H. of R. construction of the non-intercourse law, and to show the means resorted to, and very ingeniously too, to smother and keep out of sight that difference of opinion. Those who think that America ought to take warning by all nations who have first resisted and soon after succumbed to the power of France, and that we ought, therefore, to bend the knee whilst we can do it with a good grace-and there are those who think so, for you see that opinion expressed in papers of a high character for their influence, (of no other character;) in one edited by an officer holding a high rank in your public armies-I believe I have the extract in my desk; I will read it-We have been told that our bane and antidote [speaking of England and France] are both before us, and that after 'the examples of the nations of Europe who ' have first resisted and then succumbed to Napo-dent; and if I were not a friend to the President, 'leon, the people of the United States would be I would not bring it forward, lest it should be 'fools indeed if they did not see their course," thought that I was courting favor in his eyes. which, I presume, sir, is succumbing first, with- But why, sir, should this House give an expresout resistance. I see "the little State Govern- sion of approbation of the President? Because, ments" denounced too, and I confess I tremble; we are told, it may be a guide to him hereafter. I see this country told that it is time to put them Let this House be careful how it acts, and attend down; for that reason, and not from any deliber- to its own duties. The President does not stand ate hostility which I believe the gentleman from in need of this kind of support. I never will step Virginia (Mr. GHOLSON) entertains for the State forward, as a member of this House, to excite Governments, it was, that I was alarmed when I him to his duty by a vote of this kind. I believe yesterday heard the doctrines of 1800 revived, he possesses an attachment to his duty sufficient that we ought to have little Federal courts for the to induce him to perform it. I believe that the voice trial of every possible controversy, that the State of the people of the United States is such, in relation courts were not even to be trusted with the de- to the present and late President, that they believe cision of suits to the amount of five pounds or they were well disposed to do their duty, and that even five shillings. If gentlemen suppose I throw they have done their duty; but it does not follow out this in the spirit of an adversary they are that we ought to express our approbation as to much mistaken. Let us rally around the State any particular act. The gentleman himself says Governments-pronounce with my friend from that the President has only done his duty. Is it North Carolina (Mr. MACON) oblivion to former not surprising, then, that we are called upon to distinctions. Let us, if we do approve the policy give him the approbation of this House? What by which the Administration have so much to their would be inferred from this procedure? Why, honor changed the affairs of this country-so that it is so seldom our Presidents have done their much to their honor as to the quo animo, not as duty, that, in the very first instance in which they to the quid pro quo or value received-let us ex- have done it, the House of Representatives had press it in moderate, decent terms, that it may be discovered and applauded it. If the gentleman a guide to the Administration of the country thinks so, I wholly disagree with him. If our hereafter, that it may be a sort of pacific pledge officers do their duty properly, they will receive from ourselves to ourselves. I know the aversion the thanks of the nation; and where is the proof my friend on my left (Mr. MACON) to pledges-priety of singling out for approbation or disapI hope he will excuse me. But do not let us probation this particular act? I see none. give the thing the go-by, though the motion for asked, will you leave the President of the United so doing come from a member connected with the States to grope in the dark, and not let him know Administration (Mr. J. G. JACKSON.) If the Presi- whether he has received our approbation or not? dent have done well, let us say so; if not, let us And is the President to judge from the thanks of say nothing. If the majority be of opinion that the House that he has done his duty? How is the President has not done well, I am agreed so he to know that they have expressed their sense to decide. But I think the President ought to of his conduct from proper motives? Would he take a vote for indefinite postponement, as an ex- not be right to suspect those who vote for, and pression of our opinion that we disapprove of his more especially those who bring forward such a conduct, but will not directly express that opin- proposition, of improper motives? He would be left ion to him, from motives of delicacy. still worse to grope in the dark. It has been said that former Presidents have been deceived in consequence of votes of approbation; and the same would again occur. On every ground I am opposed to the passing such resolutions on principle, and shall therefore vote for indefinite postponement. casion. It was only an ordinary act of duty well performed, and therefore he was not willing to distinguish it from those numerous acts which he trusted would be, as they had heretofore been performed, by the Executive. Were he the author of the proposition, he should have many scruples as to the propriety of offering such a one. Were the precedent to be set by the passage of this resolution, the House might hereafter witness a struggle on the floor to determine who should be first to come forward with a proposition expressive of approbation. The human mind might be so operated upon that the Executive might feel himself under an obligation to promote the person bringing forward such a motion. I, said M. H., would be one of the last to introduce such a motion were I a friend to the Presi Mr. HOLLAND said he had no doubt that the President had done his duty in the case referred to in the proposition under consideration; and