The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1809-01-02 00:00:00

National Intelligencer.
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER
26747 XC
VOL. IX.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. 1234.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM,
MONDAY, JANUARY 2, 1809.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
WASHINGTON CITY.
MONDAY, JANUARY 2.
We offer the following extracts from the prints of our neighbors, to show how admirably their language corresponds with that of some of our own citizens.
"The public will see the proceedings of the American Congress are not likely to be precipitate, and that there will be no want of proficience. There seems to have been very little debate. Mr. Mason indeed is the only man who spoke out; for there appears to have existed a general squamishness on the subject. This gentleman told his colleagues plainly, 'Neither of the two great powers have shown the least disposition to yield their measures; neither, I hope, shall we. I believe we have but three alternatives:—WAR, EMBARGO or SUBMISSION. The last I have discarded;—this nation never will submit; nor are there many people in it that would. That is out of the question. The only question is, whether in the present state of the world, the embargo or war is the best for us.' So are we in this Province. But with due deference to Mr. Mason, we think that if to acquiesce in the right of Great Britain, to reassert on her enemies, is to be called submission , and if a submission is out of the question, there is no alternative at all. There remains the embargo, and nothing but the embargo; for war also is out of question. There cannot exist a doubt but that at least half of the population of the United States agree in the sentiments expressed by the legislature of Massachusetts."— Quebec Gaz.
"Respecting the conduct of the United States, as it respects European nations, nothing of a firm and fixed feature has made its appearance in Congress—Numerous projects have been engendered;—The result may shortly be expected."
Montreal Advertiser.
Carlisle, December 21.
Captains Irvine and Peters, of the Light Artillery, have received orders to march for Pensylvania on Saturday next; and from letters received by the other officers, it is expected that the whole of the troops will be in orders to leave this in a short time.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
DECEMBER 6. DEBATE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS CONTINUED.
MR. G. W. CAMPBELL said it might have been expected that he should before this time have risen to notice some of the objections made to this resolution and the report of the committee on foreign relations, in order to rescue them from the unqualified and general, though in some instances, very weak and inconsistent censures attempted to be thrown upon them. He had hitherto waited patiently to hear some of those gentlemen who oppose the report state some specific ground of objection; either to the principles assumed in it, to the facts therein stated, to the reasoning upon those principles and facts, or to the conclusions drawn from them. He had expected when gentlemen so very liberally censured the report, that they would at least fix on some definite objections; as the foundation of those censures, that were capable of being comprehended, of becoming the subject of investigation, and receiving some specific answer. He had, however, waited in vain. We have (said he) heard some general objections taken, but gentlemen have not attempted to define the principles assumed in the report, nor to show the incorrectness of a single statement of facts made, if it can have yet ventured to deny any part of the reasoning, or to dispute the correctness of the conclusions drawn therefrom. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Gannet) who bestows his censures so very liberally, and in terms so very general and peculiar to himself, has not pointed to a single part of the report to which he objected in particular. His censures were general and indefinite, and it might be added, most of them inconsistent and incomprehensible. Some of his objections will be noticed, so far as they relate to the subject under discussion; others of them are of a character not to be noticed for the purpose of investigation. They ought not to stain the page of debate; if noticed at all, it will be only for the purpose of showing that they are totally inapplicable to the subject, and that the public may see the wretched shifts to which gentlemen are put to support their opposition.
Sir, after the House has been nearly two weeks engaged in a discussion in which gentlemen have indulged themselves in such a range, that the subject which produced it is almost entirely lost sight of, it is high time to bring our minds back to the real question, which we are about to decide. The debate seems indeed to have had no bounds assigned to it; every subject of domestic as well as foreign affairs has been embraced by it. This desultory kind of declaratory discussion, censuring every measure either adopted or proposed with-
out offering any substitute, can only be designed for the popular ear—to amuse the public mind and divert it from perceiving the real course which gentlemen are pursuing, and to cover the abject submission to which that course would lead. The public must see that those gentlemen in the opposition can have no other object in view, in exaggerating the distresses of this country under the embargo, in calling its submission, in painting in the highest colors the unavenged wrongs of this country, without proposing any measure of redress, but to turn away the public attention from the real causes of our present difficulties, and prevent the people from perceiving the guip of disgrace into which the course pursued by those very gentlemen would plunge the nation. These gentlemen must be sensible that to do nothing but remove the embargo would be submission of the most humble kind; and in order to conceal the deformity of such a proposition, they seem desirous to anticipate the public sentiment & make an impression abroad that the measures pursued by your government, which were charged as likely to produce war last session, are now submission, mere submission, and nothing else. They tell the people, "your rights are sacrificed by those whom you have intrusted to manage your affairs; every thing is going wrong; turn them out and put us, (the minority) in power, and we will heal all your wounds, we will set all things right." What other object than this can be ascribed to those speeches we have heard. I have, sir, been unintentionally hurried into these remarks, which have carried me in some degree away from the course I meant to pursue. I will return to the subject immediately before you. I cannot, however, avoid first expressing my astonishment at the line of conduct pursued by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph.) He favored us with two eloquent speeches of some length, partaking in a great degree of a war spirit, and breathing great indignation at foreign aggressions, and censuring temporising, submissive conduct at home. Much of these speeches amused us, & some parts of them I was really happy to hear, as I was thereby induced to believe, that he was about to assume, with us, a higher ground than that we had hitherto occupied; but when I heard the gentleman descend from the climax to which he had arisen, of avenging his country's wrongs, as it would seem, to the very bathos of doing nothing, worse than nothing, of taking off the embargo, and trading with G. Britain, thereby submitting to her orders, I was, sir, astonished; my very blood chilled in my veins, and so must that of every American who heard him—[Mr. Randolph said that was not his ground.] It will state (said Mr. Campbell) what the gentleman said, and what I considered his ground. If I misunderstood him, I am willing to be corrected. He said, "will you go to war? will you increase the taxes? No," the gentleman answers—"I will not increase the taxes, I am for opening your trade with both those powers;" meaning as I understood him, G. Britain and France. If I am not correct in this statement of what he said, I am always willing to have any explanation which any gentleman wishes to make as to facts. [Mr. Randolph—Does it become me to correct that gentleman? Does it become me after the very candid ascription of motive which he has made, which was as foreign from myself as others, that I should explain what I did say?—[Mr. Campbell said, he had given the floor in order to permit the gentleman to state or explain what he had said; not to argue the point.] Mr. Randolph—The gentleman has abdicated the floor, sir, he has surrendered it to me, and under the correction of the chair, I will keep it. I deny that the ground which I am charged with having taken is my ground. It has been put under me by another. It is not improbable, sir, under the circumstances under which I addressed you yesterday, that I may not have at all times, in every sentence, in every minute particular, expressed myself with great precision. But certainly this House and every one who heard me, must know, that I did not take the ground of submission to the two belligerents, or of trading with them on their own terms.]
MR. CAMPBELL. We are now precisely where we were before the gentleman explained. The words which I have stated as having been used by him are not denied—and they justify the statement I have made. I
feel no disposition to distort or exaggerate any thing that gentlemen say; nor to ascribe to them motives different from those by which they are actuated, or other objects than those they really have in view—but I must be permitted to make such deductions from plain and explicit language, as it will fairly warrant. Now to open your ports, and trade with both those powers, without adopting, any other measure, under existing circumstances, I consider direct and unconditional submission—hence I feel myself strictly authorised by the gentleman's language, to say, that the course suggested by him, would be the most humble of all submissions, and without even an apology for national disgrace. And what object can gentlemen have in view in making speeches that breathe the spirit of resistance and war, and at the same time refusing to take a single measure calculated to vindicate the injured rights of their country, telling you in plain terms they will do nothing, unless indeed it be to conceal from the public eye the humiliating condition to which their course would bring the nation? I can see none. These are my deductions from what has been said on this floor—The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) says his plan was not submission. If so, it is extremely easy, sir, for that gentleman, who every one knows can express his sentiments as clearly and distinctly as any man in the nation, (and in saying this I am not paying any compliment to the gentleman,) it is very easy for him, sir, to tell us precisely what is his plan, what are his objects. But, sir, I will pursue this part of the subject no further at this time, but return to the course I proposed to pursue, and in the first place notice some of the objections made to this report.
The House must excuse the want of methodical arrangement in the remarks which I may make. It will probably be impracticable, if not totally impossible, in noticing the inconsistent and in many instances contradictory objections, made to the measure before you, to pursue any regular system.
