag was excluded: directing that neutrals should trade to such ports only under British licence and with British clearances—that all ships destined before the issuing of the orders to any of the said ports should go into a British port and that all vessels having "certificates of origin" should be liable to prize.
On 11th November, 1807, an order of council was issued declaring void all legal charters of vessels from the enemies of Britain, to neutrals or others.
In 1808, various acts of Parliament have been passed carrying the orders of the 11th of Nov. 1807 into execution. They impose a specific tax on a variety of articles of American merchandise allowed to be re-exported to the continent of Europe, for example, on tobacco 12s 6d sterling per cwt. on indigo 2 per lb. pork 17s 6d per cent. cotton 9d per lb. and on all other articles not enumerated in the act a duty of 40 per cent. is exacted on re-exportation.
On 8th Jan. 1808, a proclamation declaring the blockade of Cartagena, Cadiz and St. Lucar, and all the ports between the first and last of these places.
In the autumn of 1808—In order that plunder might commence from the very moment of the expected repeal of the embargo, the French West India Islands were declared in a state of blockade.
I will forbear, sir, at this time from commenting on the habitual impressment of American citizens, by Great Britain; the illegal condemnation of American vessels under what they call the rule of 56, the spurious blockades of British commanders and the consequent applications on our commerce. Nor will I detain the House by relating the story of Capt. Bradley commander of the Cambrian, who in the face of the city of New-York and in contempt of the civil authority of the United States, dragged your citizens into slavish captivity. The execution of the British ship Leander, that recent untold—the enormity of that transaction is written in indelible characters, with the blood of our countrymen! The invitation of the British ministry to your merchants to violate the embargo and the burning of a friendly ship of war
(the impetuous) in your own waters are circumstances too light to be noticed. I feel no disposition either to portray the affair of the Chesapeake. The ghosts of the murdered are yet unavenged for that horrid and perfidious deed!
I will now advert, sir, to the principal injuries committed by France on the neutral commerce of the United States. They consist in the execution of three decrees, to wit:
The Berlin Decree of the 21st November, 1806, declaring the British islands in a state of blockade and that no vessel having been at or coming directly from England or her colonies shall enter at a French port.
The Milan decree, of the 17th December, 1807, declaring lawful prize every vessel that has suffered the visit of an English vessel, submitted to an English voyage, or paid duty to the English government; and also every vessel coming from the ports of England and her colonies.
The Bayonne decree of April, 1808, which subjects, as it is said, and I believe not doubted, all American vessels found upon the high seas since the embargo, to capture and confiscation.
Here, Mr. Speaker, I will end the black catalogue of iniquitous outrages and restrictions upon neutral commerce—restrictions which are acknowledged to depend, for their support upon no other ground than that of retaliation. Whilst I protest against the principle of retaliating upon an enemy through the medium of a friend, yet these orders and decrees have no claim even to that principle. Because France and Britain both agree that the right of retaliation does not accrue before the neutral has acquiesced in the aggressions of the enemy. We have never acquiesced in the aggressions of either and therefore upon their own reasoning ought not to be liable to the operation of the principle for which they unjustly contend. But, sir, can we quit this subject without looking more particularly at the consequences which result from this series of injuries?
In reviewing the conduct of Great Britain towards this country, we perceive a continuation of encroachments designed only for the utter destruction of our commerce. This disposition is manifest in every order and proclamation she has issued since the year '93. If this were not her object, why such a continued system of illegitimate blockades? Why so many vexatious restrictions upon neutral trade tending to destroy competition on our part in the continental markets? I might trace the scheme a little further back and ask, whence the outrages? the orders of June and November, '93, which produced Jay's treaty? A treaty which I am sorry to say did not guarantee to us mutual and reciprocal rights, and which was no sooner ratified than violated by British perfidy. But, sir, I will not speak of trivial matters like these; they are of no consequence when we reflect upon other topics. The pretended blockade of almost every port upon the Baltic; the blockade of all the eastern and southern coasts of the north sea, unaccompanied by any naval force; the nominal investment of the ports on the south of the British channel, and on the European coast of the Mediterranean sea; the occlusion of the Black sea by the blockade of the Dardanelles and Smyrna, and in fine the blockade of all the places from the straits of Gibraltar to the Arctic ocean, are acts which, notwithstanding their unexamined enormity in themselves, sink into perfect insignificance, when we consider the base attempt meditated by the orders of November, 1807, and the consequent statutes of parliament, to reduce this country again to a state of colonial slavery! Sir, at the very thought of these infamous orders and acts of the British government, I feel emotions of indignation and contempt to repress which would be dishonorable. What sir? American vessels to be arrested in a lawful commerce, upon "the high way of nations;" to be forcibly carried into British ports and there either condemned, or else compelled before they can prosecute their voyage to take British clearances and pay a British tax! And if the owner of the cargo shall be unable to pay the amount of tax, he has the consolation left him of seeing his property burnt! Sooner would I see every vessel & every atom of our surplus produce make one general conflagration in our own country. For what purpose was the revolution, in which the blood and treasure of our ancestors were the price of independence, if we are now to be taxed by Britain? The highest authority in the union cannot constitutionally tax the exports, which are in part the products of the labor of the American people; yet the British government has presumptuously undertaken to do it. I, sir, for one must protest against any thing like submission to this conduct. But let us see what we should get by submission.—So far from gaining, it will be easy to demonstrate that if we were to submit, we should be only remunerated with disgrace and ruin.
I will take the ground on the gentleman in the opposition. The embargo shall be repealed and our trade renewed subject to the existing orders and decrees of Great Britain and France—What will be the consequences? We are told that we need not trade to France and Britain, and thereby involve ourselves in a disgraceful acquiescence in their edicts, and it seems admitted that on account of the ascendancy of the British navy, we cannot visit the ports of that part of Europe which is under the dominion of Napoleon. But, say gentlemen, we may trade to Sweden, and our produce will find its way to the rest of the continent. This doctrine is chimerical in the extreme. What amount have you heretofore annually exported to Sweden? To the value only of about $50,000, and the truth is that there is very little market in that country for American articles.—Can it therefore be seriously believed that there is to be such an instantaneous translation of capital to Sweden, and that she is suddenly to become so commercial as to afford an intrepot for the whole of our commerce? Will Stockholm and Gottemburg furnish on a market for more than one hundred millions of merchandise? The idea is entirely delusive. Admitting, however, we were to carry on a commerce of this sort. I will ask if it would not be complete submission to Great Britain? Would it not be confessing ourselves to the humble pitiful course she has been pleased to chalk out for us? It certainly would. No, sir, if we trade at all (unless we were to trade in armed ships, the propriety whereof is not my present purpose to examine) we must go through British ports, and subject to the orders and acts of Britain. Her navy is sufficient either to capture vessels going to the continent contrary to the orders of council, or otherwise to compel such vessels to pass through her ports. Then it seems clear if the embargo were at this time removed, we should be compelled to trade with or through G. B. or else our vessels and property would be subject to confiscation. I will therefore proceed to count the effects of such an intercourse.