as he had entertained no doubt but the President would, on this and every other occasion, do his duty, he said he felt no excessive joy on the oc It is MAY, 1809. Vote of Approbation. H. of R. Mr. J. G. JACKSON observed that the resolution siness of legislation, we shall employ our whole offered by the gentleman from Virginia was, that time in discussing propositions capable of doing the promptitude and frankness with which the no good, likely to produce much evil. But we are President of the United States has met the over- already met with a charge that we condemn the tures of the Government of Great Britain, towards accommodation, and are afraid to meet the quesa restoration of harmony and a free commercial tion. I repeat, sir, I am not inimical to it, for I intercourse between the two nations, received the am highly pleased, and the friends of Adminis approbation of this House; and that the amend-tration derive a triumph from it, that the spirit of ment of the gentleman from Massachusetts de- accommodation, which has at no time been interclared that it furnished an additional proof of the mitted on the part of our Government, was met at spirit of accommodation on the part of the Gov- last by a correspondent disposition on the part of ernment of the United States, which has at no Great Britain. time been intermitted. I do not hesitate to declare my firm conviction, said Mr. JACKSON, that the propositions contained in the motion and amendment are true; that, if it be necessary or proper for this House as a part of their duty to express an opinion on them, they ought to be adopted. If a direct vote must be taken, I shall be in the affirmative; but, notwithstanding my belief that the facts alleged are irrefragable, I am opposed to a deviation from what I conceive to be the duty, and becoming the dignity of this House, by expressing them. It is true, sir, that the assertion contained in the amendment has been denied in some of the partisan newspapers of this country; but hitherto I had understood and believed that it was, as far as respected the opinions of members on this floor, unquestionable; and it is not without some surprise that I have just heard the gentleman from Virginia denying it in the most unequivocal manner. It is not because I fear the result of a vote on the amendment that I am unwilling to have it taken; my objections are of a different character. I think the House have nobler duties to perform than passing abstract resolutions, out of which no legislative act is contemplated, merely for the purpose of pouring the oil of adulation upon the head of the Chief Magistrate; and, according to my conception, the gentleman from Virginia has made an attack on the principles he professes, and upon the independence of this House, which will, as a precedent, be productive of lasting injury. If the course he proposes be a correct one, and we are to pass votes of approbation upon all the leading measures of the Executive, who among us, that may happen hereafter to disapprove any, will venture to oppose, without endangering his standing with the people? I take a wide distinction between the propriety of approving, and the right of condemning. If the President, or any other high officer of the Government, violate his duty, it becomes ours to animadvert upon his conduct; but we ought to leave to the people, whose province it is, and who are competent to judge for themselves, whose discernment is not to be eluded by our votes approbatory of a bad measure, or condemnatory of a good one, that decision which they have already pronounced in a style as emphatic as it is audible. And what good, I pray you, can result from this resolution? Those who had always denied that the Administration possess any patriotism or virtue, will, to be consistent, find it necessary to oppose votes of this kind, and, instead of doing the ordinary bu I did not expect, sir, admitting gentlemen were of opinion that there has not been a spirit of accommodation displayed on the part of the Government at all times, and that they have even acted with duplicity, that we were now to enter into an examination of the measures of this country for five or six years past; and it will be with much reluctance that I shall follow the gentleman by touching, however lightly, on the various topics discussed in the wide range that he has taken; nor did I expect from that gentleman an eulogium on the non-intercourse law, which he pronounced, only three months ago, to be fraught with much evil, and which, to-day, he affirms, by placing the two belligerents on an equal footing, was the cause of the rescission of the Orders in Council, inasmuch as it admitted the British Government to treat without inflicting a wound on their pride. It is asserted by the gentleman that the recent arrangement is entered into by Great Britain on very different terms from those offered last summer through our Minister at London; because, first, the non-importation law is now repealed; and, secondly, that, having prohibited British ships alone by the proclamation of the President from entering our ports, it was highly offensive to Great Britain, and we have done away the discrimination which existed between them and French vessels. I contend, sir, that the gentleman is wrong in his position, and that the offer made to Great Britain, and rejected, was not worse, but better, as regards her pride or interest, than that now accepted; and the offer of Mr. Pinkney by order of the President, was, of itself, a strong proof of the spirit of accommodation which has been evinced by the Government. In the offer made to Mr. Canning, the American Government proposed to suspend the embargo so far as related to Great Britain, on a revocation of the Orders in Council merely as respected us-to renew our trade with them, and prohibit it with France. It was not only contumeliously rejected, but Mr. Canning declared that the formal abandonment (a tacit relinquishment of them was not sufficient, but a formal abandonment) by France of her decrees was an indispensable prerequisite to a repeal of the British Orders in Council. There