The style of the report and the mode in which the subject is treated, which seem to be particularly objectionable to the gentleman from Virginia, for he says it is not served up with such exquisite taste as it might be, will not be examined here. The report is before the public, who will decide no doubt impartially on those points. In their decision I shall willingly acquiesce. These objections however whether well or ill founded cannot affect the substance of the report. This will rest on its own merits. The facts stated in it are supported by documents, the truth of which will not be denied. The principles assumed are such as I presume it would not suit gentlemen to deny before the American people; they have not denied them. These together with the reasoning upon them, and the conclusions drawn therefrom, are calculated to show the unprovoked wrongs, s, and to vindicate the injured rights of the people of this country; it may not therefore answer the purpose gentlemen have in view, to deny these directly, or to specify the particular part to which they are so much opposed. They have hitherto declined doing this, and have contented themselves with making vague and general objections to the whole measure, and at the same time they tell you (with one exception only) that they will vote for the first resolution while they consume the time of the House in arguing against it. Gentlemen tell you the 1st resolution under consideration is perfectly useless; that it is so clear it cannot be disputed, and yet, sir, we have not been able to get a question upon it for ten days—Some say they have no objections to it—others do not like it, but still they will not vote against it—one gentleman (Mr. Gardener) considered it so extremely clear, so self evident, that he must vote against it. That is he must, in order to shew his consistency, record his vote against a proposition that was too self-evident to be denied. This kind of logic is to me incomprehensible. The gentleman says, we cannot or ought not to submit to anything—he will therefore vote against the resolution declaring that we cannot, &c. submit to the edicts of G. Britain and France; the effect of his vote therefore must be, that we can and will submit to those edicts; as the negative must be the converse of the positive, and all this because the question is too clear to admit of doubt. Yes, sir, because the sun shines so clear into your chamber at
noon day, that no reasoning can be necessary to establish the fact, the gentleman will tell you that it is so self evident, that he must solemnly affirm by his vote that it does not shine at all. I shall not pretend to answer this kind of reasoning.
Some gentlemen object to this resolution on the ground that it is an abstract proposition, and that no bill is to be founded upon it. It has been correctly stated by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Gholson) that it is not strictly speaking an abstract proposition. It is in fact expressing the sense of the House on the subject of submission as applied to the existing state of things, it may contain an acknowledged truth, but that is applied to the present state of our foreign relations, and so far it is specific. But suppose it were as abstract as gentlemen choose to consider it, still it would be parliamentary, and perfectly consistent with the practice and usages of deliberative bodies and of this House to adopt it. I need not remind the House of the case when the right of deposit at New Orleans was interrupted. A declaration was then made asserting our right to the navigation of the river Mississippi & to the privileges consequent of that right, and our determination to maintain that right and those privileges unimpaired. What is the case now? The privilege of carrying your produce to its usual market is interdicted, and you are called on to declare that you will not submit to this infringement of your rights. I wish the gentleman to point out the difference in principle between declaring that you will not submit to an interruption of the right of deposit for your produce, as was the case at N. Orleans, and a declaration that you will not submit to the interdicted of the right of carrying your produce to market, which is the present case. In the one case the right of deposit is interrupted, in the other, the right of transit or of pursuing your lawful commerce, is interdicted; the principle in both cases is precisely the same. Many other instances of a similar nature might be introduced if thought necessary, to show that this course is perfectly consistent with parliamentary usage. But I had supposed, sir, the few remarks I made when this subject was first taken up, would have prevented, or at least rendered unnecessary the objections taken to this resolution. It was then stated to the House as a proposition so clear and self-evident, that I could scarcely bring myself to think it necessary. That it was fixed upon as a rallying point at which all would unite, and short of which no one would wish to stop, and it was supposed no objections would be made to it. It was not proposed as a measure upon which a bill or law was to be founded, and the objections taken on this ground are futile beyond description. It was intended, and will have the effect of showing to the American people, who are willing to maintain their rights against foreign aggressions, and who are prepared and willing to submit tamely to those aggressions, and to admit that those edicts violating your commercial and neutral rights are perfectly correct, and therefore ought not to be resisted. The vote on this resolution may determine this point. Those who vote against the principle contained in the resolution, to wit that we cannot submit to those edicts, must of necessity vote in favor of its opposite or contrary, that we can and will submit to them. There is no middle course between the negative and the positive, that I am acquainted with, that will enable gentlemen to vote against this resolution, and yet evade voting for submission to the edicts of G. Britain and France.
The gentleman from Virginia reminds us that we have been four weeks in session, being the fourth part of the time assigned by the constitution for our deliberation, and inquires—what we have done? What progress has been made in public business? I regret the loss of time, sir, as much as any gentleman; but when we are reminded of its rapid progress, and that we have not improved it, it would seem reasonable, that those who complain should inform us what we ought in their opinion to have done, what they themselves have done, or what they would wish to do.
If they would point out the course they wish to pursue, we might possibly go with them, and thus hasten the progress of public business. None of the gentlemen has explicitly stated his plan. So far as they have divulged their project, it amounts to unconditional submission that would plunge the nation into an abyss of disgrace. You are told to retrace your steps—to
abandon the only measure for resisting foreign aggressions to which you have resorted, to acknowledge your error. That is, to announce to the world, that we were totally wrong in opposing the orders in council of his most gracious majesty, king George III. and the decrees of the great emperor of the French; and that we are willing to remove the embargo, and take just what little commerce they are pleased to assign us. If this be the gentlemen's plan, I beg leave to enter my protest against it, and to declare that it never shall with my assent stain the page of your journal.
Being in some measure called upon by the gentleman from Virginia, to explain some pretended inconsistency, he has discovered in this report, I shall briefly notice some of the objections he has made to it. I could have wished that he had specified his objections so as to be capable of becoming the subject of investigation, that their merits might be ascertained, and that they might be susceptible of a specific answer. He has not done so—his censures and objections are vague and in general terms, not definite, nor indeed consistent or distinctly comprehensible. He says you must have something better than this report, to extricate you from your present difficulties, but he does not tell you what that must be; nor does he offer any substitute for it. He observes that reports of committees, and correspondences of ministers, and instructions of Secretaries of State, will not protect your rights or secure your independence, and seems to regret that the Secretary of State can write so well, because he says, whilst you have the best of the argument you have the worst of the battle. I do not, sir, perceive any force of reasoning in all this, nor can I comprehend what object the gentleman had in view, unless it be to make known to the public his disapprobation of every thing that was done, without assigning even a plausible reason for it. Certainly our having the best of the argument cannot be the cause of our having the worst of the battle; and if we have as he says, the worst of the battle, it could be no consolation to us, to have also the worst of the argument, nor would this better our situation. Why the gentleman should seem to regret that your statesmen can so successfully show the justice of your cause, is indeed incomprehensible—as it never can, by any possibility add to the number of aggressions committed on your rights. They would remain the same whether the subjects of them were well or ill discussed. It may be thought by some, but surely I trust not by that gentleman, a most unfortunate circumstance, that Mr. Madison can write so well, as it has thrown the diplomatic corps of George the III in the back ground: For with all their court intrigue and diplomatic address they have certainly been foiled in the late discussions. It cannot, however, be pretended that this brought the nation into its present difficulties.
With regard to the first resolution now under discussion, the objections taken to it by the gentleman are extremely inconsistent, and some of them appear to me in direct contradiction to each other. He first says, "the resolution is weak, feeble and useless," and in another part of his speech, he asks, "whether this resolution is intended as a declaration of war." How the gentleman can consider the same resolution feeble and therefore useless, and also as a declaration of war, is to me incomprehensible. But this kind of reasoning, is in perfect consistency with the course pursued by gentlemen, for the last two or three years. We were told last year that the embargo was war against Great Britain; now we are told by the same men that it is submission to her. In 1805, we were told, the non-importation act was war, in the strongest terms, against the same power; you were told that by it, you were about to put the match to the train which would explode throughout the United States; you are now told that with the non-importation act, commenced your career of submission. Surely, sir, what was war in 1805-6, cannot since have become submission; nor can what was war in 1807, be now turned into submission. The gentleman with all his eloquence will not be able to reconcile to the people of the United States, such inconsistencies, or induce them to believe in them.
The gentleman asked for some explanation respecting what he considered an inconsistency or an anachronism in the report. I presume he (Continued on 2nd page.)

The important debate on the value of 50,000 volunteers, has excited public interest. The following resolutions, passed unanimously, demonstrate the noble spirit that animates all ranks in this distinguished state, a spirit which we flatter ourselves our sister states will be proud to emulate.
Resolved, That the citizens of all those parts of this state, where infractions of the embargo and non-intercourse laws can take place, be recommended to associate themselves for the purpose of exposing to public odium, and the loss of the United States, all such persons as are concerned in, or accessory to, or countenancing them, and that it be considered as an act of treason, in the event of a conviction of such transgressions, or the persons concerned therein, as in time of actual war.
Resolved, That the Legislature of this state do tender to Congress now assembled, its full approbation of the measures hitherto pursued by that honorable body, particularly in the continuation of the embargo and non-intercourse acts, and pledge their best support in enforcing them into execution.
Resolved, That the citizens of all those parts of this state, where infractions of the embargo and non-intercourse laws can take place, be recommended to associate themselves for the purpose of exposing to public odium, and the loss of the United States, all such persons as are concerned in, or accessory to, or countenancing them, and that it be considered as an act of treason, in the event of a conviction of such transgressions, or the persons concerned therein, as in time of actual war.
The British expedition, consisting of 2,500 men and four or five vessels of war, sailed from Halifax on the 6th ult. under the command of General Prevost.
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Friday, December 30.
