The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1808-01-13 00:00:00

National Intelligencer.
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. VIII.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. 1131.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM,
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1808.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
BY AUTHORITY.
AN ACT
To extend certain privileges as therein mentioned to Anthony Boucherie.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That two years residence as required by an act, entitled, "An act to extend the privilege of obtaining patents for useful discoveries and inventions to certain persons therein mentioned, and to enlarge and define the penalties for violating the rights of patentees," shall not be required of Anthony Boucherie, to enable him to obtain a patent for any discovery he has made in the art of manufacturing sugar, but that he shall obtain a patent therefor, on his conforming to the other requisitions of said act.
J. B. VARNUM, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
GEO. CLINTON, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate.
JANUARY 7, 1808.
APPROVED,
TH: JEFFERSON.
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DEBATE
On the Resolution for requesting the President to cause an enquiry to be made into the conduct of GENERAL WILKINSON.
TUESDAY, JANUARY 5.
CONTINUED.
Mr. SLOAN said, he rose with an intention, and for the purpose of making some observations on what had fallen from the gentleman from New-York (Mr. Gardenier) whom he did not now see in his place, but if he was within the walls he should be glad to know. He had intended in the first place to have acknowledged and expressed in his plain way, his gratitude to the gentleman for his endeavors to enlighten the House, and this he should have endeavored to do in a very few words. This member had expressed his extreme surprise that the motion which he had offered on a former day had not been more adverted to by members of the House; he should have recollected that every member of the House was not endowed with the same sagacity and penetrating genius which he so abundantly possessed. But permit me to say, said Mr. S. that I was not less surprised that that gentleman could be, that the first move made this morning was not (under existing circumstances) to withdraw the resolution. It was a fact known and believed by every member on the floor, that the proper authority had undertaken to investigate the object of the resolution. Under a consideration and from a full conviction that this House was not the proper tribunal to try this case, his surprise and disappointment had surpassed that expressed by the member from New-York, that the subject had not been taken up yesterday morning. Mr. S. said he was then prepared to have made a pretty lengthy speech, the notes for which he now held in his hand; but the House had been taken up the whole day in discussing what course they should give to a certain (Yazoo) memorial. In the course of that debate he had been much instructed by the member from Vermont (Mr. Elliot) being warned of the taking the bull by the horns, and also something about a club and Hercules: although these expressions were somewhat obscure, they had raised some sensation in his mind, and induced him to think he had better be cautious how he made speeches on that floor; he had therefore concluded not to make this long speech which he had digested and prepared.
But before he sat down, he would say, that being privy to certain circumstances, although he had no right to speak of them, he had certainly a right to think; and he would state what thoughts this resolution produced in his mind. Knowing, as no doubt every member of the House did, of what had lately turned up between certain great men, it brought to his mind a circumstance which might be thought simple, but he hoped he might be permitted to introduce a simile: when he went to school in his youthful days he had seen little affrays turn up between the boys, and he had known those who were likely
to get the worst of the bargain, cry out, "I'll tell daddy or mammy; I'll tell my master." This struck Mr. S. very forcibly as applicable to the present case.
He would not detain the House much longer, but barely observe, that he hoped the amendment would be rejected; and after that, that the resolution itself would be rejected with all the contempt which it deserved.
Mr. ELLIOT. I am opposed to the amendment proposed to the motion of the gentleman from N. York, and to the motion itself; and shall probably be opposed to any amendment that may be offered to the original resolution. All this for the best of all possible reasons, because I am in favor of the original proposition in its original form.
Had I not long since resolved to adopt, as a political man, the motto nil admirari , I should regard with some degree of admiration, if not of astonishment, the extreme squeamishness which is manifested by some gentlemen respecting an invasion of Executive functions, which they apprehend will be involved in the adoption of the resolution, and the very curious arguments which are advanced to support the position. But admiration and astonishment ought not to be excited by any political events or opinions of the present day.
It is to be regretted, that the gentleman from N. York (Mr. Gardenier) has suffered himself to wander into so wide a field of eloquent declamation, respecting the celebrated campaign of the officer who is the object of the present resolution, against what have been called the Burreries at N. Orleans. I regret it, sir, because I wished argument, and argument alone, to be used upon the present occasion. Still, whenever an opportunity is fairly offered for the expression of an opinion upon that subject, I shall not hesitate for a moment to express that which it has been my lot to form. It was a horrible, though bloodless campaign! And I believe the continuance in the command of the army of the U. S. in the chief command, subordinate to the President, who is the constitutional commander in chief of our armies, of that officer, since that period, has placed a disgraceful stain upon the early annals of our new western world, which the annual inundations of the Mississippi, were they increased to the magnitude and duration of those of the Nile, could not efface in a century.
Few members, perhaps none, have expressed any doubts of the propriety of the measure, if we possess the constitutional power to adopt it. But as many serious doubts are entertained of its constitutionality, it may be proper to go into an argument with a view to dissipate those doubts.
It is triumphantly asked, from what constitutional source do you derive this power? Here it is but fair to meet gentlemen on their own ground, and to admit that if we cannot find in the constitution authority for the measure, they may very properly enquire, quo warranto ? By what warrant do you attempt its exercise? To answer the enquiry, as it is certain that the constitution has not, in express terms, given us authority to adopt this particular measure, let us take a cool review of the whole of our constitutional powers.
To me it appears that three classes of powers are bestowed upon us by the constitution. Two of them by express terms of investiture, and the third by inevitable implication.
The first is the great and comprehensive class of legislative powers, properly so called; powers given to us as one of the branches of the national legislature, and in that character alone.
Our warrant for the exercise of these all important and all comprehensive powers, while we confine ourselves within the proper orbit of legislation, exists in the first section of the first article of the constitution. "All legislative powers herein granted, shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." These are the initial words of the constitution. They describe no specific powers. They merely invest the general power of legislation. They refer us to other parts of the constitution for the delineation of the particular attributes of the legislative character. They attach those attributes to us in
common with the Senate. They give us no distinct and independent powers. Nor does any other clause of the constitution, in direct terms, vest in us the power for which we now contend.
The second class of powers is given to us, rather as a distinct and independent assemblage of individuals, than as a component branch of the national legislature.
These are not powers, strictly speaking of a legislative character, but powers with which we are invested for the purposes of our own organization, government and discipline, as an independent political body. Such as the power to choose our Speaker and other officers; to judge of the elections and qualifications of our own members; to adjourn; to compel the attendance of absent members; to expel a member; to establish rules of proceeding; and to keep and publish journals.
Before I proceed to the third class of our constitutional attributes, I will just notice two excentric or anomalous authorities with which the House of Representatives is invested by the constitution, and which complete the circle of our political functions. We have the sole power of impeachment. As it respects the exercise of that power, we are divested of our legislative character, and transformed into the great inquest of the nation. In certain cases we become the electors of the President. We then again lose our legislative character, and are changed into an electoral body.
The third class of our constitutional powers, and it is by no means an unimportant one, although it is not given to us in express terms, is essential to our political existence. I speak of those which, by an irresistible and incontestable implication, are bestowed as incidental to those which are specifically vested by the constitution.
This incidental authority must of course be extensive and important. While it is our duty to cherish and sustain this great and plenteous source of power, we ought cautiously to govern ourselves by the true spirit and genius of the constitution. Here great discretion is required, because here arises that danger of usurpation with which gentlemen are alarmed on the present occasion. Yet the existence of incidental power is questioned by none. By this alone are we authorised to pass resolutions calling upon the Executive for information, a practice coeval with the government itself. Gentlemen will say that we then act in our legislative capacity. But they are mistaken. The legislative power is the power of making laws. We only act as legislators, when we discuss among ourselves the project of a law, or act upon one received from the Senate. The information which we ask may or may not be given by the Executive. It is true that it is his constitutional duty to give us information from time to time; but at what time and in what manner is left to his own discretion. Where we have no coercive we have no legislative authority. The information, if it be obtained, may or may not be such as to require or even to induce us to act legislatively. If then we possess this power of calling upon the Executive for information, and it has long been settled, by a practical construction of the constitution, that we do possess it, it is in our possession as incident not only to the actual but to the potential exercise of the general functions of legislation.