is no mention made of the French decrees or of our non-intercourse with France in the late correspondence, and his Britannic Majesty withdraws his orders of January and November, merely on condition that we will renew the intercourse with Great Britain. The indispen sable prerequisite is forgotten, all mention of France is pretermitted, and in that view the late accommodation has given up more than we asked in September last. How, then, can the gentleman insist that the terms on which the late adjustment was made are more favorable to Great Britain than those rejected last summer? He relies, however, upon the repeal of the non-importation law, and the merger of the proclamation issued in consequence of the affair of the Chesapeake; in the general prohibition of British and French ships of war as materially changing the state of our relations with Great Britain, and by placing her on a footing of equality with France, has given an opportunity to propose terms. Sir, I did not suppose that the affair of the Chesapeake, and the proclamation which grew out of it, would have been introduced here as a proof of the want of a spirit of accommodation on our part. Am I mistaken in supposing that the gentleman himself did on this floor condemn the President for not calling Congress together sooner to take higher ground, under the idea that the proclamation was a weak measure? [Mr.RANDOLPH stated he had never said so.] Sir, it seems I am mistaken in ascribing such a declaration to the gentleman. I ask you, sir, if the indignation of the people could, without difficulty, be appeased with the measure, such as it was, and whether it would have been consistent with that honorable feeling to have revoked it for the purpose of preventing a tax on our exports imposed by the Orders in Council? Let it be recollected, sir, that the affair of the Chesapeake was treated of distinct from all others, and never blended with any other, except that with which it was necessarily connected, viz: a provision against impressment from on board of vessels sailing under the American flag, and that connexion was disregarded in compliance with the wish of Great Britain. MAY, 1809. Mr. Erskine was instructed to offer an abandonment of the Orders in Council without a repeal of her decrees by France, or a promise to refuse trading with her, but merely on a renewal of intercourse with Great Britain; which, I repeat it, is obtaining better terms than we offered to accept. Then we were told that, unless the French decrees were formally rescinded, the orders would be adhered to. Now, the British orders are abandoned, whilst the French decrees are unrevoked. Mr. Monroe's Treaty is drawn into discussion, and the gentlemen says that the objection to it was, because there was no provision against impressing seamen; and we, nevertheless, come to an accommodation now without any such provision. Does the gentleman recollect that, when the affair of the Chesapeake took place, all negotiation had been suspended for some time, and, except in relation to it and the Orders in Council, has never been renewed? The affair of the Chesapeake was a barrier to all other negotiation; it was impossible, at a time when the blood of our citizens was crying for vengeance, and the survivors were confined in slavery worse than death, it was impossible to sit down coolly and calculate how far the East India or Colonial trade could be given up by us. Nothing could be done in relation to minor points of difference, when higher paramount concerns pressed upon us. But does it follow, sir, because these points are not now settled, that the seamen are to be abandoned, that the West India trade is to be given up? That all points of collision are to be considered as conceded? The negotiators have wisely deferred the subject, for we are informed that a Minister, with ample powers, will be sent here to negotiate a treaty, and we ought to suspend our opinions until it is concluded. The gentleman says that another objection to the treaty was on account of the British note, that it was opposed, because it tended to bring us in collision The equality in the restrictions imposed by us with France, and now we have done what it regrew out of posterior acts of the French Gov- quired of us. Sir, there were various objections ernment. France had not invaded our national to that note; one was, that Great Britain attemptjurisdiction, had not murdered Pierce, or taken ed to bully us into the course she wished us to the Chesapeake; even admitting her other attacks pursue, to compel us to give "security to His Mawere equally flagitious with those of Great Brit-jesty," that we would not submit to the attack ain-and the only discrimination made as consequent on those injuries, was the partial non-importation law, and the prohibition to enter our waters with their armed vessels-afterwards, The note, however, says the gentleman, was no when France, to the extent of her power, attacked part of the treaty. It was certainly communiour rights, we prohibited the vessels of both na-cated by the British Government as forming an tions, and their manufactures, from entering our harbors; and how an exclusion of all articles and all vessels by law, was a more favorable state of things to Great Britain than the partial exclusion of either, at a time when the few French that ventured upon the ocean, and escaped capture, were admitted, it remains for that gentleman (Mr. RANDOLPH) to demonstrate. In the very sentence wherein the gentleman approves of the conduct of Government, he tells us that Great Britain has conceded nothing. We have obtained an important concession, inasmuch as reparation is made for the attack on the Chesapeake, and made by France on our rights. Now, although we did not and would not submit, we could not tolerate such arrogance in Great Britain. indispensable condition of it; and the British Commissioners in the correspondence with Mr. Canning, which I read to the House at the last session, stated expressly that the treaty was a perfect instrument, no reservation was annexed to it, except the note in question, which maintained