In the first place, that a commerce of this sort would involve in it the basest submission, mercantile ruin, and the payment of millions of tribute. I will now proceed to enquire what effects a system of non-intercourse with the two great belligerents would produce on them and on ourselves. As to France, since the embargo has already cut off communication from this country to that, and inasmuch as the superiority of the British navy prohibits adventures from France to America, it is true a non-intercourse law in its operation will be but little more than nominal so far as it respects France. But as France has injured us, although I acknowledge her aggressions bear no parallelism with those of England, yet I am in favor of expressing either by a suspension of intercourse, or in any other way the resentment of the nation for such aggressions—and when the injuries of France shall equal the injuries of Britain, I will go the same length for redress against the one as against the other.
But, sir, a non-intercourse measure will be attended with very different consequences, in relation to G. Britain. If such a measure were rigorously executed in this country, what effects would it produce in the first place upon the British manufactures? Five eighths of the cotton manufactured in Britain both for home consumption and for exportation, are carried from America. This important fact is proven by the import and export statements published in that country. How then is Britain to be supplied with that necessary article, without which her cotton manufactures must cease? The remaining three eighths of cotton which she gets from other countries will not, I presume, more than clothe her own people, and of course there will be nothing left for exportation. It is idle to talk of supplies from Africa and South America, where there is scarcely any cotton raised.
From whence is G. Britain supplied with the essential articles of grain and meal, pot and pearl ashes, pitch, tar, turpentine, flax and linseed, and wood? More than two thirds of the total amount of these articles consumed by her, she receives from the U. States.
The loss of revenue, sir, which England must experience by non-intercourse with this country will be enormous, and would be felt by her at this time with peculiar severity. She would also dislike to see London no more the banking place for American merchants, and would feel the loss of a balance of trade in her favor, of upwards of five millions sterling annually, and which is so much boasted of by her merchants upon the Exchange. But, Mr. Speaker, the greatest injury to which Britain will be subjected, is that which will result from the non-importation part of the system—from the entire exclusion of all her surplus manufactures from the American markets. She is at this time almost shut out from the continent of Europe, and if her dealings
  Total amount of exports $108,543,156   Deduct exports to Britain per secretary's report $31,015,623   Do. exports to places not interdicted by orders in Council amounting per Secretary's report to not quite 7,000,000   Deduct one half the value of cotton & four-fifths the value of tobacco exported, amounting per the Secretary's report to 11,679,333 49,694,956   Balance subject to duty on re-exportation $58,648,194   On which calculate tax of per ct. 40   Add if it will amount to $23,459,266 70   To which add tax on tobacco and cotton 7,333,333 33 
Making the sum of $30,792,610 93 Thus, Mr. Speaker, it most manifestly appears that in the prosecution of a trade subject to the existing restrictions we should be compelled to pay a tax of upwards of $30,000,000 per annum to England for the exercise of our natural and unequivocal right to navigate the ocean. But can any one believe that a commerce oppressed in this manner would be profitable. What is the opinion of the most eminent and respectable merchants in both Britain and America on this point? They tell you that after the cargo has paid import duty, a tax for clearances, export duty, the expenses of separate shipments first to England, & then to the place of consumption, together with all the charges attending such circuitry, the exporter will be found in debt, and that such a trade will not pay costs. No, sir, if you resume your trade upon these conditions you will barter national honor for inevitable bankruptcy and ruin.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, I have succeeded in showing that a commerce of this sort would involve in it the basest submission, mercantile ruin, and the payment of millions of tribute. I will now proceed to enquire what effects a system of non-intercourse with the two great belligerents would produce on them and on ourselves.
As to France, since the embargo has already cut off communication from this country to that, and inasmuch as the superiority of the British navy prohibits adventures from France to America, it is true a non-intercourse law in its operation will be but little more than nominal so far as it respects France. But as France has injured us, although I acknowledge her aggressions bear no parallelism with those of England, yet I am in favor of expressing either by a suspension of intercourse, or in any other way the resentment of the nation for such aggressions—and when the injuries of France shall equal the injuries of Britain, I will go the same length for redress against the one as against the other.
But, sir, a non-intercourse measure will be attended with very different consequences, in relation to G. Britain. If such a measure were rigorously executed in this country, what effects would it produce in the first place upon the British manufactures? Five eighths of the cotton manufactured in Britain both for home consumption and for exportation, are carried from America. This important fact is proven by the import and export statements published in that country. How then is Britain to be supplied with that necessary article, without which her cotton manufactures must cease? The remaining three eighths of cotton which she gets from other countries will not, I presume, more than clothe her own people, and of course there will be nothing left for exportation. It is idle to talk of supplies from Africa and South America, where there is scarcely any cotton raised.
with her customers in this country are cut off, what sale will she be able to make of her merchandise? Such a state of things, sir, must inevitably tend to the universal impoverishment of G. Britain, and may bring her perhaps to a sense of justice.
The evils and privations which we ourselves shall experience from a system of non-intercourse are, I acknowledge, much to be regretted, but from the nature of the times they are unavoidable. That there is now and will be a diminution of circulating medium I am ready to admit. That the sources of the revenue will likewise be in a great measure dried up is equally true—But, sir, I contend that these inconveniences are a like inevitable whether we have an embargo or not. Would war have bettered our situation in these respects? Would such a trade as has been mentioned by gentlemen, or a trade trammeled by the existing belligerent restrictions, fill your public coffers, and enrich your citizens? It has been shown clearly it would only reward you with dishonor.
But, Mr. Speaker, if we have privations to encounter, we have already received incalculable benefits from the embargo, and shall, I have no doubt, derive many advantages in a political point of view from a suspension of imports. The embargo has saved from seizure and confiscation more than one hundred millions of American property, and has rescued from foreign imprisonment thousands of American citizens. Non-intercourse will still protect our property & citizens until we can acquire other means of protection. It will render the country more independent by encouraging internal manufactures. We have ample means of support at home, and should therefore avoid an habitual dependence on others for many of the comforts of life. Non-intercourse will moreover promote frugality and economy by banishing foreign superfluities—and here, Mr. Speaker, I will notice one circumstance, which is entitled to great weight—We export necessaries to G. Britain, we get in return from that country but little else than luxuries.