But an important distinction is taken, and one which would be conclusive, if it would bear examination. It is, however, a nominal rather than a real distinction. It is admitted that we may call upon the Executive for information, but it is said that we now propose to call upon him to perform his duty, in a case exclusively within his own constitutional jurisdiction. It is just so in every case of a call for information. It is his duty to give us information, but in his own time and his own way. Calling upon him to communicate to us information, upon any subject whatever, we call upon him to perform a duty which the constitution authorises him to perform when and how he pleases. In every instance we may or may not legislate in consequence of what we obtain, and we do not legislate in the act of asking for it. We cannot coerce the communication, we cannot even demand it, we can on-
ly request it. We ask the President to do his duty in the one case as well as in the other. But it is said that as we cannot impeach a military officer, as the President alone can remove him, we can neither ask for his removal, or for an inquiry into his conduct. It seems to me to be considering rather too curiously to consider so: The fact is, that we propose to request an inquiry, for the very purpose of obtaining information, and for that purpose alone; and, as in every other case, the information, when obtained, may induce us to act in our legislative capacity. Here it is proper to call the attention of the House to the clause of the constitution which was read this morning by the honorable mover of the resolution. "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States to any person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state." Can any one doubt our power to pass a law for the purpose of giving effect to this great and prominent provision of the constitution? We cannot legislate upon the subject ex post facto ; we cannot provide for the punishment of an infraction of this article which has already taken place, but we can guard against such infraction in future. It is said that your commander in chief has long been the pensioner of a foreign power. We only wish that his innocence may be established or his guilt developed. If the development of his guilt should be the result of the proposed enquiry, if he should be proved to have been the great infractor of the constitution, what more powerful argument could be urged to the members of the national legislature, to induce them to pass a law to prevent or punish such treacherous conduct in future?
Some gentlemen who appear to doubt our power to pass the resolution, declare that the information which we possess upon the subject ought to be transmitted to the President, and that they will vote for its transmission. How is this to be done? Will the Speaker or the Clerk transmit it without the order of the House? It may be presumed not. The House, then, must act upon the subject. And surely it will be more proper and dignified to request the President to do a certain act, than to hint to him that we expect him to do it. And our right is the same in one case as in the other.
To this point then the coast is clear. We only ask for information, and we have a right so to ask. But we shall be told that we are begging the question, and that the great difficulty which exists in the case still recurs upon us. You propose to call upon the President to do his duty. One branch of the government has no right to make such a call upon another. Upon this point alone I should be willing to rest the decision. Has not one branch of the government a right to make a request to another? What forbids it? The right is certainly not expressly given. But if it be not forbidden by any part of the constitution; if it be not reserved to the States, the people, or any power on earth; if it be naturally incident to the intelligent and proper exercise of the great powers actually vested; and if it has long been declared to exist by a practical construction of the constitution; the exercise of such a right is at least harmless, and of course neither unconstitutional, nor extra-constitutional. From the course which I have thought it my duty to pursue, not only in the present session, but on former occasions, I shall not be suspected of possessing an overweening confidence in the Executive; but I will venture to say that the Executive will feel none of that squeamishness upon this subject, which is manifested here. Whatever may be my opinion as to particular measures of the Executive, I have too much confidence in his good sense and patriotism, to believe that he will object to a compliance with our request. If, indeed, he shall be of opinion that we are invading or usurping the proper province of executive prerogative, it will be his duty to tell us so, and he will tell us so. But this, I presume, is not apprehended by any one.
I have confined myself closely to the question. The view which I have taken of the subject occurred to me after the debate commenced this morning. I feel a real, not an affected
diffidence, in my powers of argument upon this or any other subject. I cannot hope to convince—I will not say the members of this House, for the remark would imply that they are inattentive to my observations—any assembly of intelligent men whatever. But when doubts arise upon a great constitutional question, it is proper for every one to throw in his mite with a view to dispel those doubts. This has been done. If any good effect has been produced, it is very well; if not, I have done my duty.
Mr. DANA said it was not strange, that upon a subject that was as greatly interesting to the people of the United States as this—upon a subject that went very seriously to affect the character of the commanding officer of the army, that gentlemen should entertain a difference of sentiment as to the best course proper to be pursued. There seemed to be but one opinion as respected the general charge, that it merited serious attention in some way and in some form. It concerned the character of the officer himself if innocent, that an enquiry should be had, as well as it concerned the people and the nation if he were guilty. In the situation in which he was now placed, and feeling as he did how much the reputation of a military officer was his best estate, Mr. D. thought it necessary to exercise peculiar discretion and not (though other gentlemen appeared to think differently) to express any opinion on the innocence or guilt of this officer. If there were information before the House which might give a full knowledge of facts he would wish it should be so disposed of as to meet a fair enquiry; and could wish also that the delegate from Orleans should be called upon to declare what he knew of the acceptance by this officer of any money or of the project or agreement of any persons to dismember the Union, or to render it dependent on any foreign power; and for this reason, that this gentleman, received as a member of this House, though not having the privilege of voting or debating, enjoyed every other privilege of members of the House, being entrusted with the discharge of high public functions and amenable to the authority of the House; and that the privilege of this House must be deemed precedent and paramount to the authority of any court martial or court of enquiry. Although this was his general opinion on the subject, he doubted very much the propriety of adopting the motion of the gentleman from New-York for the appointment of an authorized committee. If the House had resolved to appoint a committee of enquiry which should directly investigate the conduct of any officer, it would be proper to arm such committee with the power of sending for persons, papers, &c. As he now understood the object of the present resolution it was merely to appoint a committee to enquire whether the House should adopt a particular resolution requesting an enquiry, and was therefore different from a motion for enquiry. In the case of Sinclair, which had been quoted, the committee was appointed to enquire, and not to consider the propriety of enquiring; so that the case did not apply. It was very immaterial whether the amendment were agreed to or not; but as a motion had been made to amend it by striking out this part of it, he should give his vote in favor of the motion.
Mr. FISK was opposed to the amendment and to the resolution; and was surprised at being so long detained on the subject this day, after being told that a court was already authorized to make the enquiry. This being the case, if no other end was to be attained than merely to throw light on the guilt or innocence of General W. there was now no necessity for adopting the resolution. If no court were ordered it would be proper to enquire whether it would be necessary to adopt the resolution. If there was no sufficient evidence before the House on which to ground the resolution, why should it be adopted? Was it to throw the additional weight of the House of Representatives into the scale? He presumed no gentleman in the House would acknowledge this object. Mr. F. did not believe the House

...the power to institute an... ...it did not follow that they... ...the constitution had... ...certainly not given it to them. The... ...gentleman from New-York (Mr. ... ...Gardner) had told them that if... ...they could control the master they... ...had power over the servant. Mr. F. ... ...said this did not follow as a correct... ...conclusion. The House could im- ...peach the judges of the Supreme... ...Court, but could not remove a... ...Clerk of the same court; they could... ...delegate the power, but could not... ...exercise it themselves. For what... ...purpose should the enquiry be made?... ...When made, could they effect any... ...object by it? No. And why? Be- ...cause the constitution had reserved... ...to this House a power to remove the... ...superior officer, who alone could... ...remove the inferior. If gentlemen... ...thought fit to bring forward a resolution... ...to enquire into the propriety of... ...impeaching the superior officer, and... ...showed cause for it, no objection could... ...be made.
While gentlemen were so ex- tremely careful to guard the constitution from violation, he begged they would not trespass on it them- selves; while they complained of a supposed breach of trust by a public officer, he hoped not to see it realized in this House. The constitution had confined the power of the House within a certain limit; and when they exceeded that limit, they violated the constitution.
The gentleman from New-York had told the House that he hoped what had been denied in the palace would not be refused here. Mr. F. asked what had been denied in the "palace." The gentleman from New Orleans had told them that the evi- dence did not relate to the subject, and that it was not sufficient for conviction of any person. The gentleman from New-York had also stated that if the House transmitted this evidence to the President without referring it to a committee, they would be left in the same situation as they were now, be- cause the gentleman from New Or- leans would keep his word as he al- ways did. The gentleman from New Orleans might consider this as a com- pliment; Mr. F. was willing all the honor intended should attach to him, but he did not believe that gentleman was possessed of such principles; he did not believe any gentleman was so lost to the honor of his country as to suffer private pique to seal his lips when called upon to give evidence by any authority whose duty it was to enquire. Would the gentleman in- deed decline in such a case? It was impossible that he could. Mr. F. could not have so contemptible an op- inion of any gentleman whatever as to suppose that his love of country would not triumph over private animosity.
The same gentleman from New- York had very emphatically asked when would the cup of guilt be full? Mr. F. said, when gentlemen came forward to justify treason, when they attempted to paralyze all the ex- ertions made to arrest such nefarious plans as those of the late con- spiracy—then would the cup be full; then would the distraction of the coun- try be complete.
But, the House were told, this offi- cer had violated the constitution. How had he violated the constitution? In arresting traitors? And should traitors alone enjoy all the constitutional rights? Mr. F. said this man also had rights. Let him have a fair en- quiry. Why influence the public mind and blazon his guilt (if guilty) from this source? Why had not the prosecution been pursued in the courts of justice? Why had not this informa- tion been given to the President? Why was it brought to this House? Let it be brought forward properly. He believed when the evidence ad- duced was examined, it would not bear the light.