the right to chastise us in case we did not resist France; and Mr. Canning repeats the assertion to our Ministers. The gentleman has gone on to say that Mr. Monroe could have received reparation for the attack on the Chesapeake, if his instructions concerning seamen, which were blended with it, had permitted him. On this point I have the correspondence before me, which must satisfy the gentleman that it is wrong. As soon as the attack on the Chesapeake was known, the President issued his proclamation, and on receipt of it, Mr Canning wrote a letter to Mr. Monroe, in which he says: H. OF R. recommended the embargo. If, sir, the Executive knew nothing of them it is surprising, because the purport of them had been published in the National Intelligencer in this city, and in two or three papers printed in New York and Philadelphia, which were received here previous to the "Before I proceed to observe upon that part of it Message of the President. They even stated the date at which his Britannic Majesty's signature which relates more immediately to the question now at issue between our two Governments, I am command-Would be affixed to the orders, and gave minuteed, in the first instance, to express the surprise which ly the purport of them. The President, in his is felt at the total omission of a subject, upon which I Message, not only referred to the papers then enhad already been commanded to apply to you for in-closed, but "the great and increasing dangers" formation; the proclamation purported to have been issued by the President of the United States. Of this paper, when last I addressed you upon it, you professed not to have any knowledge, beyond what the ordinary channels of public information afforded, nor any authority to declare it to be authentic. "I feel it an indispensable duty to renew my inqui ry on this subject. The answer which I may receive from you is by no means unimportant to the settlement of the discussion which has arisen from the encounter between the Leopard and the Chesapeake." And he goes on to urge the impropriety of making any atonement during the existence of the proclamation. And I ask again, sir, would the nation have been reconciled to the apathy of the President if he had neglected to breathe forth its spirit, feebly as it was done, in the forbidding British armed vessels the use of our waters? Whilst the men (except the one whom they hung in Halifax) were retained in bondage, and the outrage had the sanction of a high officer of the British Government, which induced the belief that it was with its authority that the act was committed, could the proclamation have been rescinded or a less friendly measure have been resorted to? to which our commerce was exposed, thereby alluding to what had come to his knowledge through the medium of the newspapers, as understood to have been determined on by the British Government, but not known so formally as to authorize express mention of it. Sir, the people of the United States are enlightened and intelligent, they do not wait for this House to spirit them on to an examination and decision of great national questions, and our vote of approbation or disapprobation will never check or lull their spirit of inquiry; they have already approved the act of the President, and, whether they have or not, it is improper for us to enter into abstract resolutions, regardless of our Legislative duties, and thereby establish a precedent alike dangerous and invasive of our independence. Mr. J. concluded his observations by remarking, that he could not conjecture what the dangerous doctrine, said to have been advanced by him yesterday, had to do with the question. He controverted the opinion of Mr. R., however, in relation to the doctrine of Federal judicial power as conferred by the Constitution, and made some remarks on the subject of State and Federal rights. I will vote, sir, said Mr. F., for the postponement, and for the same reasons that I opposed the novel resolution when it was first submitted for consideration to the House; but, believing the impropriety of the resolution to be on the very first impression so evident as to require little explanation, it is probable that my objections were offered in so concise or so confused a manner as not to be well understood. Indeed, they were the hasty result of the moment, excited by such a resolution as I believe no member of Congress ever offered before, and which there was no reason to expect on this occasion. I am opposed to it on correct Legislative principles. The gentleman says, the Orders in Council were made inoperative by our measures, and to give Mr. FINDLEY said, if he was not mistaken, the them up was, in fact, to yield nothing; that they motion now before the House was for postponing were to prevent our trade to France, and we have indefinitely the resolution submitted by the honprevented it ourselves, and therefore Great Brit-orable gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH.) ain conceded nothing on that point. It was not upon a trade to France alone that the orders operated, but upon all nations from whose ports the British flag was excluded, and even from some who never had made any such regulations; but, independent of this, suppose France, without relaxing in her hostility towards Great Britain, admitted our vessels freely, although they had entered a British port, and been spoken by a British cruiser, and in consequence of such relaxation the trade with her was renewed; what, then, would have been the effect of the British Orders? We should still be subjected to the payment of tribute. We are not now compelled to go first to Great Britain, pay tribute, and receive His Majesty's license to carry on our accustomed trade, therefore a repeal of the orders is a most import ant measure. Sir, in the wide range of debate the gentleman has repeated his old argument, that the Orders in Council were not known in this country when the embargo was laid. Afterwards he qualified it, by saying they were not known in the Cabinet at the time the President It is, sir, my opinion, that the resolution is wholly out of order; that