But, sir, if we should be compelled to persevere for any time in this policy; our fellow-citizens of the East, who have been accustomed to employment at sea, may become manufacturers for their agricultural brethren of the South, and in return may procure such necessary supplies as they may wish. Thus that traffic which has been carried on between New and Old England may be converted into a new channel of beneficial commerce between the Eastern and Southern states. Our own manufactures will by these means soon fill our store houses—give activity to capital, and restore the circulation of money. The grower of cotton too will be benefited by finding a market for that article.
By prohibiting, sir, the importation of all foreign liquors, the corn and wheat farmer might also be greatly relieved; notwithstanding the embargo. We import annually 16,096,613 dollars worth of liquors, to make which or their substitutes, would require the distillation of five millions of bushels of grain—we only export about seven millions of bushels, so that we should find at home by a disuse of foreign spirits, a market for five sevenths of our surplus grain.
It is asked, Mr. Speaker, whether the embargo is to be perpetual? and the general government is charged with the design of annihilating commerce. I wish, sir, to give to the embargo, or rather to a non-intercourse policy, which I should have preferred in the first instance to an embargo, a fair experiment; and, if after the rigid enforcement of its provisions, for a reasonable time, it shall be found ineffectual, then the magnitude of Congress will require that some other expedient be adopted in its stead. So far from a perpetual embargo, which I believe is not thought of by any one, I would resume the commerce of the country the very moment it can be done with safety or credit to ourselves, or as soon as we can acquire strength to protect our rights upon the ocean. But I am opposed to having any course of conduct dictated by the avarice and cupidity of merchants; but for whose shameful violations of the embargo, that measure would in all probability before this, have produced the end for which it was intended. If there are merchants who suffer more than the rest of the community, I am sorry for it. There is however one consolation left them, they can, while prevented by the exigencies of the country from pursuing their ordinary profession, betake themselves to the loom or the plough—occupations as respectable as they do now, or can follow. And, sir, if many of those powder-headed gentry who infest your town, and sap their very existence out of the honest planter, were under the necessity of resorting to some laborious avocation for a livelihood, society would sustain no injury from it.
To the charge that Congress or the government meditate the destruction

of commerce, I answer that such an accusation is totally unfounded, and therefore I positively deny it—I deny it, because it is contradicted by the whole course and tenor of Congressional and Executive proceedings. Congress have uniformly devoted more attention and given more encouragement to commerce alone than to every other object of national jurisdiction collectively.
It has been said that the eastern states only suffer by the embargo, and the tonnage of Massachusetts has been compared to that of Virginia as five to one. When we look at the estimates of domestic exports we find that the principal amount is composed of articles the exclusive production of the southern states. The proper and actual exports of all New England do not equal those of Virginia alone. I wish to make no comparisons; they have not been introduced by me. If notwithstanding we are driven into a state of this sort, the eastern people in a commercial point of view are principally the carriers for the southern; and the present suspension is only a suspension of their carrying trade. But, sir, we are all one political family, and no matter what part enjoys most the benefits of commerce. I am willing to go any length within the resources of the nation for its maintenance and protection. If embargo and non-intercourse shall be found inefficient restraints on our adversaries to insure us justice, I will unite in making the last appeal of nations.
Permit me now, Mr. Speaker, to occupy a few moments of your attention in noticing some of the arguments advanced by my colleague (Mr. Randolph)—a gentleman of whose talents and patriotism I have long entertained the most exalted opinion, but with whom it is my lot to differ. That gentleman has asked for what purposes was the general government created? He has told us that commercial regulations were the objects of its organization. The authors of the constitution inform us that that instrument was ordained "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." The regulation of commerce is not stated as a specific object of the compact of the states; and although it is very justly enumerated among the powers of Congress, and is certainly highly entitled to their consideration, yet there are other duties enjoined on Congress which are paramount even to the protection of commerce.
The gentleman has discovered great solicitude about state rights, and affirms that the man who is likely to wield the destinies of the United States, has long thought the state sovereignties ought not to exist. He asks also if it is not now proposed to extend the powers of the general government at the expence of the state governments?
What connection can exist between this latter question and the subject now before us, I am unable to perceive. I shall have no objection to meet the question when that part of the President's message, to which the gentleman alludes, shall come fairly before the House. Were I however to spend an opinion, it would be, that instead of attempting to excite distrust and apprehensions respecting the present executive, sentiments of gratitude should be inculcated for the innumerable political blessings which the people of these states have experienced at the hands of the best administration which the world has ever seen.
In regard, sir, to the charge against the "man who is about to wield the destinies of the union," I will only remark that I felt not a little astonishment at hearing my worthy colleague make a newspaper publication, evidently intended for electioneering purposes, the basis of so serious an accusation before this body. The very circumstances under which the publication of Judge Yates's notes has been made, prove that it deserves no sort of credit. Would it not have been more patriotic and honorable to have exhibited the charges contained in that publication, at a time which would have afforded an opportunity for their investigation before the decision of the Presidential election? If it were necessary upon this charge, I would refer to the archives of Virginia for the year '99, where would be found the most signal testimony in behalf of the illustrious person to whom allusion has been made; but his character is fortified by too many distinguished deeds of patriotism to suffer from such an assault.
Mr. Speaker, there is one part of the gentleman's argument which I know not how can justify. It is that in which he accuses the Americans with cowardice, asserting that we will "shew our heels to the enemy." [Here Mr. Randolph explained and observed, that he had not made use of the words in that sense, that he had intended to use them only hypothetically, and did not insinuate that the Americans were deficient in bravery.] Mr. Gibson proceeded. I am happy at the explanation of my
colleague. It is very far from my intention to misrepresent him. My inference was from the words as I had noted them. I however will add that the Americans will be ever ready to repair with enthusiasm to the standard of their country when its liberty shall be assailed.
The gentleman reminds us that we have engagements with you; that you cannot dispense with your revenue; and that Sweden is still free to your ships. I hold the public engagements to be sacred; but if the impositions are not to be dispensed with, I should be glad if that enlightened gentleman would shew, how the income resulting from them can be continued. Would war, sir, have supplied you with funds, or would the exchequer find resources in a trade with Sweden? I repeat again that the idea of Sweden's furnishing a market for our produce is perfectly visionary. A poor barren rigid climate, more the resort of wolves and birds of prey, than of commerce.
The same honorable gentleman has said, that property has fallen to nothing, and that the present system will end in the demonization of the people. I affirm, sir, that if the embargo had not been laid, the prices of produce which always regulate the value of property, would not have been better than they are now. Our produce in our warehouses is worth something, but devoted to seizure and confiscation, would be worth nothing except to our adversaries. Were prices better during our differences with England in '93, and with France in '99, than at present? At the former period tobacco was not higher than 2 dollars 53 cents; and at the latter I believe not more than 4 dollars per cwt. As to the demoralizing tendencies of the embargo, I must be permitted to observe, that if the habits of frugality and economy which it has produced; if the banishment of luxuries, and consequently in some degree of vice from the nation, will demoralize the people; then that deplorable effect may be justly attributed to the present system.