Mr. F. had no doubt that Burr and all his friends would rejoice that all the evidence against them should be ar- rested in any way; and whatever were the guilt or innocence of Gen. W. it would be proper that the thing should pursue the usual course. He could not see why this had been brought into the House, or why it was pursued and insisted on while an en- quiry was progressing in the proper way. Believing this enquiry not to be within their constitutional power, & no necessity to exist for it, if it were, he should give his vote against it in every stage of the business.
Mr. W. Alston said it was not his intention to detain the House one mo- ment; he rose but with a view to state to the House that facts had been strangely misrepresented. When the gentleman from New Orleans had ri- sen a few days ago, he had told the House that the information which he had meant to communicate, and which had been disregarded year after year, did not relate to this subject. And what was the language which had this day been held to it on the subject?
"A deaf ear had been turned to the subject in the palace." In order that he might be assured that this was an egregious error, Mr. A. said he had asked the gentleman from Orleans if he did not understand him correctly? I did understand him to say, said Mr. A. that his information did not particu- larly relate to this subject, and I under- stood him correctly. I wish it to be explicitly so stated to the House and to the nation.
Gentlemen who heard the observa- tions this day made would attribute to them that credit which they deserved. When was it that General Wilkinson became so obnoxious to a particular part of the community? Not till his exertions had saved the country from ruin—not till he had raised his hands against Burr and his associates. Look to his appointment to office some time ago and to those who supported him; revert to the language they used at that day, and listen to their denunciation now—"Wilkinson had vitiated the constitution—the executive held him by the hand—his conduct was not en- quired into—the representatives of the nation were therefore called upon to do that duty which the executive had neglected"—this was now the language of those who once cherished him. What could cause this wonderful change of sentiment?
The present question presented it- self at every moment in a very dif- ferent shape. If the object of it were merely to give to the executive infor- mation which it did not now possess, no one would object to it. The gentle man from Connecticut (Mr. Dana) had told the House that the evidence of the gen- tleman from N. Orleans ought to be commanded, and it could not be de- but by the House—that the gentleman possessed all the privileges of a mem- ber of this House, and he doubted much whether his evidence could be procur- ed in any other way. Would the evi- dence of the gentleman be taken down and delivered through the medium of newspapers as evidence for a commit- tee of enquiry? This must be what the gentleman meant, although he car- ed very little whether the committee had power to enquire into it or not. Was the House in possession of any evidence whatever on this subject? Mr. A. said not. No evidence what- ever had been laid on their table on this subject. There was before them a resolution on which they were called upon to decide. In making this deci- sion had they before them any evidence on which to found their agreement to it? Let us get possession of the evi- dence, said he, and then the House may make a proper disposition of the resolution and of the papers bearing on the subject in their possession. If a court of enquiry had been ordered, was not that sufficient? Was not the pur- pose of the resolution thus answered? What other object was to be attained? He could see no other, except it were to give gentleman an opportunity to ar- raign the conduct of the executive, & ex- haust their imagination in sheer inven- tive. He could not for his soul see, af- ter they were informed that an enqui- ry was ordered, why they should en- quire further.
(Debate to be continued.)
MONDAY, JANUARY 11. Mr. Boyle, from the committee on Public Lands who were directed to enquire into the expediency of allow- ing an additional compensation to the commissioners for examining titles to land west of Pearl river, made a re- port recommending the adoption of a resolution declaring that it is inex- pedient to grant an additional com- pensation to these commissioners; which was ordered to lie on the ta- ble.
Mr. Thomas asked and obtained leave of absence for twenty days.
Mr. Newton, from the committee of Commerce and Manufactures made a report at length (which shall be given in a future paper) on the me- morial of the merchants of Philadel- phia, praying a modification of the embargo law, so as to permit vessels cleared out at the time of the passage of that law, to go to sea, notwithstand- ing the embargo, made a report concluding with the following resolu- tion:
Resolved, That the prayer of the memorialists, merchants and tra- ders of the city of Philadelphia is un- reasonable and ought not to be grant- ed.
After some observations against immediately deciding on this report by Messrs Milnor and Lyon, and by Mr. Newton in answer, on the sug- gestion of Mr. Smilie, the report was referred to a committee of the whole on Wednesday next.
On motion of Mr. Thomas, the House resolved itself into a commit- tee of the whole on the bill for the relief of Oliver Evans (allowing him to renew a patent which was of no effect from an informality in the original patent) and after some time spent in discussion of it, the committee rose and reported the bill, which was ordered to a third reading to-morrow.
Mr. Clopton obtained leave of ab- sence for 15 days.
On motion of Mr. Randolph the House took up for consideration the resolution submitted by him a few days since, relative to the conduct of Brigadier General James Wilkin- son.
Mr. Clarke laid upon the table the statement which he had been re- quested to make by a resolution of the House on Thursday last. The state- ment is long, accompanied by an affi- davit of Mr. Clarke to the truth of all the facts therein contained within his own personal knowledge; & to the best of his belief of the truth of what was not within his own knowledge. [As this statement was not ordered to be printed, and we were not able to obtain a copy of it, we can- not at this time present it to our read- ers.]
Mr. Rowan moved to amend the resolution under consideration by striking out all that part after the word "Resolved," and inserting the following:
Resolved, That a special commit- tee be appointed to enquire into the conduct of Brigadier General James Wilkinson in relation to his having, at any time whilst in the service of the United States, corruptly received money from the government of Spain or its agents, and that the said com- mittee have the power to send for per- sons and papers, and compel their at- tendance and production—and that they report the result of their inquiry to this House.
The Speaker, declared the amend- ment to be a substitute and of course not in order.
Mr. Randolph said he was decided- ly of opinion, that the gentleman from Kentucky ought to have an op- portunity of taking the sense of the House on his motion; he therefore withdrew the resolution under con- sideration; when
Mr. Rowan moved the resolution as above stated.
On this resolution a debate of some length took place, in which Mr. Ran- dolph supported, and Messrs. Bacon, Alston, Smilie, Love & Taylor opposed the motion, when
A motion to adjourn was negatived 52 to 51.
Mr. Gardner moved that the subject be postponed till to-morrow, in order that the evidence of Mr. Clark might be printed for information. Negatived, ayes 42.
A motion to adjourn was now carri- ed, ayes 66.
TUESDAY, JAN. 12.
The Speaker laid before the House a report from the Secretary of the Navy in obedience to the act respecting the salaries of the Clerks in his office. Referred to the committee of Ways and Means.
Also, a report on the subject of the Navy pension fund. Referred to the committee of Ways and Means.
A bill to provide for the payment of certain expenses incurred in the im- peachment of Samuel Chase, was read the third time and passed.
A bill for the relief of Oliver Evans was read the third time, and (after a motion to recommit it was negatived, Ayes 30) passed.
Mr. Van Horn presented the me- morial of the Mayor, Aldermen, Com- mon Council, and many of the inhabi- tants of Annapolis, who state that the harbor of Annapolis might in time of war be so fortified as to afford protec- tion to that city, and a secure harbor for craft navigating Chesapeake Bay. Referred to the Secretary of war.
Mr. Eppes, from the committee to whom was referred the petition of sun- dry inhabitants of the first and second wards and the memorial of the Com- mon Council of the city of Washington, reported a bill to amend the act for the incorporation of the city of Washing- ton. Read twice and referred to a committee of the whole.
On motion of Mr. Rowan, the House took up for consideration the resolution submitted by him relative to an enqui- ry into the conduct of Gen. Wilkinson.
The House agreeing to consider it,
Mr. Rowan moved to insert after the word agents, the following amendment: Or in relation to his having, during the time aforesaid been an accomplice, or in any way concerned with the agents of any foreign power, or with Aaron Burr, in a project to dismember the U- nion.
Mr. Love moved to amend the a- mendment by adding the following: And that a fair copy of the information and papers laid on the Clerk's table re- lative to the conduct of the said Gen. James Wilkinson, in the matters in question, and any other papers or information which may hereafter be received by the said committee or this House be immediately transmitted to the President of the U.S.
No question was taken on either of the amendments or on the resolution.
A debate took place, not confined however to the amendments, but on the general propriety of the enquiry by this House, in which Messrs. Love, Eppes, Rowan, and M. D. Williams supported, and Messrs. Alston, Fisk, Holland, Sloan, and Upham opposed the right and propriety of passing the re- solution for enquiry.
About 4 o'clock a motion was made by Mr. Smilie to adjourn, and carried, the House having decided on no one point under consideration.
[Debate hereafter.]
(BY AUTHORITY.)
AN ACT
Supplementary to an act intitled "An act for fortifying the ports and har- bors of the United States, and for building gun-boats."
BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States is hereby authorized to cause such of the fortifications heretofore built or commenced, as he may deem necessary to be repaired or complet- ed, and such other fortifications and works to be erected as will afford more effectual protection to our ports and harbors, and preserve therein the respect due to the constituted autho- rities of the nation, and that the sum of one million of dollars, in addition to the sums heretofore appropriated, be, and the same is hereby appropriat- ed for that purpose, out of any mo- ney in the treasury, not otherwise appropriated.