The unfinished business of yesterday, the bill preventing our citizens from taking foreign licenses, was postponed till Monday next, on motion of Mr. Nelson, ayes 55.
VOLUNTEERS.
The House resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. Marion in the chair, on the following resolution reported by the committee, to whom was referred the resolution for placing the country in a more complete state of defence:
Resolved, That it is expedient immediately to raise, arm, and equip, fifty thousand volunteers, to serve for the term of two years.
The resolution having been read—Mr. Nelson said, that the House had a few days ago unanimously adopted a resolution for placing the country in a more complete state of defence. The danger and probability of war appeared to thicken upon us every day; and unless preparation were made, we should be taken in a situation not advantageous to the country. He thought it extremely doubtful whether a law on this subject could be presented to the House, and the details so made up as to meet the opinion of a majority, and the bill go through the other branch of the legislature, and receive the sanction of the President, before a blow would be struck against us. At least it was highly probable that before the volunteers could be put in motion, this militia might be competent to repel it. But if any thing like fixed hostile operation should take place, it would be necessary to have some men whose time of service would be more extensive than that of the militia. For, however great the patriotism of the people, and he believed they had more than any in the world, it was well known that many of them had it not in their power to leave their families for any great length of time. He hoped and trusted that the resolution would meet with no opposition from any quarter. He had framed it in as broad a manner as possible, in order to obviate the necessity of entering into any discussion on the detail of the bill at this time.
The committee rose and reported the resolution to the House.
Mr. Pitkin required the Yeas and Nays, on the question of concurrence by the House.
Mr. Gardenier then rose. He said he was surprised that this bill had passed through the committee of the whole without opposition. He had hoped that some other gentleman would have called for the reasons which induced the report of the committee. It was proposed by this resolution to raise a standing army in time of peace; a force which to his mind was unnecessary on the one hand and lighted on the other. Was it the object of government to plunge us into a war? Was a declaration of war intended? If we were to be put into a state of actual old-fashioned war, he should wish for one, to have the fact in the first place ascertained. If war was determined on, however unnecessary and unjust such a war may be, the interest of the country demanded that in such a case they should take care that the country did not suffer. He said he was not prepared to pledge himself in the present state of the nation, that he would go to war; and at any rate before war was declared, he would not give his sanction to raising a force, the destination of which he did not understand, and could not calculate upon. Fifty thousand men at an expense to this nation for two years of $2,900,000! Why (said he) I was told last year
that the system on which we were entering, the embargo system, was to prevent war; that war was the most dreadful calamity which could befall a nation. I did not want to be told that in order to know it. But this dreadful evil of war was to be averted by laying an embargo, that would bring the belligerents at our feet, that would perform a great cure for all the disorders of the state, or miseries of the country. But now it appeared that the embargo system was to be abandoned, and war to be commenced in its place. Is it intended by this report to say that the embargo has utterly failed of its purpose, as was predicted by those who were opposed to it? Is it to be relinquished because it is in its operation futile, because it has proved that those who commenced it were not capable of calculating the effects to be produced by it? Whenever the embargo question is brought up in a direct proposition, it is smothered; and where attempted to be introduced in an amendment to any other question before the House, it is declared out of order; and yet a system is here to be introduced which, if it prove anything, proves that the embargo system is wholly futile in its operation. Do gentlemen mean that the embargo system will do no longer? Let us go on regularly to repeal it, then, that we and the nation may understand it. If the embargo be this grand preventative against war, which it is all along cried up to be, and which opinion has been the means of gaining it that languid and sickly support which it has received from some portions of the country; if it is to be continued as a coercive measure, then, sir, I do insist that raising a military force of 50,000 men is unnecessary. If the embargo be coercive the raising fifty thousand men for coercion is unnecessary. The two different systems are incompatible. If we have embargo, let us have wholly embargo; if war, wholly war. If we are to have peace, the raising of troops is wholly unnecessary, especially with our present limited resources. I wish not to see those measures, which a declaration of war only would warrant, adopted before that attitude is taken. I have no idea of having these chains wound round me, round this House, round the nation; and I trust the nation will entertain the same opinion.
A gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Story) said yesterday, if I understood him, that the embargo had failed so far as to its coercive character. Is it the sense of the House that it should be repealed? Is it the sense of the House (as the gentleman from Massachusetts also intimated as his opinion) that there should be a declaration of war? If so, it might be proper to raise an army. But I have no disposition to raise an army until there be war.
There had been a time, Mr. Gardenier said, when the raising 12,000 men was considered and held out by many honest politicians as a measure dangerous to the independence of the states and to the rights of the people individually. Last year 6000 men had been raised, and now fifty thousand more were called for. He had thought that in this country no standing armies should be raised in time of peace; that there was a sacred injunction in the constitution forbidding it. Perhaps he did not correctly understand the subject; this might not be a standing army, because its term of service was limited to two years; but it might be extended two or ten years more. He put the question to gentlemen whether, in a state of peace, under the operation of that very system which had been represented as a substitute for war, it would be proper to raise this force? He could not reconcile it with a due estimate of the interests of the country on the one hand, or the sacred injunctions of the constitution on the other, to raise an army to such an extent. An army is to be raised; the mode in which it is to be employed is uncertain. The twelve thousand men which he had before mentioned, was a body which could not be employed to the detriment of the liberties of the country; for almost every section could raise a force to resist such an army if an attempt had been made by it to destroy their liberties. We had another security too against this force being used to a bad purpose. At the head of this army had been the great hero of the revolution—and also the man who had next to him done more for the prosperity of the country than any other, under whose luminous and creative mind the resources of the whole country had been brought into action, and spread an universal brilliancy over the nation instead of that gloom and poverty which had preceded his influence in the U. S. This army, so small and under such commanders, threatened not the public liberty. Yet there had been men zealous and eager that none the slightest occasion should be given for any one to suppose that they were about by military force to invade the liberties of the country, who had seen horrors in this small army which they could scarcely find words to depict. Where were these men, he asked, now that an army of more
than four times the number was about to be raised, when those two heroes were departed to the silent tomb, when other commanders were to have the direction of this military force? Where were the men who had been struck with this patriotic alarm? Why were not their voices raised now, when a force was offered to be raised which if employed to overturn the liberties of the people could not be resisted, but would spread itself over the country and stifle the efforts of patriotism? To which if resistance should be made, either the country must be put under military despotism, or the struggle would cost the country all it had acquired since the revolution, and the citizens would have to wade knee-deep in blood to preserve that liberty which they gained by the glorious struggle of the revolution. Are we more safe now (said he) with an army of 50,000 men under our present commanders, that we were with 12,000 men under Washington and Hamilton? I could wish to believe that we were. But I have not that faith which blinds my judgment and destroys my recollection. No, sir, indeed I have not; I cannot extinguish from my memory that in one section of this country the liberty of the citizen, the judicial power which should be inviolable, and the sacred right of habeas corpus, perished at the touch of military power. I do not believe the country safe under this army; I do not believe the persons of the members of this House are safe under it; and I would protest against it at the hazard of my head. Such are my own feelings, and I could wish, and I would strive if I knew the way to the hearts of men, to recall the feelings of '98 and '99. Or is it true in all cases, even with the warmest patriotism, that tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur cum illis ? Perhaps however, I may not see clearly; some argument may be found in favor of this proposition.
What course, he asked, was to be given to this army? Was a state of war expected between this country and France? There was now no point at which we could come in contact with her. Formerly, when the French government had a despotic influence over that of Spain, the Spaniards on our western frontier could have been set in motion against us. But now we had nothing to fear in that respect. Were we to have war with Great Britain? Was that at length determined on? Had it been settled out of doors that we were to have war, and were the House now called upon to vote what could only be a legitimate consequence of a declaration of war? This army must be intended to be employed out of the country, for to self-defence the militia were surely competent. Was this nation to go to war with Great Britain and Spain? Was this force to be employed against Canada, or in giving legitimate form to the Burr project? Was it to go to Mexico? Mr. Gardenier said his mind had been struck with a kind of horror which he could not express at this projected army, and could not sit still, and give a silent vote when a project which he believed to carry with it so many mischiefs, perhaps such utter ruin, was set on foot.
He did not believe, he said, that the public liberty would be more safe in the hands of those who now directed the public concerns, than it had been formerly in the hands of other rulers. There was a fact which filled his mind with alarms, communicated to him, and that years ago, by a man whose mind was as pure as that of any human being that ever existed—a fact concerning the opinions as to what ought to have been the form of government, and as to the theories of the gentleman who most probably was to be high in power in this country, which had made such an impression on him, that he could not but at this moment view this project with increased horror and dread. He would however say no more of that at present. But in his plain and humble conception the public liberty was in danger; and here, within these walls, within this sanctuary of American independence, it was that the public liberty was to be saved. It was here, by recurring to first principles, to that great principle, that free states should be jealous of military power, that he looked for its salvation. At a time when, under pretence of enforcing the embargo, an unconstitutional power was proposed to be placed in the hands of executive officers, when an arbitrary power was to be exercised on mere suspicion, when with all this was combined a strong and overwhelming military force, he could not at such a period be silent. Yes, sir, (said he) I do in my soul and conscience believe that if ever there was a time when we should make a solemn pause, and look around us, and survey our condition with a cool and calculating eye, this is the period; and I for one have not hesitated to give the alarm. I would place myself here, upon the ramparts of the constitution, and give the alarm to the country. I would place myself here on the signal-tower of the public liberty, and sound the tocsin of alarm to the nation. We can lose nothing by being jealous, by withdrawing enormous power from executive agents; by a contrary conduct we may lose every thing, sacred without a hope of regaining it.