I have now, Mr. Speaker, concluded the remarks which I intended to make. I am very sensible that I may have taken an incorrect view of this all important subject. I know even those who are infinitely my superiors in political science, do frequently err. We may say humanum est errare . When I shall be convinced that I am in error, I shall have no hesitation in acknowledging it, and in contributing my feeble support to another and better system. My deepest solicitude is to pursue that course which shall redound most to the honor and welfare of my country.
(Debate to be Continued.) WASHINGTON CITY FRIDAY, DECEMBER 30.
The following extract of a letter from two of the most respectable citizens of Tennessee justly portrays the sentiments of the people of that state. "The people of this state feel their interest deeply affected, and have the highest confidence in the wisdom, integrity, and patriotism of their public functionaries. For ourselves, we see but one safe and honorable course to be pursued—that is a non-intercourse with those nations that disregard the rights of others, and make their own interests, (without regard to that of others) their rule of action. We are well assured that whatever course Congress may adopt, will be vigorously supported by Tennessee. And should war be the ultimate resort, every man here will be found at his post."
SENATE—DECEMBER 28. In the absence of the Vice-President, occasioned by indisposition, the senate proceeded to the choice of a President pro tempore, and elected Stephen R. Bradley.
A message was received from the President of the United States, transmitting a report of the Secretary of the Treasury, showing, as far as returns have been received from the collectors, the number of vessels which have departed from the United States with permission, and specifying the other particulars contemplated by a resolution of the 14th of November last.
Dr. Mitchell reported the bill, authorizing the President to employ an additional number of revenue cutters, with an amendment, reducing the number from twelve to three, under the contemplation of the passage of the bill for equipping all the public armed vessels of the United States, in which the Senate concurred, and ordered the bill to a third reading to morrow.
DECEMBER 29. The bill, as amended, authorizing the President to employ an additional number of revenue cutters, was passed.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Wednesday, Dec. 28. STATUTE OF LIMITATION. Mr. Love, from a select committee reported a bill making provision for settlement of certain unliquidated claims against the U. States. Twice read and referred to a committee of the whole.
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. The Speaker presented a petition of 155 inhabitants of Poplar, Middlesex, Massachusetts, stating, that the
Electors of President and Vice-President of the U. S. have been illegally chosen by the legislature of Massachusetts, and praying that Congress will take the subject into consideration, and prevent the establishment of so dangerous a precedent.
The bill for continuing the Mediterranean fund for one year, was read the third time and passed, without opposition.
REVENUE BONDS. On motion of Mr. Newton the House resolved itself into a committee of the whole on the bill supplemental to the act of last session for extending the terms of credit on revenue bonds—Mr. Pitkin in the chair.
The amendments reported by the committee of Commerce and Manufactures having been agreed to, the committee rose and reported the bill, which was ordered to be read a third time to-day; and it was accordingly read a third time and passed.
The bill from the Senate for the relief of A. J. Villard, went through a committee of the whole, Mr. W. Atkinson in the chair; and was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. The bill was then read a third time. [It contemplates the giving to Mr. Villard one thousand dollars for an improvement in the mode of mounting cannon.]
Messrs. Tallmadge, Pitkin, Quincy, Ely, Alexander, & Rhea opposed the bill on the ground that the invention would be inoperative in practice; and even if not that it was invented by a person in the employ of the U. S. whose duty it was to make all the improvement he could. Messrs. Newton, Taylor and Smilie supported the bill on the ground that it was extremely useful, was now actually in practice, and would be advantageous to the service of the U. States.
The bill was PASSED—Yeas 55, Nays 44.
ENFORCING THE EMBARGO. Mr. J. G. Jackson, from the committee to whom was yesterday referred the bill from the Senate for enforcing the embargo, reported it with several amendments, which were ordered to be printed, and the bill made the order of the day for Friday next, in preference to to-morrow, 37 to 36.
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 29. INDIAN TRADE.
On motion of Mr. Blount, Resolved, That the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures be instructed to enquire into the expediency of continuing in force the act entitled "An act for the establishment of Trading Houses with the Indian Tribes"—and also to enquire whether any and if any what amendments are necessary to the same.
FOREIGN LICENCES. The House resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. Pitkin in the Chair, on the bill for compelling vessels now abroad to return home, and for preventing any citizen of the U. States from taking from any foreign power a licence to trade, &c.
Various amendments were made to the detail of the bill. The second section, which is intended to prevent vessels from navigating under a foreign licence, was amended, on motion of Mr. Story, so as to make the act a misdemeanor, to declare the vessel so offending to be forfeited, and to impose a penalty on the offender of a sum not exceeding 10,000 dollars. The 1st of October was fixed as the day after which this section should take effect.
The committee then rose and reported the bill as amended.
The House having taken up the report of the committee of the whole, Mr. Bacon wished the amendments to be negatived, as he thought the first section of the bill (for compelling vessels now out to return home) looked to a continuance of the embargo for a longer period than he wished to contemplate. The second section he was decidedly in favor of.
Mr. Newton said if the House were in favor of the first section, he thought they should not be prevented from voting for it, because it might be made use of for electioneering purposes.
Mr. Durell declared himself opposed to the whole bill. If it was a part of a system, he wished to see the whole of it. It appeared to him to be the snare introduced before the meat.
Mr. Story coincided with his colleague (Mr. Bacon) in wishing the first section to be stricken out. He feared that an impression would be made on the public mind that it was intended to continue the embargo as long as the time allowed by this section (18 months) for vessels beyond the Cape of Good Hope to return. He was not prepared at this moment, to say what vote he might give on the further continuance of the embargo; but he was prepared to say that for eighteen months longer, it would not be the policy or redound to the honor of the United States, to continue it. It was a system which operated indirectly on the belligerents. After every means had been exhausted to preserve peace (as was now nearly the case) he wished to see the nation assume the same attitude, assert the same principles, and maintain the same character which marked our
forefathers—the same which manifested them in 1776, and vindicate our rights with honorable and open warfare. For this reason he was opposed to the first section of the bill, because it might convey an impression which, for one, he was not willing to sanction. He did not consider the bill as connected with the embargo. The second section was one, he said, which every man possessing the feelings of an American, ought to vote for; for the orders and decrees, to submit to which, the House had declared would be an abandonment of our rights, had closed every avenue of commerce. America was not destined to depend for the exercise of her maritime rights on the smiles or frowns of any foreign nation. She was destined to enjoy a free commerce, and not to take, as a boon, a licence to pursue that trade which she claimed as a right of nature; and the second section of this bill was to prevent a few, who had forfeited all due to the honorable name of Americans, by accepting foreign licences to trade, from disgracing the character of the United States. He could wish that the first section should be negatived, that Congress might not appear to have legislated on an existing fact; that nothing might be left on record to hand down to posterity the fact that in the short period of thirty years from the declaration of our independence, there had been Americans willing to surrender it. He wished the principle of the second section to be permanent and co-existent with the constitution.