J. B. VARNUM, Speaker of the House of Represen- tatives.
GEO: CLINTON, Vice-President of the United States, & President of the Senate.
January 8, 1808.
APPROVED, TH: JEFFERSON.
TWENTY-SIX VALUABLE NE- GROES FOR SALE.
ON Tuesday the 26th inst. will be sold at public sale to the highest bidder, at the dwelling plantation of the Miss Hoods, near the city of An- napolis, the above 26 negroes, consist- ing of men, women, boys and girls, which will be disposed of separately —one excellent black-smith that has his trade perfect, several handsome boys from 12 to 18 years of age, and girls that can be recommended as good house servants—some horses and other articles. The terms of sale is one half of the purchase money to be paid on the day of sale, and the balance a credit of six months will be given, the purcha- ser giving bond on interest with such security as I may approve of. No per- son from any of the southern states or their agents will be admitted to bid. Sale to commence at 11 o'clock and continue until all are sold by
WM. WORTHINGTON, Sen. Acting for the Miss Hoods. Jan. 13—5t.
NOTICE.
The sale of property for tax due the Corporation of Washington, which was advertised for Friday last, is postpon- ed until the second Friday in February next, at 11 o'clock A. M. at the City Treasurer's Office.
WASHINGTON BOYD, Treasurer of Washington City. Jan. 13—2wts.
For sale 35 Negroes,
Stock, plantation utensils, &c. at Hezekiah Wood's house, in the dis- trict of Columbia, and within one mile of the President's house. The sale will commence on the 25th inst. at 11 o'clock A. M. and the terms of sale made known on the day of sale.
THOMAS PETER and o- thers, Ex'rs of Robt. Peter, deceased. Jan. 13—1s.
ALSO
For Sale 150 Negroes, Together with stock, plantation uten- sils, &c. on the first day of February next, at Anthony Tracey's House, in Montgomery, and within two miles of Messrs. Bowie and Hersey's Mill, Se- necca. The terms of sale will be made known on the day of sale.
THOMAS PETER & others, Ex'rs of Robert Peter, deceased. Jan. 13—1s.
COMMUNICATION.
GENERAL WILKINSON.
The Court of Enquiry demanded by this veteran officer, convened on Mon- day; but, for want of the necessary documents, adjourned till ten o'clock this day.
The subject of investigation is highly important, and has already excited much sensibility. It is interesting, not only to the General and his personal friends, but also to the army, to the government, and to the public at large. A denuncia- tion before Congress, by a member, once influential, the mass of testimony al- ready adduced, and the consequent de- bates of that honorable body, are natu- rally calculated to bias the feelings and to induce the mind to prejudice the cause. Strong, however, in conscious integrity, the general has hitherto suf- fered and will continue to suffer, in si- lence—confident, that the result of the enquiry will be such, as to arrest the torrent of prejudice, and to place his character on high ground. Twenty years of General Wilkinson's life has been devoted to public service; and the studies he has discharged have been highly useful to his country, and hither- to considered as equally honorable to himself. A reputation, like his, cannot easily be shaken. It is hoped the public will not be hasty in deciding on so im- portant a case—but pause and reflect— till circumstances are fully elucidated; in short, till they have heard both sides of the question.
A RUNAWAY.
COMMITTED to my custody as a runaway on Friday the 9th day of November last, a negro man who says his name is GEORGE, that he was formerly the property of William Alex- ander, Virginia, by him was sold to a Mr. Robertson of Ohio, from whom he escaped when on his way home, about the first of October last. He is a well made fellow about 6 feet high, rather tawney complexion, about 25 years old; his clothing when committed was a round grey cloth jacket, home made trowsers and osnabrigs shirt; his owner is desired to take him away or he will be sold agreeably to law for prison fees and other expenses.
NOTLEY MADDOX, sheriff of Prince Georges county, Md. January 11—wtf
BOARDING HOUSE.
GENEEL BOARDING may be had in a Private Family, next door west of the Old Bank, George- town—a very good Livery Stable handy.
A likely NEGRO GIRL for sale, between 12 and 13 years of age. December 14—1aw
WASHINGTON CITY.
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13.
SUBSCRIBERS in Arrears are requested to forward without delay their respective dues. As this paper almost entirely depends for support on the regular payment of the subscriptions, this request must be complied with, otherwise the Editor will be constrained, however reluctantly, to discontinue the paper, notwithstanding the deeply interesting nature of the crisis.
The City was yesterday full of rumors relative to the arrival or near approach of Mr. Rose. He had not, however, arrived last night. Information was received at Alexandria yesterday morn- ing about 9 o'clock of his being on board the sloop Montezuma, which was said to have been 20 miles below Alexandria the preceding night. But even this rests upon rumor.
COURT OF INQUIRY in the case of GEN. WILKINSON.
On Monday, about 1 o'clock, the Court of Enquiry in the case of Gen. Wilkinson, was opened at Moin's Tavern.
Present Col. Burbeck, President, & Cols. Cushing and Williams.
The members of the Court were first sworn by Mr. Jones, the Judge Advocate, who was then sworn by the President.
The Judge Advocate read an order from the Secretary of War, dated January 7, ordering in compliance with the request of General Wilkin- son a Court of Enquiry, consisting of the above gentlemen, and naming Walter Jones, Judge Advocate, on the charge of General Wilkinson hav- ing been, or now being a pensioner under the government of Spain while holding a commission under the U- nited States, with instructions to re- port to the department of War a cor- rect statement of their proceedings, together with their opinion thereupon.
After a short pause the President enquired of the Judge Advocate, whether he had any papers or evi- dence to submit to the Court. He re- plied that he had not; that he had supposed Gen. Wilkinson would have intimated the witnesses he wished sum- moned.
A conversation then ensued among the members of the court on their course of procedure. It was observed that if the papers before the House of Representatives were to be viewed as the ground of enquiry, from the proceedings of that body it was uncertain whether they would be transmitted to the Executive (from whom it was most probable the court would receive them) and at what time, as the subject was under- stood to be still pending before them; that at any rate it was not likely they could be received until Wednesday. One of the members added that General Wilkinson had intimated to him, that although ready to attend the court at any time, as he supposed nothing material would be done before that day, he should not soon attend, unless otherwise desired.
It was thereupon ordered that the court stand adjourned till Wednes- day at 10 o'clock A. M.; that the Judge Advocate inform the Secretary at War, that the Court were met and had nothing before them; and that he likewise inform General Wilkinson that they were assembled and were ready to receive any thing he might have to offer.
COMMUNICATION.
GENERAL WILKINSON.
The Court of Enquiry demanded by this veteran officer, convened on Mon- day; but, for want of the necessary documents, adjourned till ten o'clock this day.
The subject of investigation is highly important, and has already excited much sensibility. It is interesting, not only to the General and his personal friends, but also to the army, to the government, and to the public at large. A denuncia- tion before Congress, by a member, once influential, the mass of testimony al- ready adduced, and the consequent de- bates of that honorable body, are natu- rally calculated to bias the feelings and to induce the mind to prejudice the cause. Strong, however, in conscious integrity, the general has hitherto suf- fered and will continue to suffer, in si- lence—confident, that the result of the enquiry will be such, as to arrest the torrent of prejudice, and to place his character on high ground. Twenty years of General Wilkinson's life has been devoted to public service; and the studies he has discharged have been highly useful to his country, and hither- to considered as equally honorable to himself. A reputation, like his, cannot easily be shaken. It is hoped the public will not be hasty in deciding on so im- portant a case—but pause and reflect— till circumstances are fully elucidated; in short, till they have heard both sides of the question.
A RUNAWAY.
COMMITTED to my custody as a runaway on Friday the 9th day of November last, a negro man who says his name is GEORGE, that he was formerly the property of William Alex- ander, Virginia, by him was sold to a Mr. Robertson of Ohio, from whom he escaped when on his way home, about the first of October last. He is a well made fellow about 6 feet high, rather tawney complexion, about 25 years old; his clothing when committed was a round grey cloth jacket, home made trowsers and osnabrigs shirt; his owner is desired to take him away or he will be sold agreeably to law for prison fees and other expenses.
NOTLEY MADDOX, sheriff of Prince Georges county, Md. January 11—wtf
BOARDING HOUSE.
GENEEL BOARDING may be had in a Private Family, next door west of the Old Bank, George- town—a very good Livery Stable handy.
A likely NEGRO GIRL for sale, between 12 and 13 years of age. December 14—1aw

they, and to the extent upon its removal, the merchant vessels of the United States, shall be permitted, in defence of their lawful commerce, to be armed against, and to resist foreign aggression. (On this motion no order has been yet taken.)
Extract of a letter from a gentleman in Marietta, dated Dec. 28.