Mr. Erres said there was no man who regretted more than himself that at a period when the safety, honor, and independence of this country were assailed by external danger; when, under the pressure of a measure resorted to under circumstances of the most urgent necessity, the citizens of this country had manifested a feeling calculated to excite sensations here and elsewhere—that such a period should be seized by gentlemen not to exert their talents in steering the national bark through the billows by which it was surrounded, but in endeavoring to thwart every measure proposed. The gentleman from N. York (said Mr. E.) has told us that he will sound the tocsin of alarm to the people. And what is the project of the gentleman himself? Why, he has told you on a former day, openly, honestly & fairly, that he is for a war with France; he is willing to pocket all the injuries which we have received from Great Britain, and to go to war with France. In vain would the gentleman sound the tocsin of alarm, if this is his project. The people of the United States would not go with him. It is not the sentiment of any portion of our citizens except of the old Tories of our revolution. He would not be followed by the American people in taking to his bosom a nation which has murdered your citizens, and making war upon a nation which has pillaged your commerce. I cannot reconcile the project with my ideas of moral principle. He would not be followed by the federalists—I cannot believe that those who walked in procession after the body of the murdered Pierce, could stamp on themselves the character of base hypocrites, by taking to their bosom the nation which committed the outrage, while the blood of Pierce and a host of other injuries more degrading remain yet unatoned for. All our injuries remain unredressed; not the smallest apology has been made, but the feelings of the country not only disregarded, but insulted by new acts of violence and injustice. The gentleman's project to save the honor of the nation is submission to England and war with France. I pronounce with confidence it is not the sentiment of the American people; the gentleman from N. York has taken occasion to introduce the name of Washington. The sentiments which expressed have never been those of Washington. He never would have been willing to put chains on his countrymen, to consent to a shackled commerce; to allow foreign nations to say to his country, this far you shall go and no farther. This is not the spirit of Washington. It is not the spirit which produced our revolution—opposition to tyrants and a manly assertion of our rights at every hazard, gave us our rank as an independent nation. The same spirit still pervades our country, and I trust will ever remain. It never, however, has been the policy of this government to rush rashly into war. The history of our country under former administrations demonstrates this fact—and under the administration of Washington as well as under every other, we have borne with patience degrading insult and injury. As to the great regard of former administrations for the personal rights of the citizen, on which the gentleman has dwelt, I shall not go into that part of the subject. In laying an embargo, even in the time of Washington, a short resolution was passed in which the power was vested and the execution left to the Executive. This was thought at that time very constitutional and proper, no doubt, by the federalists. We however can frame no constitutional law on this subject, although they could very constitutionally adopt the old maxim, so I will it, and enforce their system. While, however, I am not disposed to excite unpleasant sensations, by bringing into view acts of former administrations, I believe that a statement of the course pursued under Gen. Washington and Mr. Adams, as to foreign nations, will show that it never has been our policy to plunge rashly into war. I beg leave to read on this subject an extract from a speech delivered in 1803.
"Our differences with Great Britain were coeval with the treaty of peace. The detention of the western posts was a direct violation of that treaty—it diverted a considerable portion of the fur trade from the United States, and disabled us from bridling the hostile Indians, which was a source of immense injury. This evil continued for twelve years, under every circumstance of aggravation and insult. British soldiers issued from those forts into parts of our territory, where we exercised jurisdiction, and seized the persons of deserters without the aid or sanction of the authorities of the country, and these possessions served as asylums for the savages who were in hostile array against us—and as store-houses and magazines to supply them with arms, ammunition, and provisions. The seat of government of Upper Canada was also held for a time at Niagara, in the state of New-York, an indignity of the most marked character—many thousands of negroes were also carried off in violation of the
treaty, and a very serious injury was by inflicted on the agricultural pursuits of our southern citizens."
"It is well known that we were engaged in a bloody and expensive war with several of the Indian tribes—that two of our armies had been routed by them, and that we were finally compelled to make great efforts to turn the tide of victory. These Indians were encouraged and aided by the emissaries of Great Britain—British subjects were seen disguised fighting in their ranks, and British agents were known to furnish them with provisions and the implements of war. The governor general of Canada, a highly confidential and distinguished officer, delivered a speech to the seven nations of Lower Canada, exciting them to enmity against this country; but in order to furnish the savages at war with sufficient aid, a detachment of British troops penetrated into our territory and erected a fort, on the Miami River. Here the Indians, dispersed and defeated by Wayne, took refuge, and were protected under the muzzle of British cannon. A violation of territory is one of the most flagrant injuries which can be offered to a nation, and would in most cases justify an immediate resort to arms, because in most cases essential to self-defence. Not content with exciting the savages of America against us, Great Britain extended her hostility to the eastern hemisphere, and let loose the barbarians of Africa upon us. A war existed at that time between Portugal and Algiers. The former blocked up the mouth of the Straights, by her superior naval force, and prevented the pirates from a communication with the Atlantic. Portugal has been for a long time subservient to the views of Great Britain. A peace was effected through the mediation of the latter. Our unprotected merchantmen were then exposed, without defence, to the piracies of Algiers. Thus in three quarters of the globe we at one time felt the effects of British enmity. In the mean time our commerce in every sea was exposed to her rapacity. All France was declared in a state of siege, and the conveyance of provisions expressly interdicted to neutrals. Paper blockades were substituted for actual ones, and the staple commodities of our country lay perishing in our store-houses, or were captured on the ocean, and diverted from the lawful proprietors. Our seamen were pressed wherever found. Our protections were a subject of derision, and opposition to the imperious mandates of their haughty tyrants, was punished by fire or by stripes—by imprisonment or by the gibbet. To complete the full measure of our wrongs, the November orders of 1793 were issued; our ships were swept from the ocean, as if by the operation of enchantment—hundreds of them were captured—almost all our merchants were greatly injured, and many of them reduced to extreme poverty. These proceedings, without even a pretext, without the forms of justice, without the semblance of equity, were calculated to inflame every American feeling, and to nerve every American arm. Negotiation was however preferred, an envoy extraordinary, in every sense of the word, was sent to demand redress, and a treaty of amity, commerce and navigation, was formed and ratified. These events took place under the administration of Washington. The Spanish treaty, concluded on the 27th October, 1795, stipulated for a settlement of boundaries, and a re-adjustment of spoliations on commerce, and contained a declaration of the free navigation of the Mississippi, and a grant of the privilege of deposit at New Orleans. This treaty for more than two years after its date, was not executed on the part of Spain. In January, 1798, a report was made to Mr. Adams, by Mr. Secretary Pickering, and submitted to Congress, which charged Spain with retaining her troops and garrisons within the United States, with evading to run the boundary line, with stopping controlling, and regulating the passage of our citizens on the Mississippi, and with sending emissaries among the Indians residing within our territories, in violation of the treaty and the relations of amity. Here then, a treaty securing the import or benefit of deposit, was in a state of in execution for a long period. Our citizens were also interrupted in the free navigation of the Mississippi, and other aggressions affecting our territorial rights, and our internal peace, were superadded."
"An amicable explanation was had with Spain, and our wrongs were satisfactorily redressed. This took place in the administration of Mr. Adams, and when most of the honorable gentlemen who support this war resolution, except such as were dangling in the courts of Europe, held prominent stations in the councils of the country."

stable, and universal peace, and true and sincere friendship."
I have read this statement, sir, (said Mr. Eppes) because it is the deliberate and grave statement of a man arrived at that period of life when he is not so much under the influence of passion. It is a statement of facts, which if made by myself, might be attributed to party feeling. It proves that it never has been the policy of this nation lightly to embark in war. And however the gentleman from New-York and myself may differ in other respects, we unite in this: that no evil is so great as war, except a surrender of our independence; nothing short of an attack on which should induce any nation to resort to this alternative, in justice to every nation, but particularly so to ours.
