Elizabeth-Town gazette. [volume] (Elizabeth-Town, N.J.) 1818-1821, 1819-02-23
DEBATE ON The SEMINOLE WAR.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,.
January 20.
Mr.. CLAY'S SPEECH.
(C0ncy,,6ied \

1850 "' AA's ~ odiu, was cQuaily OU'
jectionable with the principles on which
1t had been attempted to shew forfeiture
of their lives. He knew, he said, the
liaudabie spirit which prompted the inge-
Inuity displayed 10 finding out iustilica.
ton for these proceedings. He wished
most sincerely that he could reconcile
them to bis conscience. It had been at.
tempted to vindicate the general upon
lgrounds which he was persuaded he
would himself disowD. 1t had been as.
jserted, that he was guilty OF a mistake 10
lcalling upon the court to try them, and
that he might have at once ordered their
Execution, without that Formally. He
denied that there was any such absolute
fright 10 the commander of any portion Of
our army. The right Of retaliation is an
attribute Of sovereignty. 1t is compre-
hended in the war-making power that
Congress possesses. II belongs to this
body not only 10 declare war, but to raise
armies and to make rules and regulations
for their government. Ii was in vain for
gentlemen to look to the law of nations
for instances 10 which retaliation is law.
iul. The laws of nations merely laid
down the principle or rule, and it belongs
10 the government 10 constitute the tribu-
nal for applying that principle or rule.
There was, for example, no instance in
which the death of captive was more
certainly declared by the law of nations
to be justifable, than in the case of spies.
Congress has accordingly provided, in the
rules and articles Of war, tribunal for
the trial Of spies, and consequently for
the application Of the principle of the
national law. The legislature had not
lett the power ever spies underlined, to the
mere discretion of the commander in
chief, or Of any subaltern officer in the
army. For, ii the doctrines now con-
TENDED for were true, they would apply
ttp the commander of any corps, however
small, acting as a detachment. Suppose
Congress had not legislated in the case of
spies, what would have been their condi-
ton II would have been casuS omissus,
and although the public law pronounced
their doom, 1t could not be executed be.
cause Congress had assigned no tribunal
for enforcing that public law. No man
could be executed in this free country
without two things being shown. lst.
That the law condemns him to death and,
IDLY, That his death is pronounced by
THAT tribunal which is authorised by the
law to try him. These principles would
reach every mans case, native or foreign
err, citizen or alien. The instant quar-
tiers are granted to prisoner, the majes-
ty of the law surrounds and sustains him,
and he cannot lawfully be punished with
death, without the concurrence of the
two circumstances just insisted upon. He
denied that any commander in chief, in
this country, had this absolute power of
life and death, at his sole discretion. II
was contrary to the genius of all our laws
and institutions. concentrate in the
person of one individual the powers to
make the rule, TO judge, and to execute
the rule, or TO judge and execute the rule
ouly, was utterly irreconcileable with
every principle of free government, and
was the very definition of tyranny itself
and he trusted that this house would
never give even tacit assent to such a
principle. Suppose the commander had
made reprisals on property, would that
property have belonged 10 the nation, on
could he have disposed Of it as he pleased
Had he more power, would gentlemen
tell him, over the lives OF human beings
.han over property The assertion Of
such power to the commander in chief
was contrary to the practice of the gov
ernment. By an act of Congress which
passed in 1899, g vesting the power Of
retaliation, in certain cases 10 the Presi.
dent of the United States"-an act which
passed during the quasi war with France,
the President is authorised to retaliate
upon any citizens Of the French republic
the enormities which may be practised, II
certain cases, upon our citizeDs--Undei
what administration was this act passed
1t was under that which has been justly
charged with stretching the constitution
to enlarge the Executive powers. Even
during the mad career Of Mr.. Adams
when every means was resorted to for the
purpose of iufusiDg vigor into the Execu.
tive arm, no Que thought Of claiming for
him the inherent right of retaliation. He
would not trouble the House with reading
another law, which passed thirteen OF
fourteen years after, during the late war
with Great-Britain, under the admins.
trstion of that great constitutional Presi-
dent, the father Of the instrument itself, by
which Mr.. Madison was empowered to
retaliate on the British, in certain instan-
ces. III was not only contrary to the