Mr. S. considered the embargo as having been a wise measure; that it had answered all the purposes of precaution; but the time would soon arrive when it must either be effectual or when its effect as a coercive measure might be doubted. He wished to do nothing which should hold out an idea that the embargo would be continued for any great length of time longer. The language made use of for party purposes, which had penetrated into every hovel and been repeated at every fireside in the country, in relation to the embargo, was, that it was intended to put the northern states at the feet of the southern; that the north was to be crushed and rendered subservient to the interests of the south. Mr. Story did not believe a word of it. He had always found the southern gentlemen friends to our commercial rights; and their friendship was on record on the journals of the House. What was the embargo? A stand for commerce; a measure arising from a desire that our merchants might enjoy the benefits and the northern section of the union pursue the fair commerce designed for them by Providence; that it might not be exposed to a gradual consumption and wasting away by the belligerent edicts. And it was because he believed this that he did not wish the first section to afford ground for a renewal of this clamor.
Mr. Taylor declared his opinion to be in perfect consonance with that of the gentleman from Massachusetts in regard to the continuance of the embargo. He said that before the expiration of 18 months he also should be prepared to engage in open and honorable warfare, if the embargo did not in a reasonable time procure a redress of our grievances. A period long short of 18 months would have exhausted the patience of the nation and tested the efficacy of the measure. Mr. T. said that there were now no vessels of the United States abroad which had not already incurred the penalties of this act by taking out a licence. If they had not they would soon fall into the clutches of the belligerents. So that in fact the first section was a work of supererogation. The second section should be adopted independently of the embargo or any other measure. Indeed gentlemen who had voted in favour of the resolution expressive of a determination to resist the belligerent edicts, could not consistently vote against this section, for it went to resist one of the most odious parts of an edict of one of the belligerents—that part which requires our vessels to take out licences in order to pursue their fair commerce.
Mr. Durell expressed himself decidedly in favour of the principle, but did not like legislating by piece-meal, passing a section to-day and a section to-morrow, a law to-day and a law to-morrow. He wished to see it connected with a general plan of resistance.
Mr. Newton had no idea by the first section of this bill to pledge the house to the continuance of the embargo for 18 months. He considered it no pledge to continue it for even six or eight months. If the embargo did not operate as a coercive measure, he was prepared to take that attitude which should by force secure to us that justice we had hitherto in vain attempted to procure in another mode. If the European nations did not meet us in a short time, as they ought to do, in amicable arrangements, he was prepared to "cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war." As he had no very particular partiality for the first section, in order to accommodate the gentleman from Massachusetts, he would now withdraw his support of it.
Mr. Masters thought the first section of the bill was perfectly proper, and not at all indicative of an intention to continue the embargo when compared with the mandatory embargo law, making gun boats, &c. which would seem to leave no doubt on the subject.
Mr. Milner opposed the first section but supported the second.
Mr. Trumbull considered the first section superfluous; for our vessels could not now continue abroad, except they traded under foreign licences.
Mr. Gardner defended the people of the eastern states from insinuations against their patriotism, and used some arguments to show that the angry passions should not be excited in the House but rather allayed.
Mr. Sloan said he understood some gentlemen to consider the present bill as connected with the embargo; that being the case he had done with it. It was sufficient for him to know that any thing had connection with the embargo to induce him to reject it.
The House struck out the first section. Ayes 73. Mr. D. R. Williams said he had just come in, and wished to understand the grounds on which the decision of the House had just now been made. Mr. Mason made a motion that the further consideration of the subject be postponed to give time for deliberation; which motion how ever he afterwards withdrew. Mr. Jackson moved to reconsider the vote just taken. This motion was supported by Messrs. Mason, Masters, Jackson and Holman, and opposed by Messrs. Story and Rhea. Mr. Gardner made a speech of half an hour in favour of re-consideration. When he concluded, a question being put, the house adjourned, ayes 44, at near five o'clock.
Treasury Department, Dec. 26, 1808.
I have the honor to transmit herewith a statement of goods, wares, and merchandise exported from the U. States nominally during one year prior to the 1st. day of Oct. 1808; but in fact, during the three last months of the year 1807, subsequent exportations having been prevented by the embargo.
The goods, wares, and merchandise of domestic growth or manufacture, included in the statements, are estimated at
$9,433,540
And those of foreign growth and manufacture at 12,097,314
Amounting together to 21,530,854
The articles of domestic growth or manufacture may be arranged under the following heads, viz:—
  Produce of the Sea, 832,559   Forest, 1,399,000   Agriculture, 6,746,000   Manufactures, 341,909   Uncertain, 112,000   9,433,467 
I have the honor to be, with great respect, sir, your obedient servant, ALBERT GALLATIN. The Hon. the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Boston, Dec. 22.
The ship Julia, captain Snow, anchored in the outer harbor yesterday afternoon, from Valencia, via Gibraltar—Captain S. left Valencia, October 19, and the latter place the 24th—Left his ship before she came to anchor in the afternoon, and arrived in town in the evening. He has Gazettes and letters, to the date of his leaving Valencia, but did not bring them on shore. He reports, that the Spanish people are perfectly united in their cause and new government; that governors had been appointed to all the provinces in the kingdom; that 4000 English troops had been landed near Valencia, from Portugal, and had marched and formed a junction with 71,000 Spaniards, who were drawing near, and investing Barcelona, (which was by the last accounts in possession of the French) but it was thought they could not hold out long, as Admiral Collingwood had a strong naval force blockading that port; that the French had, it was said, 50,000 men at Perpignan, for the relief of Barcelona, but that they had not attempted to enter; that the day before he left Valencia, an agent from the general government requested him to stay a few days, to bring out dispatches to the government of the United States, and to the governors of the several states, the purport of which was to inform them, that all Spanish ports open to neutrals for a free trade. The day he left Gibraltar, accounts had been received from Madrid, from the general Junta, announcing that all the American vessels, detained at Algeziras, and other ports of Spain should be immediately liberated.