So far then as we have progressed in our present situation, so far as the course pursued was calculated to preserve peace, it was a course which justice and humanity dictated, and which has been approved by the nation. But is there never to be an end to the sufferance of a nation? Is there no time when we shall act? The idea of a permanent embargo—and when on this part of the subject I shall perhaps be told as another gentleman was yesterday that my observations resemble more the slang of an ale-house, than the debate of a deliberative body—this idea, I observe, is to be found only in the speeches of those who opposed the measure. Such an idea cannot be inferred from the conduct of members of this House, or from any thing else which has occurred. It proceeds only from men who from the first moment the measure was laid on your table, endeavored to place it in the most odious colors. Immediately after the measure was adopted last winter, what takes place, sir? A man distinguished by the favor of the people, a man advanced in years, the very man who in '98, kept back the dispatches from Mr. Adams, and had almost plunged us into a war with France by this act. What does he do? In 1808, he displays the same spirit of hostility to France, which he manifested in '98; writes a letter in which he attributes the embargo to French influence, to the mandates of Bonaparte. [Mr. Gardener requested the gentleman from Virginia to name him.] Mr. Eppes, "General Pickering." [It appeared to be doubted whether Mr. Eppes was in order. Mr. Smith said that if the gentleman from New-York was permitted to eliminate his own government, a reply ought certainly to be allowed.] Mr. Eppes continued, I wish it to be understood by the Speaker and the House, that I hold myself responsible to any man who is injured by my observations. No circumstance shall deter me from expressing the truth in relation to our affairs. It is time that the nation should see the strange union of sentiment between gentlemen in opposition and that government which has injured us most. I am responsible for my assertions; I have a right to discharge my duty in that way which I please, and in that way I will. I then say this letter proceeded from the man who in 1798 was willing, was anxious to involve the United States in a war with France. There was a party in this country in favor of it; and if correctly informed, the man who wrote this famous letter is the head of that very party; a party connected and known under the name of the Essex Junto. This was the first stroke at the embargo; and what took place afterwards? I regret that a gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Livermore) is not in his place, whose speech, as delivered to his constituents, was sent here some weeks before our last adjournment, said to have been delivered to the inhabitants of his district, in which he declared that southern members of influence in the republican party here had openly declared to him their hostility to commerce! The gentleman has had the candor to declare that he did not make to his constituents such a statement; but, sir, it was circulated as his speech, immediately previous to the election, and although the gentleman never made such a speech, many people in Massachusetts believed that he had not only made the speech, but that it was a deliberate expression of his sentiments. These things justify the statement of the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Story) that misrepresentations have been spread amongst the people. The federal printers have united in giving currency to these misrepresentations. They have even made speeches for members of Congress; they have made them accuse the majority of Congress of being under French influence. A sentiment of this sort has been given in a speech of the gentleman from New-York, (Mr. Gardener) though it is denied.
[Mr. Gardener said he never had expressed such an opinion; the speech which he had seen printed had not conveyed that idea. He never intended to express such an idea; for however he differed in opinion with gentlemen, he never had the slightest suspicion that gentlemen were governed by dishonest motives. He should hold up their course as
pernicious to the nation, and never would cease to do so, thus performing a constitutional right, and a duty from which he would never shrink.]
It never has been my habit (continued Mr. Eppes) to attribute to gentlemen improper motives; I never have done so; but the course which has been pursued will give weight to the opinion already entertained in Great Britain that we are a divided people—That we are divided in opinion on what the gentleman from New-York himself has called a self-evident proposition—that the belligerent decrees cannot be submitted to without a surrender of our rights, independence and honor. Are we to be surprised that the people of Massachusetts or of any other part of the U. S. are agitated when they find men so enlightened as their representatives in Congress telling them that this is to be a permanent system? Do gentlemen really believe that it is our intention to abide by the embargo until our injuries are redressed, be that soon or late? Do they believe that this embargo is all that is to be opposed to insult, injury and blows? Do they believe that we are destitute of sense? I for one unequivocally deny that I ever had such an idea, or any person with whom I ever conversed on the subject, except the gentlemen who opposed it, to whom it was convenient to represent it as a permanent measure. And whatever gentlemen may say on other subjects, they will do me the justice to say that at the last session I told them my opinion that the period would arrive when the embargo would be removed; and that when it was, there was no other course than war, open and direct, or submission. I defy gentlemen any where to find the embargo considered as a permanent measure, but in their own speeches and the prints of their party.
The circumstances which produced the embargo are well known; but the misfortune is that gentlemen will not state the question fairly, but cover it under a heap of lumber, calculated to conceal from the people the real question. Let the question be fairly put, and there is not a man in America (always excepting old Tories) who would not say that they will resist. What is the real state of our affairs—and I will not stop here to discuss who began first. If we mean to assert and maintain our rights, it is totally immaterial to us who commenced, tho' on this subject I might refer gentlemen to the letter of Mr. Hammond in 1793, in which he takes the ground now maintained, and asserts the right of G. Britain to blockade the whole of France. The statement of our situation is simply this—G. Britain says if you go to France or her dependencies without a licence from her, your property shall be liable to seizure and condemnation. France says if you have visited Britain or been visited by a Briton, your vessel shall be liable to seizure and confiscation. Now take the dependencies and allies of France and England, and what remains? Your commerce is as completely blockaded by these decrees as the port of Boston was in the revolutionary war—and when gentlemen come forward and tell you that your ships are rotting in your ports, and the country suffering, and attribute this to the embargo, is it fair? Is it manly? Is it not an assertion materially variant from our present situation? I call upon any man, federalist, quid, or of what denomination he may be, to answer whether these decrees have not destroyed our commerce; and yet the destruction is imputed to the embargo. At the time the embargo was laid, our exports amounted to one hundred and eight millions annually. Taking all the countries with whom we could trade, throwing G. Britain out of the question, with whom I contend that no man can be willing to trade under existing circumstances, and our whole commerce does not amount to seven millions and a half—a commerce not equal to one half of the exports from Massachusetts alone; and give Massachusetts her relative share of one fifth of this seven millions of commerce, and this is all she can have to support her seamen, to enrich her merchants whom the embargo is said to have destroyed. This is the real situation of the country. Do the people of the Eastern portion of it know it? No, sir, it is kept from them; they cannot find it in the speeches of their representatives. No, sir; there it is all embargo, the favorite hobby-horse of federalism.
Having thus attempted to show that it was not my intention when the embargo was laid to consider it as a permanent measure, I will proceed to state some circumstances which have rendered this measure less operative than it would otherwise have been. The embargo had two objects, to gather in our capital, and to withhold supplies from our enemies. The first object has been completely answered, and there is not a period at which it would be more necessary to adhere to it than at the present moment. To withhold supplies from our enemies is now more important than ever. The nation must be put in a state to meet war.
It is in vain for gentlemen to attempt to delude the people. The decrees of England and France must be withdrawn, or we must fight; it cannot be avoided. We have declared we will not submit, and there is no species of effectual resistance but war.
We have a right to carry our produce to every place on the globe whose municipal regulations do not forbid it. France has a right to interdict our trade with herself, but none to interdict it with her enemy. G. Britain has a right to exclude us from her ports, but none to compel us to go there. What other course I ask can the U. S. take but war, or submission to these decrees? Let gentlemen examine the various proposals brought forward. It is immaterial whether we pass a law that we will reduce our trade to the places left by the decrees, or suffer it to be so reduced by the decrees themselves. In either case we submit—we allow foreign nations to fix the amount of our commerce—to destroy the fruits of our industry and legislate for us.
Now, sir, I do not believe that there is a native American in any part of the U. S. who is disposed to submit; and I rejoice that in this House there is no division of sentiment. Gentlemen have publicly declared that they will not submit. In what form then will they resist? We have tried paper long enough. It is time either to exert the energies of the nation; or to give up our rights and again become the colonies of Great Britain. I am not for that. I have no other interest than that in land, by the produce of which I live. I would sooner let it go in the general wreck of my country than surrender those rights which are so important to the nation, and which our fathers purchased with their best blood. I am not for disgracing our ancestors who fled from oppression abroad; I am not for proving ourselves a base degenerate offspring. We possess a country of 2000 miles extent; a population of six million souls, six hundred thousand men fit to bear arms. If with this we cannot preserve our independence, we deserve to be kicked out of the territory neck and heels by those powers whom we have suffered to trample on our maritime rights.
In the course of my remarks I have noticed the strange union of sentiment between gentlemen in the opposition, and the British ministry on the subject of the embargo.
On this subject I will read an extract of a ministerial pamphlet—
"Providence has ordained, that nations as well as individuals, should, in a certain degree, be dependent on each other; and the inhabitants of no country can be debarr'd from their accustomed commercial communications, without being deprived of many advantages and enjoyments. Society being thus constituted, the government that attacks the comfort and happiness of the people, by prohibiting this intercourse, alienates their affections, and consequently holds its authority by a very precarious tenure. When the late emperor Paul entered into the confederacy against G. Britain, his subjects were at once reduced to severe and general distress. Their hemp, their flax, their tallow, their ashes, their iron, their timber, all their great staple commodities, for the sale of which they depended on British purchasers, were left a dead weight upon their hands. If the produce of the land becomes of no value, the landlord may apply to his tenant for rent in vain. If the vessel can procure no employment, he can pay nothing to his lord. Thus the nobles, whose revenue is derived from the rent of their estates, and the labor of their vassals, found themselves involved in the calamity of their inferiors: and were led by common interest, to attempt that revolution, which cost the emperor his crown and his life."