"Blanchet came into town last week, carried a few days, and went off in a boat, privately, late in the night. While here he was afraid of every thing, he was afraid of being poisoned in the tavern. I understand that neither he nor Burr will attend their trial at Chillicothe."
We are informed that Aaron Burr on the 31st ult. lodged at Williamsport, Maryland, on his way to Chillicothe.
The legislature of Virginia, with characteristic spirit and promptness, have come forward to express their sentiments in the present crisis of affairs. The following resolution was adopted after a very animated discussion, a great part of which arose on a motion to postpone the consideration of the resolution for a short time. The firm purpose avowed to maintain the rights of the nation, the strong expression of confidence in the administration of the general government, and above all the decided approbation of the Embargo, are more than sufficient answer to the calumnies and murmurs of party opposition. From Virginia, whose patriotism has ever risen with the imminence of public danger, and who has invariably been aniong the first to assert and the last to abandon the cause of their country, this dignified avowal of principle and feeling was to have been expected; and we have no doubt but that the same spirit will characterise every legislature in the union. For disaffected, however, it may rankle in the breasts of a few disappointed partisans, will not be found to have infected the organs of national feeling. Much has been said lately of the impropriety of expressing confidence in the administration, as a mark of servility and meanness. To this the language of the Virginia legislature is a conclusive answer. Is there a more independent body in the world, one that would more scornfully reject servility and meanness? Yet this independent and dignified body has not hesitated to express its strongest approbation of the measures already pursued, and to pledge the whole energies of the state to the support of such measures as may be adapted to produce an honorable peace, or avenge the injured honor of these states.
The preamble was agreed to— Ayes 157—Nones 13.
"The General Assembly of Virginia taking into their most serious consideration the present crisis in our political affairs, and the circumstances which have tended to produce it, would be unardonably negligent, were they to remain silent. They deeply regret that they have been disappointed in their ardent wish, that the United States might be forever exempt from those disastrous convulsions, which have been so long desolating Europe. In the strict and impartial neutrality practised by the American government to all nations; in the inviolable regard which it has so scrupulously paid to justice and good faith, they fondly imagined they had a firm guarantee to the continuance of peace. But from the menacing aspect of affairs, it seems but too probable that this flattering anticipation is about to vanish, and that we shall have to act a part in the melancholy drama of the day. In reviewing the series of causes which are likely to terminate in this result, we derive great consolation from the reflection that the government of the United States has done every thing on its part which was calculated to preserve peace upon honorable terms, and that there is nothing with which it can with propriety be upbraided. The recapitulation in detail of the insults and injuries received, would be tiresome and disgusting. Blockades established contrary to former usage, new and destructive principles interpolated in the laws of nations; our free born citizens impressed on board our own vessels, and torn from their friends and country, have been doomed to perpetual exile and captivity, whilst the cry of 'I AM AN AMERICAN CITIZEN,' has been treated with contempt and disdain; these are some of the outrages of which we complain, and for which we had demanded reparation for the past, and security against, for the future. In the midst of amicable conference upon those subjects of complaint, arrived the 22d of June, 1807, a day which will be forever memorable in the annals of America."
"History will record that on that day a ship of war belonging to Great Britain made an attack (attended with circumstances the most offensive) upon a national ship of the United
States, reposing upon the pledged security of public faith, and that amidst the groans of murdered citizens, the flag of the United States, the sacred emblem of our liberty and independence, was seen covering beneath British audacity, and British violence."
"The sensations arising from this daring outrage, pervaded with the rapidity of lightning, this vast continent, and produced one uniform sentiment of indignation, under the influence of which, disappeared all party distinctions. We exhibited to the world the pleasing spectacle of a widely extended nation, with one accord, burying in the tomb of its slaughtered citizens all party differences, and with one voice demanding ample vengeance or honorable reparation. The General Assembly in reviewing the conduct of the government of the United States in this trying exigency, rejoice to reflect upon the dignified attitude by it assumed, one that was supported by firmness, and tempered with moderation. It has been ascertained to the world, that if war ensue, the United States are innocent of the calamities inseparably incident to that state of things. And with confidence in that Providence which seems to have made these states so peculiarly its care, we firmly anticipate the aid of Heaven, and a propitious result. We should be wanting in frankness, were we to suppress our anxiety for the preservation of peace, but it must be a peace purchased with no sacrifice of honor. The honor of a nation, it is believed, on the part of the General Assembly, is a jewel of inestimable value to be maintained at every hazard. Inspired with this sentiment, we have weighed it against every sacrifice, and accept it as an equivalent. It is a duty we owe ourselves to declare, that we submit with pleasure to the privations arising from the energetic measures recently adopted by the constituted authorities in the laying an embargo. We feel flattered by the confidence which they reposed in our patriotism and self-denial, and we hereby beg leave to assure the general government, that this step meets our warmest approbation."
"Resolved unanimously, That the General Assembly penetrated with a most affectionate regard for the welfare of our common country, and viewing with indignation the insults and injuries which have been offered us, hereby solemnly pledge the whole energies of this commonwealth to the support of such measures as may be adapted to produce an honorable peace, or avenge the injured honor of these states."
The following strong remarks of one of the greatest statesmen and honest men, ever born in Britain, exhibits in a correct and forcible point of light the despotic principles contended for by the existing British ministry. If these remarks were justly applied in 1795, with how much greater truth do they apply to the present times.
"In one respect they are peculiarly poignant. 'It is only, says this illustrious man, "to the weak and defenceless that you talk big. To the great and powerful you apologise, and agree to pay for all the injustice you have done them." If this be true—and no man knew human nature better than Mr. Fox—are we not called upon to maintain the character which we really possess, the character of a great and powerful nation; and by taking those decisive measures, which shall no longer subject us to the scorn of being weak and defenceless, compel that from strength which has so long been denied to justice. Nature and our political institutions have already made us a great, and it only requires a development of our resources, to prove that we are a powerful nation. Let us then discard the language of submission. Let us take ground from which nothing can shake us. Let us assert our just rights, in such a way as to convince the world that we will not abandon them, let their maintenance cost what it may.'
Extract from Mr. Fox's Speech, delivered in Parliament, in the year 1795.
"With respect to America, I shall say nothing at present, except that, after giving orders for taking her ships we recalled those orders, and have since entered into a treaty by which we agree, properly I believe, justly, and if justly, wisely, to pay for the rashness and folly of issuing them. Next, with regard to Denmark and Sweden, which were in this case so intimately connected in point of interest, that whatever was addressed to the one might be considered in fact, although not in form, as addressed to the other. To the court of Copenhagen, we presented memorial after memorial, couched in most peevish and offensive terms of remonstrance, on the neutrality of his Danish majesty. These memorials were answered by the minister, Mr. Bernstoff, with such temper, firmness and diplomatic knowledge, as obliged us at length to desist, and raised his character higher than
that of any Danish minister ever was before. We engaged in a diplomatic contest upon the subject of neutrality, in which we shewed our complete ignorance of the rights of neutral nations, and were foiled accordingly."
"What has been our conduct towards the Grand Duke of Tuscany, a Prince who although belonging to one of the most illustrious families of Europe, is known not to be possessed of any great military power? Lord Hervey goes to the Grand Duke of Tuscany—not to the Emperor, the king of Prussia, or any potent monarch—and says to him, "Can you pretend to maintain neutrality with such a government as that of France?"—Calling the French government all the hard names which regular governments think themselves authorised to bestow upon it; and now recollecting that one of the heaviest accusations against the French was their having presumed to intermeddle in the internal politics of other nations—"Can you basely refuse joining the league against the murderers of your aunt, the declared enemies of your family, and the avowed subverters of all established government, order and religion? I know to what cause your hesitation is owing. It is because you give credit to bad ministers. It is because you lend too favorable an ear to the advice of your minister Manfredini, a man who has gained a pernicious ascendancy over your mind, but who ought no longer to have any share in your councils." Lord Hervey, after thus telling an independent prince that he was not to listen to the advice of his own ministers, might with equal propriety have gone on to tell him that he ought to be guided solely by the counsels of the right honorable gentleman over against me. "Your ministers," he might have said, "are ignorant and incapable; the British ministers are wise and able. Observe into what a situation they have brought their own country, and you cannot doubt with what wisdom and vigor they will consult for yours." This language of Lord Hervey has never been disavowed by ministers. It has even been imitated by his successor, & therefore I must consider it as having been the language of his instructions: and thus by meanness and insult was the Grand Duke of Tuscany compelled to renounce his new system of neutrality, contrary to his own inclination, to the advice of his ministers, and the interests of his people. Such was the conduct of ministers when we were powerful in the Mediterranean. Lord Hervey was at length recalled, and another gentleman whom I personally respect was appointed in his stead, and instructed to follow the same course. At last, after we lose our power in the Mediterranean; when events turn out against us; we submit not only to the neutrality of the Duke of Tuscany, but to his concluding a treaty of peace and amity with the French Republic."