it ought not to have been made; that it ought not, when offered, to have been considered or discussed by the House. This House is one branch of the Legislature of the United States, it possesses no powers but what are transferred and specifically prescribed; they do not possess general powers on all cases not specially excepted,fas the State Legislatures do. In this I know the honorable mover, from Virginia, will agree with me. I then ask, by what article or section of the Constitution we are authorized to approbate, discuss, or censure the conduct of the Executive? But, leaving the Constitution for a moment as a dead letter, and resorting solely to the rules of the House, I ask, by what rule are we authorized to decide on this resolution, or for what purpose? MAY, 1809. of WASHINGTON, with respect to the choice of Let Congress, sir, pass laws to carry the measwith them. This, and this only, is a Legislative expression of approbation, and the highest that can be given. Law is the only language of a Legislature; it is the only language that can command obedience or respect. Any equal number of citizens met in a tavern, and there passing a resolution of approbation, would have equal force with such a resolution passed in this House, and would be more in character. For, admitting and discussing this resolution, the House is not acting in its legislative character, but as individual citizens, and in fact degrading the legislative character. They are acting without authority from the Constitution or the rules of this House. This House is one branch of the Federal Legislature, authorized to originate laws, or to concur with such as may be originated by the Sena-ures of the Executive into effect, as to correspond torial branch; these laws may be passed in the form of bills or of Legislative resolutions; but, in either case, they must be agreed to by both Houses, and approved by the President. The House has, indeed, other incidental powers; they are judges of the elections and qualifications of their own members, and are authorized to punish or to expel a member. These powers are necessary towards carrying their Legislative powers into effect, and therefore, even if they had not been expressly vested, they were necessarily implied. They are also invested with the powers of impeaching public officers, and of sustaining the character of prosecutors before the Senate. These are all the powers I can find vested in this House by the Constitution. This resolution is not even professed to be the foundation of a law, or to have any effect as a rule of conduct for the citizens, nor to be for impeaching the President, or any other public officer, nor does it relate to the proceedings of our own House, or the conduct of our own members; therefore it is not, it cannot be constitutionally before the House. The people of the United States have, by the Constitution, vested this House with the power of disapproving the conduct of public officers by impeachment, and by that only; or of the measures recommended by the President, by rejecting them, or treating them with neglect; this has probably been done by every Congress: but the people have reserved the right of addresses of approbation or censure in their own hands, and assuming it by this House would be a usurpation of powers, and a precedent for other usurpations. When this Government commenced, after the example of the British Parliament, the President made his communication to both Houses at the opening of a session, in a speech, to which the Houses prepared an answer; and frequently such an answer as anticipated the most prominent measures of the session, to which such amendments were generally moved and discussed, as brought forward all the party artillery and irritation which the House contained, before any progress was made in the proper business of the Legislature. We have seen, sir, two weeks of the beginning of a session spent in this way, and party irritation excited to the greatest height, not only in but out of the House, before legislation commenced. I confess I rejoiced when this method of corresponding with the Executive was changed. In support of the resolution, however, the gentleman states that there is a difference of opinion on this subject, both within and without this House, Mr. Speaker, if I am mistaken in this, every and to prove this has read part of a paragraph Congress, since the commencement of this Gov- out of a newspaper, conducted by an influential ernment, has been also mistaken. I am confident military officer; but I confess so much of this as the honorable gentleman from Virginia cannot he read comes short of proving the truth of this, lay his hand on such a resolution in the Journals in my opinion. I have said when I was up beof Congress. He has admitted on this floor that, fore, and I repeat it again, that I know of no such in this case, the President did his duty, but not difference of opinion, and since the measure was more than his duty; that, in so far as the law au- made public, I have conversed with many citithorized discretion, as it certainly did with respect zens of different counties and States, and read to time and manner, and the confidence to be many newspapers. All I have conversed with placed in the declaration of the British Minister, agree that the President did his duty in exercising he has acted with propriety; he has also highly the authority vested in him by Congress on this applauded on this floor the first four years' Ad- occasion, and as far as I am acquainted, it is the ministration of the late President; but he him-general opinion that the late President equally self nor any other member, it is believed, never submitted a resolution to the House for a Legislative approbation of his conduct, during even that four years of perfection; no such resolution was submitted or passed respecting the conduct discharged his duty with respect to the same subject; this is fully testified by the present President in the correspondence with the British Minister. If this is true, as I certainly believe it is. he is equally entitled to a vote of approbation as |