"If any further elucidation of the principle to which this event is ascribed were wanting, it promises to be found in the U. S. of America; where the cultivators of the soil are deprived of the fruits of their labors and the merchants of their commercial gains, by the present embargo. This forced state of things, cannot be of long continuance. Already have the Vermontese set the constituted authorities at defiance, and persist in carrying on their trade with the Canadians across lake Champlain, while the northern states manifest strong symptoms of discontent."
Perhaps I ought to apologise to the Representatives from the state of Vermont for reading a clause speaking particularly of that state, but I assure the gentlemen that it is not my wish to bring the attention of the House to circumstances which have passed there. I view them with that deep regret with which I shall ever view a similar state of things in any portion of the country. I regret that any portion of the people of this country, however they may feel, should not manifest their feeling in that form prescribed by the constitution and the laws. We are told by this pamphlet of true British origin, that the United States cannot stand this measure; and what are we told on this floor? "You cannot stand it; you are committing suicide on yourselves." All this goes to Great Britain, what I say never will reach it. All there seen of it will be a garbled statement in a federal paper, which I could cover with my thumb, and that will be sent to Great Britain. Through this corrupted source their information is derived, and they know nothing of the real situation of American feeling or of the American character. And is the government to blame when I declare to God that I have seen speeches attributed to me which I have ne-
ver made—the most shameful misrepresentation made by men brought here not for the purpose of reporting our proceedings to the nation but for supporting party purposes. Gentlemen tell us we cannot stand a permanent embargo. We never intended it. Gentlemen will know that the rights of the nation cannot be abandoned without a struggle. The only question is when to commence it. Our resources will soon be at our command. Means of resistance are provided, and the period must soon arrive when nothing will be wanting but spirit on the part of the representatives to use them. The people are with you—you have their support. Nothing can forfeit it but abandoning their rights. If by war only they can be maintained, the people will meet it with firmness. I never had any other feeling, but that these decrees must be withdrawn, or we must resort to war. I said so last year; I took it openly—My sentiments are known to the people I represent. They unite in that sentiment. It is the undivided sentiment of the state in which I live.
It has been said that the southern people wish to destroy commerce. I will ask gentlemen what but commerce has produced our present difficulties? If I had consulted my interest only, of what importance to me was the carrying trade? None sir, but it was, it ever will be, of infinite importance to me to support the principles of our constitution. What are these principles? Equal and exact justice to every class of our citizens. United for common protection and for the general safety, the rights of no one class can be abandoned. The merchant has as good a right to protection in the use of his ship as the farmer in the use of his plough. I said so in 1805, and I say so still. Our situation, however, is now changed; it is no longer a commercial question; the late decrees and orders make a direct attack on the sovereignty of the nation; it is no longer a question whether we will trade, but whether we will maintain or surrender our independence. The embargo at the time it was adopted, was I believe, the best measure which could have been resorted to. Its operation was defeated partly by the misrepresentations of which I have spoken. While on this subject I will ask attention to another point, which I had nearly omitted. I have said something about Tories. I wish it to be understood, that I mean no gentleman in this House. I meant to state that the tory principle had manifested itself in a portion of this country, and that it was that principle, in union with the agents and acts of the British government, which produced the evasions of our law. Your towns swarm with these British agents, who send to their friends, what is essential to their prosperity, in violation of your law. Nay, sir, toryism in this country, has in one case assumed a sort of official form. I refer to the proceedings of the Essex Junto. I hold them in my hand, and I will read a resolution from them.
"These patriots say—As to the orders of council. It will be recollected that these orders, bearing date 11th November 1807, were occasioned by the decree of the French Emperor, dated Nov. 1806, declaring all the British dominions in a state of blockade. G. Britain may think these orders completely justified by the Lex Talionis (law of retaliation.) There is no reason to consider them as originating from a disposition hostile to this country; & they ought not to be so considered: It is notorious that she could, according to known law and usage, plead the actual blockade, by her navy, of all the principal ports under the power of France."
Now, sir, this I say is a rank tory principle; and it is immaterial what may be the professions of men. The man who can say in the present situation of our country, that the conduct of Great Britain towards us is justified by the lex talionis , or by any other law, is a tory. It is in vain for people in any portion of the union to make professions of patriotism, when they come forward, and by a public act say, that we have no cause of complaint against Great Britain. I wish gentlemen correctly to understand me. If the British nation would come forward and make reparation for the insults offered in our ports and waters, she will stand with me on equal ground with France. But when I recollect that instead of tendering reparation for the most humiliating insults and injuries, she sent here a legalized spy to insult us with insolent demands, I cannot consider in point of injury done to this country, these two foreign nations as equal in the honorable career of injustice and violence towards us. Let Great Britain redress these injuries, and I would as soon tender the hand of reconciliation to her as to France.
I believe the principles of both are infamous. That in a contest for the empire of the world they regard only their own aggrandizement. It is the duty of the United States to take a firm and manly attitude, and oppose both; to maintain the independence of the nation and spurn a foreign yoke. You must assert your rights; they cannot be maintained without men. The independence of our country is an object before which all differences as to the internal admini-
stration of our affairs should sink. This is a period when all honest men have a common interest. It is a period when all party feelings should be sacrificed at the shrine of our country's good. It is a period when federalists ought to forget that they have lost the helm of state, when the old Tories, dispersed through our country, should forget that we have acquired independence, and when all honest men should unite to maintain those rights, which are the birth right of an American.
[After Mr. Eppes, Mr. Quincy spoke for about half an hour. The conclusion of the daily proceedings, is unavoidably postponed till our next for want of room. The resolution was passed, 76 to 35, and referred to the committee who reported it, with instructions to bring in a bill.]
[On Saturday the 31st, no business of importance was done. The bill for the relief of the infirm and disabled soldiers, &c (for raising an invalid corps) went through a committee of the whole, and was re-committed to amend the details. The House adjourned till Tuesday.]
WASHINGTON CITY.
Monday, January 2.
Captain Connel, of the Charleston packet, states that he left Bordeaux on the 2nd of Nov. by special permission of the emperor, through the interference of our minister, for the purpose of bringing home the distressed seamen of our country, belonging to vessels condemned and sequestered; that those in the latter situation, the council of prizes have some time since received orders to suspend the trials of—A general embargo continued on all neutrals throughout the ports of France, that he has on board a number of passengers, one of which is bearer of dispatches from our ambassador at Paris for the American government.
The French troops under Junot, who capitulated in Portugal, were daily arriving at Bordeaux and Rochefort in English transports, and it was reported were marching into the interior of France, and not to be sent on the present campaign, for certain reasons.
Colonial produce had fallen owing to the arrival of a number of letters of marque with their prizes. Among the late presentations to the French Emperor was M. Le Chevalier de Santivanes, minister to the U. States from Joseph.
By the British ship Draganza , in 48 days from Liverpool, London papers to the 5th of Nov. have been received of the contents of which the following is a summary.
The U. S. dispatch ship Union had arrived in England, and after laying a messenger from Mr. Pinkney, had sailed immediately for France.
Mr. Shaw, the English messenger, dispatched to Paris, returned to England on the 3rd of Nov. with the reply of Napoleon and count Romenzoff the contents of which had not transpired. Napoleon had left Rambouillet on the Saturday preceding the Monday on which Mr. Shaw reached Paris. A French officer that accompanied him left London for Paris the next morning.
Mr. Merry is appointed by England envoy extraordinary to Sweden.
Murat had quietly succeeded to the Neapolitan throne of Joseph.
A court of enquiry into the conduct of Sir Hew Dalrymple had been summoned.
The whole of the British fleet had left the Baltic.
Philadelphia, Dec. 28.
The Charleston Packet has arrived in this port from Bordeaux, the precise time of her departure we have not learnt, but we have received the Minuteman , Indicatore , and Argus , down to Nov. 1.—This vessel brings dispatches for government, which proceed this morning for Washington.
The French emperor had passed through Bordeaux, on the 1st of Nov. to command the grand army in Spain, as he signified in a speech which we have copied below.
Seventy-five vessels bearing the American flag, had been carried into Charente , 71 of which were found to have forged papers, and to be British property; the greater number of these vessels were from Norway, with hemp, iron, and other naval stores. Coffee had been at a dollar a pound in France, but had fallen to one third.
Cotton was two dollars the pound. Provisions of every description were abundant in France.
The army that had capitulated in Portugal would not be suffered to have intercourse with the troops on the march for Spain—it seems that army is sent to Coventry.
The meeting of the two emperors at Erfurth has been followed by the evacuation of the Prussian capital by the French troops, and all the rest of Prussia, save only the fortresses of Custrin, Glogau, and one other.
The emperor Alexander, appeared in public with the insignia of the French legion of honor; and Bonaparte with that of the Russian order of Alexander Newski. The Russian minister Romanzow has also accepted the legion of honor badge; and marshal Lannes and Champagny have been complimented with the Russian military order of St. Andrew.