A CARD. MR. GENERES has the honor of informing the Ladies and Gentlemen of Washington, that he has removed his DANCING SCHOOL to Mr. Long's tavern. His bills will be held at the above place on Wednesday next the 4th of January 1809. December 28—3t
PIANO FORTES. The subscriber has just received from Philadelphia, Three Piano Fortes, with additional Keys, American manufacture, equal to any yet imported, which he offers for Sale on reasonable terms. P. MAURO. December 30—wtf
NOTICE. THE sale of the real estate of the late SAMUEL HEPBURN, Esq. of Prince George's County, heretofore advertised to be sold by the subscriber, under a decree of the chancery court of Maryland, is postponed until Thursday the 19th day of January next.
TRUMAN TYLER, Trustee. December 30—wtf. THIRTY-FIVE SHARES OF WASHINGTON BRIDGE STOCK, For sale—Apply to S. ELLIOTT. December 30—3t
WILLIAM S. NICHOLLS HAS on hand a large and general assortment of DRY GOODS, which was principally purchased this fall in Philadelphia and Baltimore on the best terms, and as he wishes to reduce his stock as much as possible by May, he will sell any imbalances as low as usual, notwithstanding the present in many goods. Purchasers will find, by calling on him, many goods which are lower than can be obtained by the quantity. All persons who stand indebted to him, are invited to discharge the same, as it is requisite to close accounts at the end of the year. December 30—3t
AN UNBRELLA WAS left at the subscriber's on Monday evening the 19th inst. by a Black Man, who has not since called for it—The owner is requested to come and take it away, or paying the expence of this advertisement. WILLIAM WARD. Who offers for sale at his store, corner of the Fan, in F street, a handsome assortment of DRY GOODS and GROCERIES, &c. December 30—4eop.

(Continued from first page.) to be used, when these evils are realized against America, in order to destroy the union of her councils, or impair the confidence in her rulers, which is induced for the purposes of deterring, by the fear of pecuniary expenditure, this nation from submitting again to be taxed by G. Britain. If I have truly learned the character of that great man, he was among the first to resist the right of taxation from England. Could he have lived to behold this day, when his arguments are quoted for the purpose of paralyzing our resistance against her renewed attempts of taxation, by forcing our vessels into British ports, there to pay a tax on the products of our soil, how extreme would have been his anguish!
But, sir, to return to the subject of discussion. Considering the course recommended by the committee as it must be, and ought to be avowed to be, adopted for the direct purposes of coercion, and serious action upon the interests of our commercial enemies, I would not determine to carry it into immediate and unconditional effect, if any hope still remained of amicable adjustment, but where can such a hope be supposed to exist? The two great belligerents, each propose a relaxation only in case if their enemy should do so. Let us examine then, what are the votes of relaxation from either?
As to France, if the doctrine of the British minister be correct, and England is vitally dependent on commerce, this is the very state of things most to be desired by France; the campaigns of 1805 and 1806, were not more fatal to the governments of the coalition, than the maritime campaign Great Britain is now waging against commercial rights, is fatal to herself, and must be ultimately triumphant to her enemy.
As to England, such has been her conduct, and so many impediments has she heaped in the way of adjustment, that although ruin and destruction should be yawning to receive her, it seems extravagant to hope for a voluntary restoration of our rights.
The considerations which forbid the hope of a change as to England, independent of her positive refusal, are numerous. In the first place, sir, it is proven by the conduct and declarations of her own cabinet, that the evils we now suffer from her, are the result of a system long meditated and now matured, for the monopoly of the commerce of the world. We need no other proof of this than the inaudacious mode of reasoning adopted by Mr. Canning, in defence of the conduct of his government, on the ground of French aggression; in his letter to Mr. Pinkney of the 23d September, 1808, he tells us, that "the mitigated measure of retaliation announced by its majesty in the order in council of the seventh of January, and the further extension of that measure" (by the orders in council of November, which he calls an extension in operation, but not in principle, of the orders of 7th of January) are founded on the right of retaliation. If this be the case, sir, and those two orders are indeed of such kindred principle, I would ask of the British minister, how the order of May 1806, is to be applied. The order of blockade of the continent from Brest to the Elbe, from the bay of Biscay to the North Sea, of which our minister resident at London, was notified on the 16th of May, 1806, is in its terms and principles precisely similar to that of January 7th, 1807: It has in it these words, "and the said coasts, rivers and ports are, and must be considered as blockaded." An exception is then extended to neutral vessels, not laden with goods, the property of the enemies of Britain; subject however to the following provision: "Provided the said ships and vessels so approaching and entering," (except as to the ports from Ostend to the river Seine, which are declared in a rigorous state of blockade,) shall not have been laden at any port belonging to or in the possession of any of his Majesty's enemies, and that the said ships so sailing from the said rivers and ports (except as aforesaid) shall not be detained, to any port belonging to, or in the possession of any of his Majesty's enemies." Here then, sir, we find the commencement of the principle now said to have been adopted, in retaliation of the orders of France of the 21st November following. The proclamation of May 1806, and the orders of January 1807, are the same in terms, both but parts of that system of monopoly which Great Britain has so obviously determined to enforce. Let us hear no more then, sir, of his Majesty's retaliation in his just defence. It is not pretended, by Mr. Canning, or any one for him on this side the water, that France had commenced her present career of aggression by blockade, prior to May 1806. The truth is, sir, and it did not require a warning voice from the other side of the water to inform us of it, that Great Britain is determined to make if she can, all nations tributary to her maritime greatness. From the time of the revolution, this policy has been
decided on by the British cabinet, and it has accordingly made itself appear, whenever an apt occasion has called for it. Let us attend for a moment to the course she has pursued. The doctrines of Sheffield were about to be enforced upon us, and were indeed in actual operation, when the renovated union of the states, under the new constitution, gave us sufficient strength, and enabled us to afford sufficient security to mercantile enterprise to counteract them, and to defeat the hopes of supplanting us, in our natural share of commerce. But soon an occasion offered, when America might in the opinion of the British cabinet, be again reduced to a colonial system of commerce; and in March 1793, we fled from the collection of state papers of that date, that Great Britain had entered into a confederation with Russia, to prohibit the exports of neutral produce to France. This determination was followed up by the British orders of June and November, 1793. I do not wish, sir, by tracing so far back the system of aggression on the part of England to go in pursuit of an enquiry, futile indeed at this day, as to the priority of aggression from France or England; but I mean by noting, at different periods, the same appearance of hostility to the maritime rights of this country, to show that it has been the effect of system and design, and not of accident, or justifiable necessity as now contended.
We have already seen how the system of aggression of 1793 was checked, in 1799 the same disposition we find renewed in the British cabinet, and by an authority emanating from the king, a principle is attempted to be enforced, which was to destroy the neutral rights of America. Several condemnations had taken place in her maritime courts, when on the representation of our minister the attempt was again relinquished, and in April 1801, the most formal recognition of our rights officially made.