"What has been our conduct towards Genoa? Ministers hold the same language towards that state, and tell them, "If you continue in your neutrality, it must be offensive to the combined powers, and may give occasion to revive claims which must lead to disagreeable consequences;" a meaner threat never was employed. Who are the parties in this mighty contest?—Great Britain, taking upon herself to dictate for all the combined powers, and the republic of Genoa; this country not only admonishes the republic of Genoa against observing a neutrality, but threatens her with war if she does. Look at this, and see a picture of insolence, injustice and meanness, exceeded only by the feebleness of the attempt to follow it up! The fortune of war being against you, even the little republic of Genoa is stout; and after blockading her port, you are content to withdraw your ships, and forced to submit to her neutrality with an ungracious apology for the injustice you have done. By such conduct you have impaired the character of the nation for justice and magnanimity, and given to Great Britain a character of meanness and insolence which was never before imputed to her, a character which has destroyed more countries than the loss of armies. To put this in a stronger point of view, contrast it with your conduct to America. Did you tell America that all intercourse with France was disgraceful, until France should restore her King? No! It is only to the weak and defenceless that you talk big. To the great and powerful you apologise, and agree to pay for all the injustice you have done them."
"Examine the law of nations; if any one question in the law of nations be clearer and more generally acknowledged than another, it is that of a right in every nation, which no treaty obliges to the contrary, to preserve a complete neutrality.—Consider the sacredness of this right, and the miserable condition of every weak country, if whenever great powers go to war, for what they may call cause of
justice, order, religion and regular government, but what others may think views of ambition and aggrandizement, every weak prince, every petty republic, were to be compelled to take a part in the contest.—If such were to be the condition of society—if men were not allowed to enjoy that neutrality which their independence entitles them to, they would begin to doubt the benefits of society, and listen to the paradoxes of those who maintain, that all established rules and principles are founded in ignorance and error; and that society itself, as at present constituted, is not worth preserving."
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11.
Debate on the bill from the Senate authorising the building of gun-boats and for the defence of ports and harbors.
Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL said it had not been his intention to speak on this subject. There was sufficient cause to induce him still to decline entering into the debate; his indisposition would certainly prevent him from examining the subject in that manner which its importance required; and he would therefore have persevered in his original intention of remaining silent, had not an attempt been made to make an impression on the public mind, that the friends of this measure were about to drain the Treasury of the U. States for a system of defence that would prove inefficient; for a mere useless experiment. This might therefore require some explanation, that the motives of gentlemen who were about to vote for this system of defence should be known as well as their objects. In the discussion of this subject gentlemen had also gone into an examination of the utility of our naval establishment, and the expediency of increasing it at this time, which was in his opinion a distinct subject, that had little or no connection with the proposed measure; it would be time sufficient to examine that question when it came properly before the House. There had also been a very novel mode of argument introduced on this occasion, and it was the second time it had been used during the present session; that of gentlemen arguing against the expediency of a measure, while they declared their intentions to vote for it. This was indeed a new method of legislating, and may be intended to answer a double purpose. It may perhaps enable gentlemen to say to those of their constituents opposed to this measure, if such there are, "we were inimical to it; we exposed its weakness in the House, & shewed its inefficiency, you cannot therefore blame us for its adoption;" while on the other hand they might say to the friends of the measure, "we have supported it by our votes, and are therefore entitled to your confidence on that ground." Mr. C. did not say that this was the object of gentlemen; but if it was not, it appeared to him difficult to ascertain what it could be. It would have appeared much more consistent for those gentlemen who seriously believed the system to be useless, to vote as well as speak against it; and it were to be wished that those who intended to vote for the bill before the House, had permitted it to pass without opposing it; but as this course of argument had been pursued, he deemed it a duty he owed to his country, to those whom he had the honor to represent, and to himself, to express to the House (though in a very brief manner) some of the reasons which would induce him to vote for the bill. He did not pretend to possess much information on the subject of gun-boats; he had therefore hitherto declined entering into the discussion, and waited to hear what might be advanced on the subject by those who had greater opportunities than himself of knowing their efficiency or inefficiency; but he found those who had spoken on this subject, were obliged like himself to depend on the information of others; and did not pretend to furnish the House with any practical knowledge on this subject. They must therefore form their opinions from the reasoning on the case, and such evidence as they were possessed of.
The first important enquiry would seem to be, whether the present state of our relations with foreign powers was such as required the adoption of effective measures for national defence. It appeared to be agreed by all that it was; no one denied the importance of the present crisis; it could not be denied by any gentleman who would reflect a moment on the repeated aggressions that have been committed on our commerce; the violated rights of our seamen; the insult offered to our national flag, and the murder of our fellow citizens. These all go to prove incontestably the necessity of our putting the nation in a state of defence. The next enquiry was, of what nature ought our defensive preparations to be? It is clear they ought to be calculated to meet and repel the attacks that we have a right to expect from those who are likely to become our enemies. Those attacks are to be expected on our coast and seaport towns, which are most exposed, and most vulnerable to a marauding enemy. The species of defence, therefore, that we ought to adopt, should certainly be such as was calculated to protect, as far as in our power, our coast, our harbors, and our seaport towns from insult and ruin; unless indeed these are to be abandoned to the enemy on his first approach. We are then to determine whether we shall de-
fend these or not. Will the nation consent to expose to an enemy without an effort to repel him, until he has landed the whole extent of your sea coast, all your seaport towns on the margin of the ocean? This would be a dangerous experiment, and he had supposed too with a scheme to be advocated by any reflecting politician; though it seemed to be the favorite doctrine of some gentlemen in this House, who were opposed to every species of defence, except placing arms in the hands of the militia. It is true the foe might be repelled by our militia, and no doubt would be; but what would the citizens of those towns and on your sea coast say? Would they not justly complain that you had neglected their interests, had deserted them in the day of danger, and left them to be pillaged, and destroyed by an enemy without one effort to protect them? They certainly would, and their complaints would be well founded. There were, however, he presumed, but very few willing to subscribe to this doctrine. Though it had been advocated by some gentlemen in this House, who appeared opposed not only to ships of war and gun-boats, but also to fortifications.
Taking it then as admitted, that the coast and sea-port towns are to be defended against naval attacks; what were the means in their power best calculated to effect that object? On this point there was, as might be expected, some difference of opinion. Mr. Campbell believed it would not be conceded by any gentleman that our coast and sea-port towns could be effectually defended by fortifications alone. No man was so wild in his plans as to say so. The whole coast from Maine to the Gulf of Mexico, cannot be fortified—some other mode of defence must therefore be resorted to. He apprehended also, it would not be contended that the naval force now in our possession in addition to fortifications, was sufficient to afford effectual protection to our seaports. This had not been pretended; its inefficiency was too well known for a single individual to rely upon it. There was then no question on the point that they must acquire an additional floating force in aid of fortifications—What kind of addition was it in their power to make? There was but one alternative left them—either to build an additional number of ships of war sufficient for that object, or to resort to the system of gun-boats. They had been very earnestly called upon by some gentlemen to make an addition to the navy, and unite this with gun-boats. This would probably be found impracticable at the present crisis. Mr. C. had expected that those gentlemen who wished to have reduced the number of gun-boats proposed, and substitute a few frigates in their place, would have shown the practicability of building those frigates in sufficient time to answer the present exigency. If this could not be effected the proposition was useless. Mr. C. said the building of a large navy was not consistent with the policy or interest of this country. If we were in their power to do so, it would be at war with the genius of their government, the interests of the people, and the security of their liberties. But Mr. C. observed their means were not adequate to raise a navy sufficient to cope with that of G. Britain. This could not be pretended. Besides, if such a navy was even presented to them free of expence, and ready for service, it would be their duty, and the interest of the nation, to sink or destroy it, rather than incur the enormous expence necessary to support it, and the danger into which it might bring the rights and liberties of the people. But, said Mr. C. suppose it should be determined according to the wishes of gentlemen to build a few ships of war in aid of gun-boats, let us enquire whether such a measure would answer the present purpose, or whether any advantage could be expected from the ships so to be built. It is stated on the floor of this House, particularly by some gentlemen who are in favor of building ships for defence, that the nation is either now at war, or on the eve of war. The means of defence must therefore be such as can speedily be prepared for, and brought into actual service. Suppose a law was passed authorising the building of ships of war, how long before they would be ready for defence? The Secretary of the Navy in a report made to this House two years ago, (in 1805) expressly stated, "that from the time Congress would authorize the building of 74 gun-ships, it would require 3 years to prepare one for being launched." It is true he states that six might be prepared in the same time. This was the official report of the Secretary, and whose duty it was to be acquainted with this subject, & to have these vessels built if authorised, and there is, therefore, no reason to believe a less time would be sufficient. It would be in vain for gentlemen to say, that frigates could be built in a much shorter time than 74s, the difference of time necessary for the erection of each of these kinds of vessels must be inconsiderable. They could not expect to build frigates in less than two years; and suppose you had six or ten of them in that time, ready for sea, what is to defend you in the mean time? Has any gentleman, who can, and will reflect on the subject, such confidence in the friendly politeness of these who are likely to become our enemies, as to suppose that, if we are to have war, they would abstain and refrain from hostility until those ships of war were prepared to defend the nation? And if not what benefit can be derived towards defence from beginning to build them at this time? None that can be perceived. You cannot, said Mr. C. have them in time to defend you against the impending storm—it must blow over before they are ready—Will you then lay out your resources

in time of danger for means that cannot protect you against that danger, in order to have them ready at the return of peace? If this were considered good policy, he confessed himself heretofore a stranger to it. Mr. C. asked if it were not essentially necessary, that they should employ their resources in a system of defence that could be prepared in time to meet the threatening danger? It appeared to him that no doubt could exist on this subject. If the system proposed by gentlemen as a substitute to that under discussion, could not be prepared in due time, there was no alternative left; they must adopt that of gun-boats, the only one which could be expeditiously brought into service, or they must remain without defence in times of the most imminent danger. These can be procured in a few months, they can be ready to meet the exigency, and may be used as occasion shall require. Mr. C. said, he might here remark with respect to some gentlemen who opposed this bill as well as those who had expressed a wish that part of the number of gun-boats proposed should be struck out of the bill, that it would be well for them to consider how they would account to their constituents for their conduct in voting against, or diminishing the only mode of defence which was practicable; it amounted to saying "We are determined our sea coast shall not be defended at the present time, it shall continue exposed to the attacks of the enemy." Mr. C. said if no efficient means of defence were adopted, it would be in the power of an enemy to lay your towns under contribution; to carry ruin and devastation along the whole extent of our sea coast, wherever he came, and strike a general terror in the people near the margin of the ocean. This might compel the government to accept such terms of accommodation as the enemy should prescribe; he did not say that this was the object of gentlemen, nor that it would certainly be the case, but he would say, that it might and probably would be the consequence of such a course of proceeding as had been advocated on this floor.