(Speech continued from first page.) must have been mistaken in the dates to which he alluded, or he would not have made this inquiry, as nothing is necessary to show that there is no inconsistency in that part of the report to which he alluded, but to examine and understand it. The paragraphs which the gentleman read are these:—The first in the 5th page of report; "The Milan decree of 1807, can still less rest for its defence on the supposed acquiescence of the U. States, in the British orders of the preceding month. Since those orders, which have not certainly been acquiesced in, were not even known in America at the date of the decree." The other paragraph was in the 8th and 9th pages. "This, (the instruction of the council of prizes, &c.) was received on the day of December; and a copy of the decision in the case of the Horizon , having at the same time reached government, the President, aware of the consequences which would follow that new state of things communicated immediately to Congress the alteration of the French decree and recommended the embargo, which was accordingly laid on the 22nd December, 1807; at which time it was well understood in this country, that the British orders of council of November preceding had issued, although they were not officially communicated to our government." Now, sir, the statements here made, are, that at the date of the Milan decree, the orders of council of 11th of November, were not known in America, and that when the embargo was laid it was well understood that they had issued. The Milan decree is dated on the 17th of December, 1807, the embargo was laid on the 22nd of that month—five days afterwards. The assertion therefore in the report is, that those orders of council were not known here, to have issued on the 17th Dec. but that on the 22nd of that month it was well understood they had issued. This is perfectly consistent—involves no anachronism, and was in fact the case, as I shall shew the House. It may, however, be proper here to observe, that in such a document as that before you, it would not have been correct to state that those orders were known here, so as to require on our part any measure of resistance to be taken in regard to them, in order to avoid a charge of acquiescence in them being made by a third power until they were officially communicated to our government. This is the ground taken in the report. It states that "the Milan decree of 1807, can still less rest for its defence on the supposed acquiescence of the U. States in the British orders of the preceding month," &c. and to prove beyond a doubt that France had no such pretext to justify her decree, we say, that so far from having acquiesced in those orders, they were not even known here at that time. The knowledge of them, here meant, would properly be considered that which would result from an official communication of them to the government. This might with propriety be considered the meaning of the report, and in that sense we were not made acquainted with the orders, until the 23rd of February, 1808, when they were officially communicated by Mr. Erskine. But in the present instance it is not necessary to resort to this construction to justify the statement in the report; for according to the ordinary meaning of the term, the existence of those orders, was not known to us (at least to me) on the 17th Dec. 1807, and it was known to us, though not officially, on the 22nd of that month. To show this, I beg leave to read, from the House a short paragraph from a paper printed in this city, the National Intelligencer , of the 18th Dec. 1807—stated to be taken from a London print—it is as follows:
"A proclamation is now we understand in readiness for his majesty's signature, declaring France and the whole of her vassal kingdoms in a state of siege, and prohibiting all intercourse, with her or them, all entrance of vessels into her or their harbors, except of such as have cleared last from a British port, either home or foreign." This is the first information, as far as known, received here, of the existence of those orders and proves the correctness of the statement in the report; it being subsequent to the 17th and previous to the 22nd of Dec. 1807. This paragraph also fully answers another objection taken by the same gentleman to a statement in the report. He told you that although it was asserted in the 9th page of this report, that at the time the embargo was laid, it was generally understood here, the orders of council had issued, yet that in fact the British proclamation respecting seamen and the injudicious construction given the Berlin decree were the real causes of laying the embargo, and that the orders of council did not constitute any part of the ground of this measure. We assert that the existence of these orders was known here, though not officially, when the embargo was laid. This fact is proved beyond a doubt by the paragraph which I have just read to the House, which
shews that on the 18th December, four days before the law passed, the information alluded to was published in this city.
This is the knowledge of those orders alluded to in the report, which connected with the note of the British commissioners, annexed to the famous treaty of Mr. Monroe, so often noticed in this House, was in my mind, conclusive evidence, that the orders in council had issued, or at least were prepared to be issued. That note declared in express terms, that if France did carry into execution the Berlin decree, &c. and if neutral nations did not effectually resist such execution his majesty might probably be compelled to adopt measures of retaliation, &c. We were apprized that the execution of the Berlin decree had been determined upon, and carried into effect; we were therefore authorised to conclude that the British government would carry into effect its threatened measures of retaliation; and we were further informed by the public prints of that country, as already shewn, that such orders were actually in a state of preparation, and about to be officially published. What stronger proof could be required of the existence of those orders? I cannot judge of the motives which actuated other gentlemen, or of the grounds upon which they voted for the embargo. For myself, I can say, that this information in regard to those orders, had, with me considerable weight, and when connected with the note alluded to, did induce me to vote precisely in the same manner, I would have done, if the orders in council had been officially laid on your table.
We are told by the gentleman from Virginia, that we ought to have more of action and less of argument. This kind of memento has been so often repeated in this House, shewing not what you ought to do, but that you ought to do something, that it has become the state phrase in every one's mouth. It is a sufficient answer to those who use it to ask them, as already, what they have done, or what they wish to do, to relieve the nation from its present difficult situation? They cry out all is wrong; but not one of them tells you what would be right. They insist you are lost in a wilderness of difficulties; but they do not even point to the way that will lead you out. It is, sir, much easier to find fault with existing measures, than to propose such as would be better, in their stead. So long as human nature is so much under the control of capricious passions, and the malignant spleen of disappointed ambition, the most correct measures that can be devised will be censured, cavilled at, and found fault with, by certain men. We now call upon those gentlemen who exclaim against every thing that has been done, or proposed to be done, to give us their project; to tell the nation what they would do, what plan they wish to follow—until they do this, the public must and will consider their objections as unfounded, and as being the mere offspring of a captious disposition, or rancorous spleen. I do not wish to be understood as impeaching the motives of those gentlemen, they may possibly think their conduct is correct; but their object cannot well be mistaken. It is evidently an effort of the outs to get in. The common cry is, that every thing is going wrong—the measures of the present administration have brought you into all your difficulties—have brought you to the verge of ruin—there must be a change of measures to save you! What conclusion is to be drawn from all this? Why, sir, it is plainly this: That those gentlemen call on the people to turn out those who now manage their public affairs, and put them in. They say, "all is going wrong," and may plainly be understood to mean, "put us in and all will go right—we will not tell you what course we will adopt until we are in full possession of power, we will then tell you what we will do." Yes, sir, and what would they do? The same they did before, no doubt. They would tighten the cords upon the people, and make them more submissive to their superiors—they would have a strong government, possessing much energy, supported by navies, armies and hosts of civil officers. But there would be no surplus money in your treasury. Instead of this you would have direct taxes and excise laws to keep the people in order and give your government energy. This appears to me to be fairly deducible from the conduct of those gentlemen.
It is not my intention in the remarks which I shall make at this time, to take up the whole subject of the report. I shall notice some of the objections made to the several resolutions—and when I come to observe upon the general subject, shall confine myself principally to the first part of the report, which regards the aggressions committed on our rights by foreign nations, and on which the first resolution is founded—and also notice the nature of the measures we have already adopted in consequence of those aggressions.
It has been stated that the first re-
solution is unnecessary and useless; that the second is submission, as it gives up all your trade, when only a part of it is affected by the edicts of the belligerents—and the third is said to be like the first, useless, as it only speaks of defence, &c. The objections to the first resolution have already been noticed, and may again be adverted to in another place. Those made to the second will be substantially answered in the remarks that will be made in regard to the embargo, to shew, that it was not submission, and of course that this step, which is pursuing the same course, and may be considered as an extension of the same measure, cannot be submission. The objection to the third resolution, that it only proposes to prepare for defence, would naturally induce a belief, that the gentleman who made it, (Mr. Randolph) wished us to prepare for, and adopt measures of offence. Such however, does not seem to be the case—if it were, offence or war is one of the alternatives presented in the report, and would meet the gentleman's wishes; but he seems disposed to do nothing, as far as we can understand him, but take off the embargo and open a trade with those powers, which in my view is abject submission, and nothing else. But, sir, if we prepare for defence, do we not at the same time prepare for offence? Is it usual or proper for a nation to declare that she is making preparations in order to make war on another nation? Is there to be found an instance of such an extraordinary and impolitic declaration? No, sir, there is not; until she is prepared to make war, she will not announce to her enemy that she intends to do so. Preparations for defence are calculated also for, and of the same nature with those used in offence. They are made for defence, but should the occasion require it, they are used for both, for offence as well as defence. We do not wish for war—it is our interest as well as our desire to avoid it—we are threatened from abroad—we determine to make the necessary preparation for defence, and should such a state of things occur as may require it, we can and will use them for the purpose also of offence. But it is indeed extraordinary that the objection should come in this shape, from a gentleman, who proposes no measure himself, and is opposed to every one that has been suggested. He is against raising an army, against continuing the embargo, against a non-intercourse, objects to preparations for defence, and it may be asked what is he for? The answer must be, submission. There is no other inference can be drawn from such conduct.