Sir, it may be useful to pause, and compare those times with the present. In 1798 and '99 differences as now existing between the French and American governments, G. Britain is anxious to force us into the war, by distressing our commerce and sowing the seeds of discontent among our citizens. In 1801, when there was a most decisive expression of the public will in favor of the independent rights of this country, when an administration was introduced into this government which it was known would neither be driven or persuaded to compromise its interests; the hopes which were raised of success in the British cabinet, were again dissipated, and they hasten to renounce the principles they acted on. Let the history of that time be now a useful lesson to us, if hopes of a division and a strong British interest in this country have been falsely cherished, let them now be dissipated by the vast preponderancy which has not ceased to increase, and has so lately, on so warmly contested an occasion, been amply manifested to the world. In 1805, Britain resumed the maritime principle she had formally abdicated in 1801. The cases of the Essex, the Enoch, and the Mars, were signals to their cruisers, as the correspondence laid on our tables last spring informs us, our commerce was swept from the ocean in the little space of a few weeks. When the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Quincy) tells us of the effects of an embargo for 12 months, and goes on to estimate the cost, why has he forgotten that in one fortnight our commerce suffered more from the injuries of a foreign power than by a measure calculated to prevent a repetition of that injury, it could suffer from many years operation.
But, sir, we have reason to fear, that not even the renewed evidences of union which have lately been exhibited in this country, can now have the effect of averting the evils of this threatened maritime tyranny. And another cause to destroy our hopes of accommodation exists in what we hear of the necessities of England. Great indeed they must be if the accounts of her own writers are correct, and more perhaps than the plunder of the world can satisfy. If instead of 20 millions of annual supply, as was required at the commencement of the war of 1793, she now requires an annual supply of about 50 millions to carry on her contest with the continent, and if instead of a permanent debt requiring the payment of an annual interest of fourteen or sixteen million of pounds sterling, her permanent debt is so magnified as to require an annual supply for the discharge of interest alone, of thirty five or forty million of pounds sterling, we may indeed conceive something of the necessities of that kingdom, and find in other considerations, independent of a natural jealousy and hatred towards us, sufficient ground for her piratic exactions. If the commerce of all the nations of the world is to be made to pay tribute to her superior naval strength, and thus feed the monster that devours them; if America is indignantly to subscribe her quota of immense taxation to sup-
port the vast expense of this dominion claimed over all the waters of the earth, I confess it is possible the grand plan of universal monopoly may succeed, and the countless accumulation of the British national debt will form no obstacle to her grandeur or the ease and happiness of her people. But this is a question which addresses itself to the honor, to the patriotism, and the virtue of every American. On this question, I believe, sir, there is no division among us; we all profess to emulate the genuine spirit of '76.
I fear indeed there are other obstacles to fair and honorable adjustment with England which will be difficult to overcome. Many are the items of injury, which we have been baffled in all our attempts to obtain redress for.
The article of impressment stands in importance at the head of the list; it is a claim too degrading to freemen, too insulting to the sovereignty of this nation, ever to lose sight of. I hope for the honor of our country that we shall never yield the rights of civility to a nation who attempts to enforce it on us; it was properly made the condition precedent to any treaty our agents at the British court were authorized to form; nor, sir, should we be content with a supposed relaxation of the practice so long as the principle is claimed; we have indeed a noted evidence of relaxation in this practice in the famous note of Nov. 8th, 1806, so much relied on by our ministers in London, but in which experience has shown no faith could be placed; for by a recurrence to the document with which we have been furnished very lately on the subject of impressments, we find that from the date of that note to the time when it was probable the rejection of the treaty was known in England, a number of our citizens, equal to any number in the like length of time in any former period were subjected to impressment into the British service. Indeed, for my own part, sir, I never could construe that note to mean even an insinuation that the practice was to be desisted from, but rather a new avowal of the principles of it.
Another item in our account, which must have an honorable adjustment before a pacific understanding can ever return, is the outrage committed on our sovereignty by the attack on the Chesapeake. Whatever the apologists of England may say, no American will venture to pronounce in the candor of his mind, that our claims to satisfaction have not been completely sustained on our part, and most shamefully and dishonorably evaded by England. Sir, it is no secret now, and I dare say it has been avowed at St. James's, that the person sent here for the ostensible purpose of making satisfaction to this nation, was neither authorized or intended to heal the wound the feelings of America had sustained. Who is there on this or the other side of the Atlantic, who has ever heard what were the specific propositions of redress intended to be made? There may, sir, be some who hear me, who know more of the secrets of foreign governments than I do, who could tell us what that person came to this country for. From every thing I have seen or heard, if I was asked to-day to state what he had come for, I know of no answer I dare give. Perhaps he came, sir, to learn us the art of bowing, to teach us kindly something of the etiquette of an European court. He has indeed attended our national levee, and after presenting himself to the presiding personage, turned upon the surrounding crowd, has taken this man by the elbow, to that he has whispered, and with a third may perhaps have transacted some little matter of business, and in due time, seeming to protest with an honni soit qui mal y pense , has taken his leave.
There are other subjects of minor importance, for the settlement of which we have a right to look. Neither the fair principles of our commerce, as connected with the colonial trade have been adjusted or compensation for the losses we have sustained by depredations on our property on the seas been made.
But were these questions of claim settled, or did they not exist, we have I fear too satisfactory evidence of the determined hostility of the British king, to permit us to hope, that we can longer avoid measures of a strong character and quality, such as I admit those under consideration to be. For this ground of support to the measures recommended, I refer with indignation to the proclamation of the British king issued some time in the last spring. Sir, in my estimation it is scarcely possible to conceive of an act of hostility more insulting, or of a character more obviously inimical than that instruction published in our gazettes, in which the British king has proclaimed immunity to the violators of our embargo laws. Has he not thus in open, flagrant and the most undistinguished terms, offered rewards for insurrection among the people of the United States, erected the standard of rebellion for them? Has he not appointed as the rendezvous of American
treason, the quarter decks of his navy? And is it, sir, for George the Third or his minions to encourage in the people of the United States a disobedience to the laws, they themselves have made? For him who once endeavored to command obedience to laws, in making which they had no participation? It might indeed have been expected that before his majesty, had attempted this insidious act, against our interior peace, he would have recollected his cause, or only ostensible cause of the war of 1793 against France. France he said had attempted to alienate the obedience of his people, and stir up insurrection; if this was true it would have been certainly a just and indispensable cause of war, where a man is attacked by conspiracies, and combinations, carried on with his own domestics, it is time to defend himself, and sir, if ever there was a time in my opinion, when a call of this body would have justified an order to repeal insult, and injury, it was when our government was informed, of this insidious attempt upon our internal peace and safety.