If then it appeared sufficiently clear that the mode of defence proposed in the bill was the only one, that could be resorted to with safety, it would seem that no question could exist, except as to the extent to which it was necessary to adopt it. Much, indeed, had been said respecting the expence of these gun-boats. Mr. C. was not at this time disposed to enter into a minute enquiry on that subject—the expence, he believed, had been highly exaggerated on the one side, and probably diminished on the other. The estimates made by the Secretary of the navy in 1805 in his report on this subject, do not precisely agree with those made by him during the present session. Perhaps this difference may arise from the kind of gun-boats contemplated in the respective estimates, being different. In his report of 1805, he estimates the expence of building a 74 gun ship at 328,838 dollars, and that of building a gun-boat, at 4,625 dollars. He also stated the annual expence of a 74 in service at 192,500 dollars, and that of a gun-boat in service at 7,000 dollars. According to this estimate, the building of one 74 gun ship would cost more than the building of 71 gun-boats; and the annual expence of a 74 in service would be equal to that of 28 gun-boats. It may be observed here that the expence of building a 74, in this estimate is believed to be much under-rated—it is stated upon good authority that one could not be built for less than 500,000 dollars, which would be sufficient to build 100 gun-boats at least. It is true the Secretary during the present session has estimated the expence of building a gun-boat, he believed, at about 5,000 dollars, and the annual expence of one in service at 11,000 dollars. The difference in these estimates must, as has been stated, be supposed to arise from a difference in the kind and size of the boats, as some carry two guns and others only one—and in the manner of manning them, some being made much larger than others and requiring a much greater number of men to man them. But suppose you could only keep in service, 28 or 30 gun-boats, with the same expence necessary for one 74 gun-ship, would it be contended that 30 gun-boats would not contribute more to the defence of the country, than one 74—he presumed it would not. According to the opinion of the best informed on this subject, ten gun-boats would force any ship of war from her mooring. But he did not deem it necessary to enter into a minute enquiry respecting the expence of gun-boats; for if they were really necessary for the defence of the country, the expence ought not to prevent them from building them, their object
ought to be to afford to the nation the most efficient protection in their power, and whatever might be the necessary expences of the measures, adopted for that purpose, they would be cheerfully submitted to by the country.
Mr. C. said he could never agree to barter away the blood and liberty of American citizens for dollars and cents, and he hoped that such cold blooded calculations would not be made at this time, they would not be prepared to account to their country for such conduct; they would be told by that country that they were ready to give "millions for defence, but not a cent for tribute." No, nor one cent towards humiliating concessions; nor would the American people shrink from any contest that might be rendered necessary in obtaining a just reparation for the injured, insulted rights and murder of their fellow citizens. Some had objected to the number of gun-boats proposed to be built. Mr. C. observed that if the authority was given to the President to build the number stated in the bill, that authority would not, he presumed, be exercised to the full extent, unless circumstances should render it necessary; or if the number proposed should be built, they would not so called into actual service, except as occasion might require. Such part only would be manned as the exigency might render necessary; & the seamen of the U. States ought to be organized into a marine militia, in all the seaport towns for the purpose of manning those gun-boats when called into actual service. By passing this law they put it in the power of the Executive to provide and call into service so many of those gun-boats as he should think proper; not all at any one time, unless, indeed, the attack should be so general, or the danger so imminent as to render it necessary. The measure appeared to him to rest nearly on the same footing with that by which a power had been given to the Executive to call out the Militia. They had by law authorised the President to call into actual service 100,000 militia as occasion might require, and appropriated money to meet the expence that might be occasioned thereby. This expence, if the whole number were called into service, would be very great; but would gentlemen say, that because the expence would be very considerable, they would not direct them to be called into service when the safety and interest of the country required it? Certainly no man would venture to say so who was a friend to his country—for the whole power of the nation should be exerted to the utmost, when necessary to repel any attack that might be made on any portion of its citizens. If therefore it can be shewn that gun-boats are the best means of defence in our power to procure, the expence ought not, and could not be a sufficient objection to building them. So much had already been said, for and against the efficiency of gun-boats as a means of defence, that he did not propose to enter into a particular investigation of that part of the subject. He would however remark, that although he had attentively listened to those opposed to this system in order to ascertain the grounds upon which they judged it inefficient, he had not heard any evidence advanced, either from the experimental knowledge of gentlemen themselves, from the experience of others, or from any other source, which in his opinion supported the doctrine they advocated. On the contrary much evidence had been adduced to prove the efficacy of gun-boats. This evidence had been derived from men of distinguished skill and information on this subject, from the experience of nations, and from the success of gun-boats in many important actions against ships of war. It could hardly be necessary to remind the House of the affair at Boulogne in 1801, when Lord Nelson, with thirty vessels of war, attacked the advanced guard of the French Flotilla and was compelled to retire with great loss; and in a second attack made by him some days afterwards, he was equally unsuccessful, and sustained much greater loss. The successful attacks of the gun-boats at Algiers on the British fleet which was greatly superior to them in force; and how galling and distressing these attacks were considered by the British, will be recollected by all who have attended to the history of those times. The affair between the Turks and Russians noticed in the President's Message, furnishes the strongest proof that could be required of the efficacy of gun-boats. This case was in point—it was a trial of the power and success of gun-boats opposed to vessels of war. It will not be supposed that the weight of this evidence is diminished by the little criticisms of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Elliot) no
man who has heard them will think so. They do not merit, nor will they I presume, receive any notice on this floor—they will sink into obscurity as the mere ephemeral effusions of embittered invective, unsupported by facts or reasoning. To these instances of the successful operations of gun-boats, may be added, in support of their efficacy, the fact of their being brought into very general use, for defence, by all the northern powers of Europe, as well as by the two great powers, France and G. Britain. Mr. Campbell asked, what stronger proof could be expected or required on this subject? They had the opinions of the higher officers of the navy—men of experience and mature years—the opinions of Gen. Gates, of Commodore S. Barron, and others stated in the documents on their table. Were these not entitled to respect? Were not the successful operations of gun-boats in the instances stated, and the general use of them by European nations entitled to respect? Would gentlemen wish the government to go to war, before the system was completely adopted, for the sole purpose of making experiments, to satisfy them of the efficacy of this mode of defence? Should this be done, those gentlemen might not choose to approach near enough to be spectators of the scene of action; and should the experiment prove successful, they would still have to rely on the information of others, or remain as faithless and incredulous in the efficacy of this mode of defence as they now were. But what has been advanced on the other side in opposition to this volume of evidence, to prove the inefficacy of this system of defence? Were these the opinions of men of experience? No. Was there a single instance adduced to the House in which a solitary individual of naval experience had given an opinion that gun-boats were not calculated to answer the purposes for which they were intended, that of defending your coast and sea-port towns in aid of fortifications? He had heard none. These were only the mere speculative opinions of some gentlemen of this House, most of whom, probably had never seen a gun-boat, or if they had, like himself, never had been on board of one. No gentleman in the House had pretended to possess experimental knowledge on this subject. This was then the kind of evidence brought before the House to refute that arising from the experience and opinions of the first characters in your own country, as well as that of European nations. This was the true state of the question, and Mr. C. would submit it to the House and the nation, which scale in such a case ought to preponderate.