At the same time, sir, you are told that the submissive, temporising, missionary policy, pursued by your government, has brought the nation to the brink of ruin. These general and unqualified assertions, without any reason given to support them, do not merit, and indeed cannot receive any other answer, than a general and direct denial, until some proof be given of the facts alleged. It cannot be expected that we will go into proof, to contravert every vague assertion made on this floor. That the government has used every mean in its power to keep the nation out of difficulties—that it has pursued an impartial, firm and dignified line of conduct towards foreign powers—and that it has resorted to every honorable expedient, and used every power with which it was vested, to extricate the nation from its present difficulties, brought on by foreign aggressions, will not be denied by any one, who examines and understands the whole grounds of the late negotiations; who gives reason fair play and is not blinded by prejudice, or deluded by party considerations. The official documents relative to those negotiations, are now before the public, and those whom they will not convince of the correctness as well as the impartiality of the conduct of our government, would not be persuaded by any arguments that could be advanced on this floor. No, they would not believe an angel though he should come down from heaven, to sound these truths in their ears.
The same gentleman (Mr. R.) has asserted on this floor, in opposition to a statement made in the report, that an answer has been received from France, which is sufficient to satisfy every one who had seen or heard it. On what authority he founds this assertion, I cannot pretend to say. I have attended to the documents laid before Congress this session, both public and private; and I feel myself authorised to state expressly, that no answer has been received from France on the point in question, that is on the proposition under the authority of the law of last session relative to withdrawing her decrees. In support of this you have the message of the President, and Mr. Armstrong's last letter bearing date the 28th of Aug. last, in the public documents, shews that so far from France having given a final answer, that he did not even renew the discussion on this subject with that government as he was authorized to do—and there is no document laid before this House which will shew that any such answer has been received. I will not at pre-
sent pursue these objections further. What has been already said is sufficient to shew that they are rather the offspring of a spirit of opposition than founded on any substantial grounds of either fact or reasoning.
I shall now briefly notice the report itself, for the purpose of presenting the House with that view of such parts of it as relates to the question really before them, as I entertain, and which may possibly assist us in forming a correct opinion on the subject. The report may be considered as consisting of two parts. The first relates to, and states the injuries we have received—the aggressions committed on our commercial and neutral rights by foreign nations, and on this is founded the first resolution. The second part relates to the measures to be pursued, in order to resist those aggressions, and on this are founded the second and third resolutions. The first part is that which is immediately before the House. In it are briefly stated the orders and proclamations of Great Britain and the decree of France which infract and violate the lawful commerce and neutral rights of this country. Those edicts of the belligerents, and the manner in which they have been adopted and executed, are considered as aggressions, of the most aggravated kind, and involving the best rights, and dearest interests of the United States. Taken in the aggregate, they are considered and stated to amount to a maritime war against this country. They are also stated to be unprovoked, and unauthorized, on the part of both those nations, by any act on our part, of injury to either or of voluntary acquiescence in the unjust violations on our rights, by one or the other, to the prejudice of the other. Hence it is concluded and insisted, that this nation ought not, and cannot, consistently with its true interest and honor, submit to those aggressions, but is bound in duty and justice to itself to resist and oppose them. There can be no ground that would justify a nation (having the power) in not repelling, or at least resisting, an injury received, except such injury be of so little importance, as not sensibly to affect its interest, and therefore not to merit public notice; or unless it be authorized or justified by the previous conduct of such injured nation. Neither of these is the case in the present instance. No one pretends to say that the aggressions committed on our rights are trivial or unimportant; on the contrary, they are admitted to be of the most enormous kind; and it cannot with truth be pretended, that there has been any act on our part that could in justice, either provoke or authorize them. With this view of the subject the first resolution was presented to the House, in order to ascertain if there was any difference of opinion respecting the fact, that those edicts of the belligerents, were a violation of our rights of this country, and therefore to be submitted to—to see if there was any one who would justify the belligerents, or who would tell the American people, that they must submit to the aggressions of a foreign power; and also to give the nation a solemn pledge that this House was determined not to abandon its best interests. Sir, it was supposed that no doubt could exist on this part of the subject. No one has been hardy enough to deny the violations committed on our rights by the edicts of the belligerent powers. No one has denied the enormity and injustice of those violations; nor has it yet been asserted on this floor, that they were provoked or authorized by any act on the part of this government. Under what pretext therefore can gentlemen refuse to resist them? Why hesitate to vote for this resolution? Why detain the House debating it for ten days? Do they mean to justify those aggressions? to submit to them tamely? to acknowledge the right those powers have to give laws to the people of this country? If so, let us know it; it is high time the public should be informed of it. Those however, who admit the proceedings of the belligerent powers to be violations of our rights, as stated in the first part of the report (and the correctness of that statement has not yet been brought in question) will not hesitate to vote for this resolution. They will not hesitate to declare that they will not abandon the best rights of the people, that they will not submit to foreign aggressions.
When this is once determined, the question of submission will be at rest. The resolution to resist will have been taken; and the next inquiry will be in relation to the measures of resistance most proper to be adopted.—This part of the subject as already noticed, constituting the second part of the report, and giving origin to the 2nd and 3rd resolutions, will come more properly in discussion, when those resolutions are immediately before the house. I shall not therefore at this time, enter at large into the discussion of this part of the subject. But as gentlemen who have gone before me have introduced into this discussion, the measures pursued by the government for some time past, and have in particular attached the conduct of the majority in laying the em-
bargo, I shall find it necessary to notice some of their arguments on this part of the subject, in order to rescue that measure from the very unjust odium attempted to be thrown upon it. Gentlemen ascribe all your difficulties and misfortunes to the embargo; they say it has destroyed your commerce, and brought the nation to the verge of ruin; that it is submission; that you might have considerable trade, if it were not for the embargo, and that therefore it ought to be repealed, &c. By way of answering these arguments, and in order to lay before the House as briefly as possible, the view which I entertain of that measure, I shall endeavor to shew.
1. That it was not the embargo, but the orders in council of Great Britain, and the decrees of France which destroyed your commerce, produced the pressure that is now so much complained of, and placed this country in its present critical situation.
2. That the embargo was not submission to those powers; that it was taking a firm and dignified stand, in opposition to their aggressions; and in vindication of our rights.
I shall also attempt to shew in the third place, that when the embargo was laid, any other measure that could have been adopted, except war, would have been submission to one or both of these powers. And further, in the fourth place; that if you had not laid the embargo, but had even submitted to those aggressions, the trade you could have enjoyed, subject to those restrictions, would be of little or no real value in the great scale of national commerce, could scarcely claim any serious notice, and could not possibly be considered an adequate compensation for national degradation and dishonor.
With regard to the first point proposed to be shewn, that it was not the embargo, but the orders of Great Britain and decrees of France, which destroyed your commerce and placed the nation in its present critical situation; it may be necessary, in order to remove the delusion which has prevailed on this subject, to notice the condition in which those orders and decrees had placed your commerce previous to laying the embargo. For want of attending to this circumstance, the public mind has been imposed upon. It has been erroneously represented that you could have enjoyed commerce to a considerable extent, if it were not for the embargo, that it alone has destroyed your trade, and brought the nation to the verge of ruin; and this impression aided by repeated misrepresentations, has been attempted to be fastened on the public mind, contrary to the real truth and state of the case. It is high time this delusion should be removed. Sir, it must and will dissipate, when the people are correctly informed of the real source from which spring all the difficulties and cause of privations they now experience; when they are convinced, that in the orders of Great Britain and decrees of France is to be found, the real cause of all these difficulties; when they clearly perceive that those orders and decrees had opened a gulf to swallow up all your commerce; that the embargo intervened as a shield, and saved it from certain destruction, and at the same time saved the nation from the bloody scenes of war, when the people are convinced of this, as they undoubtedly will be so soon as they are correctly informed on the subject, they will then cease to be deluded and led astray by misrepresentations; they will see the measure in its proper point of view, and duly appreciate the conduct of their government.
(Mr. Campbell's speech to be continued.)
THIRTY-FIVE SHARES OF WASHINGTON BRIDGE STOCK, For sale—Apply to S. ELLIOTT.
December 30—3t.
WILLIAM S. NICHOLS HAS on hand a large and general assortment of DRY GOODS, which was principally purchased this fall in Philadelphia and Baltimore on the best terms, and as he wishes to reduce his stock as much as possible by May, he will sell any articles as low as usual, notwithstanding the great rise in many goods. Purchasers will find, by calling on him, many goods which are lower than can be obtained by the quantity. All persons who stand indebted to him, are invited to discharge the same, as it is requisite to close accounts at the end of the year.
December 30—3t.
In Chancery, November 23, 1806. ORDERED that the Sale made by James S. Morsell, trustee for the sale of the Real Estate of Thomas Clarke, deceased, shall be ratified and confirmed unless cause to the contrary be shown before the twenty-first day of January next. Provided a copy of this order be inserted three successive weeks in a newspaper of the city of Washington before the thirtieth day of December next. The report states that sundry property was sold amounting to $4340.
True copy. Test NICH. BREWER, Reg. Cur. Can. December 7—w 3t.
NOTICE. THE cautions given to many trespassing on my plantation not being attended to, I therefore give this Public Notice, to prevent all persons from HUNTING, with either dog or gun, or in any manner trespassing thereon, as I am determined to put the law in force against all such offenders. BENJAMIN HARWOOD. Prince George's County, Dec. 19—w 13.