The conduct of the court party in Great Britain, however evincive of hatred to us is what we have no right to complain of. Let them stimulate their own nation by what false means their ministry may think fit, either in or out of Parliament, to a spirit of hostility against us; they have a right to do so; and it is for us to watch the working of that sort of machinery and be prepared to meet its stroke. Of hostilities so strongly indicated in that way, I therefore say nothing, except that as a new evidence of a determined spirit of war, they ought to warn us of our situation.
Among the last, and surely not the least of the indignities offered to the government and people of this country, Mr. Canning's letter to Mr. Pinkney of the 23d of September, is certainly to be ranked. It could not indeed have been expected, sir, in candor, after the earnest and honorable endeavors of our government to reconcile our disputes with England, that we should be told in the official character of that kingdom, that we had entered into the universal combination against his Majesty. That this echo of a miserable party, I do not mean that party composed of a respectable body of American politicians, opposed to me in sentiment, (of them I will not doubt the integrity, nor can their patriotism be questioned). But, sir, I speak of a party—an unprincipled foreign faction, which had fixed a mercenary interest among us. It is the spirit of this poor, contemptible, and already dreadfully appalled set of miscreants, on whom the patriotism of the country is frowning indignantly at this moment, of which I speak, when I say, a British minister has dared to return the echo of French influence upon our government itself; and has told us in a tone of insolent exultation, over what he falsely supposed a state of division among us, that there was a universal combination, against his Majesty, and that our embargo did come in aid of France, when if her measures could have succeeded at all, this interposition of the American government would have most effectually contributed to its success.
I have thus, sir, in the most concise manner I was able, without taking the wide range the subject would have justified, endeavored to shew the little probability that exists, without resorting to the strong measures contained in the resolutions before us, ever to effect an adjustment of our differences. The interest of France, perhaps her disposition—the disposition of the king of England, and a false calculation of his interests; the systems in which both these governments seem to be unchangeably fixed, require the measures proposed. I believe those measures to be ten times better calculated, for all the purposes of any annoyance we are capable of, than war would be, if formally declared, and at the same time however inconvenient to ourselves, less so than war. I therefore am willing to consider the second resolution as proper to be adopted in its broadest terms, and as intended for a retaliation of injury, we ought to adopt a part of the measures of reprisal.
At the same time, sir, let it be understood, by the modification which a select committee may make on the subject of importation, what is to be the permanent, as well as the temporary plan. Let it be understood to what articles prohibitions or prohibitory duties are as an ultimate regulation to extend. Nor, sir, would I hesitate to discourage the immense importations in times of pacific intercourse, which have, and ever will so long as they remain unrestricted, drain our country of its real riches, and make an unprofitable barter of our valuable exports, for the luxuries, which enervate while they impoverish us by throwing an immense balance of trade against America.
These, sir, are the ideas which appeared to me to be applicable to this subject. When we come to consider the question of the embargo alone, it will then be in time to make the enquiry, whether the barren king-
dom of Sweden, which the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) said was open to our commerce, would form a sufficient vent for our vast products, to authorise a hope of benefit to us, from permitting our vessels to go there. I believe however it will be found, that so small is the consumption of the produce of our agriculturalists, hunters or fishermen, that a single warehouse of an American exporter would be more than sufficient to glut her, and as to the idea of the gentleman, that through Sweden we can get to the continent with our freights, I ask if he has not heard that the navy of G. Britain infests the seas of the north as well as the south of Europe, that her ships cover the Baltic and surround the coast of Sweden and Denmark? Will England allow us to go to the continent, and thus directly and effectually evade her blockade? No, sir, nor is there a hole or corner of the waters of the earth, through which we can now creep to a competent market. Sir, whatever may be the views of aggrandizement which merchants might have on this subject, they would find themselves mistaken. They may indeed in the vast labyrinth of orders, decrees and regulations perceive some crooked course to stem along with a disgraceful smuggled trade, but I can with confidence tell the gentleman from N. York, (Mr. Mumford) that if once we open our ports by a general regulation, while the orders of France and England continue, his commerce will no longer enjoy immunity from the permission even of a foreign nation; when our property shall again be fully exposed upon the sea a general grasp will be made at it; is not the enemy now hovering round you, the hungry birds of prey? Let then the gentleman send again his vessels to sea, and he will find only an addition to his great and heavy losses already stated to be sustained, by the tyranny of France and England. The scene will again shift when our property is put afloat to so great an amount as it would be, and capture and condemnation would succeed to fraud and contrivance. Sir, it is time to think more of resistance, and less of refinements in the acts of submission, I hope we shall have the question, and that I shall have the pardon of the House for having contributed to day to delay it.
DECEMBER 6.
MR. GHOLSON. Mr. Speaker— Were I to yield to my embarrassments on the present occasion, I should not trespass on your indulgence. But when I reflect upon the great national importance, of the question now before the House, and upon the high responsibility which its decision must attach to me as one of the Representatives of the people; I am impelled, from considerations of duty, to assign to you the reasons by which I am influenced.
It has been said, sir, with great truth that the present is an extraordinary crisis. It seems indeed to have been reserved for the age in which we live, to witness a combination of political events unparalleled in the annals of time. Almost the whole civilized world has been within a few years convulsed by wars, battles and conquests. Kingdoms and empires have been revolutionized; and we behold a vast continent assuming a new aspect under a new dynasty. Those laws which from time immemorial have prescribed and limited the conduct of nations, are now contemptuously prostrated, innocent neutrality is banished from the ocean, and we hear a grim tyrant asserting himself the sovereign of the seas. Thus the most essential part of the globe is attempted to be partitioned between two domineering rival belligerents. Sir, it would have been a subject of the sincerest felicitation if our happy country could have been exempt from this universal concussion. But we are fated to share evils in the production of which we have had no participation. In enquiring, Mr. Speaker, into the causes of these evils and the policy by which we are to be extricated from them, I am conscious of two things—of my utter incompetency to the elucidation of so great a subject, and of the unavoidable necessity of touching upon ground already occupied by gentlemen who have preceded me in this debate.
When, sir, I recur to the resolutions reported by the committee of exterior relations, I find one which proposes resistance to the edicts of G. Britain and France; and another which recommends a system of non-intercourse between the U. S. and those countries.
In hearing the first resolution treated as an abstract proposition, my astonishment has been not a little excited. I have always understood an abstract proposition to be the assertion of some general principle without any specific application. Here is a distinct position with a direct reference to particular orders and decrees. The resolution therefore is itself specific and appropriate, to use the apt terms of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Dana.) But before we can determine upon the propriety or impropriety of these resolutions,
(Continued on second page.)