Mr. C. said he could not help noticing before he sat down, some extraordinary and contradictory objections that had been made to this measure; some gentlemen complained that it was likely to be adopted in consequence of the influence which the opinion of the Executive in its favor had upon its members; others complained because the Executive had not laid before the House and recommended any particular system of defence. The House had been told by one gentleman (Mr. Elliot) that this measure which had failed during the last session, was now about to be adopted, because it was recommended by the Executive, and was his favorite measure. If however the gentleman meant that this measure failed in this House during the last session, he must be mistaken. A bill passed this House last session for building gun-boats and erecting fortifications, and so much of it as authorised the building of gun-boats was struck out in the Senate; another gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Van Dyke) complained bitterly that the President had not recommended the measure; he seemed to rest his objections to the bill upon the ground that the Executive had not openly and expressly recommended this or any other particular system of defence. Mr. C. said he would leave it to the candor of gentlemen to decide how consistent those objections were; and he would ask how those opposite grounds of objection to the conduct of the Executive could be reconciled? In such a case how is the President to act? Could there be a more conclusive proof of the correctness of his conduct than the different grounds upon which gentlemen complain of it? These prove incontrovertibly that the Executive did not impose his opinions upon the House in a dictatorial stile, but pursued such a course as furnished the House with all the information he possessed, as well as his own impressions on the subject, and left it with them to adopt such measures as in their judgments the situation of the country required. The gentleman on his right (Mr. Dana) had observed on yesterday, when speaking on this subject, that this House had not in their possession
the copies of any dispatches received from our ministers abroad relative to our relations with foreign powers.
No gentleman had yet stated that the House had received, either original dispatches or copies of dispatches; the gentleman complained, however, that the House were not possessed of copies of dispatches, and with what color of propriety was this complaint made? Mr. Campbell said, if they had the originals, copies were not necessary; and if there were no originals, they could not have copies. Had the gentleman shown or stated, that there were (in the power of the House) original dispatches, the copies of which he wished? If not how could he demand, or complain, for the want of copies? Can there be copies without the existence of originals? If the gentleman had no right to speak of or demand original dispatches at this time, he could have no right to speak of copies. The gentleman had forcibly dragged his observations respecting copies of dispatches into this discussion; it had no connection whatever with the subject before the House. The gentleman would not pretend to say or insinuate, that there was the least reason to believe, the Executive possessed any important information in regard to our foreign relations, which had not been made known to the House. He felt satisfied this would not be alleged, because it could not be said with truth.
But, said Mr. Campbell, I do not stand up in this House to vindicate the conduct of the Executive on this occasion. This is altogether unnecessary. His conduct will speak for itself, and defy the attempts of his enemies to impeach its correctness. Nor am I to be considered in the remarks I have made on this occasion, as defending the Executive; he stands in need of no defence. His well known faithful and unremitted exertions for more than thirty years in support of the rights and liberties of the American people, will be his sure, his best defence, and will vindicate his character against the malevolent shafts of vindictive malice. So long as virtue, wisdom, and patriotism continue to be revered in the world; so long will his character remain a distinguished monument of the triumph of liberty and the rights of man over despotism and aristocracy, around which the sons of freedom will rejoice to rally, when the memory of those who attempt to defame him, will have been forgotten; having vanished and become obscured by the superior lustre of his well-earned fame, like the feeble gleam of the glow-worm before the splendid glory of the noon-day sun. Mr. Campbell said he had reluctantly been led thus far by his feelings; for he must confess he could not hear repeated attempts made, unjustly and without cause to defame the character of that great and good man, who had for many years conducted the nation by his sound and wholesome counsels in the walks of peace; and in whom the people of America had justly reposed the highest and still undiminished confidence, without feeling and expressing, in common with his fellow citizens, that degree of indignant resentment, which such conduct so justly merited.
Mr. Dana said he had one favor to request of gentlemen of this House, that his own views on this subject might not be estimated by conjecture or want of knowledge. What availed it to him, if any gentleman in the House could not discover his particular views? What availed it if gentlemen could not discern a good motive for his conduct? Would gentlemen claim the right of penetrating his heart and searching his motives? Was he obliged to explain his views to gentlemen who could not understand them? Mr. D. did not stand there to defend himself against assertions. But what were the gentleman's assertions more than his arguments? Where were the talents or honor that exalted that gentleman above others? Mr. D. descended not to vindication; he had never decried the freedom of deliberation; and while he conformed himself to the rules of the House, he hoped to be allowed the privilege of expressing ideas & his course of thinking; if his mind did not follow obsequiously those paths, which gentlemen might point out, he hoped the House would nevertheless allow him to exercise his right.
If gentlemen wished to know why he spoke of dispatches, he could repeat that there was not in the possession of the House a copy of any dispatches relative to the affair of the Chesapeake; if they had not in possession any document which could give them precise information on the subject, it was not to be expected that they could deliberate upon it; if this information was out of their possession, and in possession of the Executive, the whole course of proceeding rested with the Executive. Gentlemen need not say whether he had or had not
censured Executive proceedings; for he had said nothing on that point one way or the other. He did contend that on that particular subject they had no dispatches before them; that the management rested entirely with the Executive. The question was not presented to the House whether they would recede from the demands which had been made, or insist upon them further; it had not been sent to them for consideration, and therefore rested with the Executive. As the Executive magistrate had charge of foreign relations, and the command of the whole public force, as this was a time of uncertainty and anxiety, and as the House had not the control of public affairs, Mr. D. was disposed to give to the Executive that kind of force which he understood him as strongly recommending, though not that which he himself preferred. Was it strange that upon complex questions some gentlemen should think fit to examine? Were they indeed required to vote without examination? When the subject of foreign relations was before them, could they not say "I do not like this, I do not altogether approve of it, but upon the whole I will vote thus." Gentlemen might undertake to assign motives for his conduct, which indeed he scorned to answer. There was one broad ground on which he acted: he always weighed the reasons on one side of the question against those on the other; and on the side which preponderated, he never failed to vote. He was in that House discharging a public duty; and he endeavoured, whatever were his prejudices, to act consistently with the nature of his trust. The present was a great question between his own country and a foreign power; in a controversy of this kind, although he might not fully approve the conduct of administration, he could not endure that any prejudice whatever should separate him from the cause of his country. In a case of this kind, where the Executive was the only organ of communication, he would vigorously guard himself from being seduced by any predilection whatever.
One other idea on this subject—while the aspect of the political horizon was serious, and called upon them not merely to express an opinion, but to protect the permanent interest of the country, he deemed it of some moment to consider, that however divided on other points, on this they should be animated with one soul; that, said he, when we do strike we may strike with one arm. Perhaps a conviction of this might have led him to be more ready to vote for the bill on their table than it deserved. He did not think gun-boats of themselves composed a proper defence; but as this bill contemplated a subordinate part of a general system, he should vote for it.
Mr. Campbell said he could assure the gentleman from Connecticut that he had not established a court of inquisition for consciences. He had not impeached the motives of gentlemen, but had stated objects which they might have in view. I will, said he, assure the gentleman, and so will the House, that he has been incorrect in stating any thing about dispatches; and I can also assure him that I shall never use an equivocal expression to disclose more than is proper.
Mr. Quincy said he would not have risen now but for an observation of the gentleman from Tennessee, as to speculative opinions. Mr. Q. had before not expressed his own opinion merely, but the opinion of men deeply interested and much experienced in this question. He could not boast of personal experience on the subject, but he had conversed with merchants and persons in naval employ, and he had found but one sentiment existed, that they might be useful, but not so much as to supercede the necessity of other modes. He recollected an observation made by a merchant deeply interested in the defence of our ports. When his opinion was asked of the efficiency of gun-boats, he said "you may have gun-boats; but attempt to use them on our coasts, and you would soon not have a gun left on your boats." Much better would it be that these guns should be rested on carriages, and those distributed along the sea coast. Mr. Q. had no objection to gun-boats when contemplated to be used in short and narrow waters; but he must express an opinion against their efficiency in deep and rough waters, not from his own experience, but because it appeared to be the opinion of men skilled in naval affairs; and because the great mass of men interested in the defence of the ports were averse to this mode of defence. He should not vote for the bill; because he should by so doing abandon the best interests of the country; and because when so large a sum was appropriated, it would seem that land batteries were to be proportionably neglected.
(DEBATE TO BE CONTINUED.)