Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

JUNE, 1809.

Vote of Approbation.

H. or R.

particular case the approbation impliedly intended by the resolution for Great Britain is general. This is going further than may be proper at this time. If the President of the United States, in this particular case, be approbated, the late President of the United States ought also to be approbated; for this plain reason, that the measures adopted on the part of the United States, which could have had any influence in promoting a friendly disposition on the part of Great Britain, were all adopted during the Ad-rant us in voting for the motion, if it were expeministration of the late President; and hence it follows that the objects of the late President have so far been carried into effect. In approbating the effect, the cause ought not to be kept out of view, or thrown in the back ground; it ought also to be approbated unless it can be made appear that an effect can be without a cause. The resolution is capable of an unfavorable construction; by the form of it, it may be concluded, that Great Britain heretofore has been in the constant habit of making the same overtures to the United States, and that they were not accepted by the President. This is not admitted to be correct, and to show that it is not correct, there is no necessity again to repeat what already has been urged on this subject.

as the President of the United States certainly does, an extensive patronage, which is to be distributed to individuals who may meet his approbation, a suspicion must arise that the mover, or perhaps advocates of such a resolution as this, were candidates for the loaves and fishes. And does this House possess the information on our foreign relations which the President must possess? Or do we possess that knowledge of the sentiments of our constituents which would wardient so to do? We do not, sir. I can speak for myself and the delegation from Kentucky, that we do not know the sense of the people on this subject, and our votes will be but individual votes, and not expressive of the will of the people. I see no good, and do see a possible mischief which may arise from the adoption of the motion. Why should expressions of joy be uttered? What great victory has been achieved? What great good has the Executive obtained? Is it anything more than an acknowledgment of our rights? I presume not; and our joy can only be similar to that which an individual feels when he has obtained from an unjust debtor his right. There is not cause for more of exultation, and the same course of conduct which produces an effect on individuals, will produce the same effect on nations. If joy be loudly proclaimed, may it not have a tendency to create difficulties in the detail of the negotiation? It certainly may produce that effect. I therefore draw the conclusion that it is not good policy to adopt the resolution, and I conceive it to be without a precedent in the history of this country, at least in the history of the last Administration.

This resolution, if adopted by the House, will virtually have a tendency to invade the treatymaking power-a power which by the Constitution is exclusively confided to the President and Senate of the United States. It may become a dangerous engine in the hands of Great Britain, operating in favor of that Power, and against the best interests of the United States, in any negotiation that may hereafter be carried on for the purpose of making a commercial treaty between The gentleman from Virginia has produced a the United States and Great Britain. For these case which he is willing to draw into precedent. and other reasons, not necessary to be recapitula- I think that an examination will show, that it is ted, it may be most proper to postpone this reso- essentially different from the present case, and lution. predicated upon the same principle as that nauMr. MCKEE said, that after the lengthy dis-seous stuff which the gentleman dislikes, and cussion which had taken place on this subject, he which was offered up to the Executive by the did not rise to enter at large into an examination Legislatures prior to the commencement of the of it; but there were one or two remarks which late Administration. It will be found to be an he would offer to the House. The question. address to President WASHINGTON, which recogwhen first submitted to the House, had appeared nised his conduct in issuing the proclamation of to him to be one of no importance, to be one that neutrality in 1793. That case was very dissimcould excite no interest, whether decided in the ilar to the late act of President Madison, which negative or affirmative; but by lying on the table was but a duty he was expected to perform. He for a day or two, it had increased in magnitude. has done it with ability and integrity, and there Why so much importance was attached to it he was not a citizen of the United States but excould not see. I am, said he, opposed to the pected it of him. President WASHINGTON had adoption of the resolution, and in favor of indefi-done an act which he was not directed to do nite postponement, because I cannot see any good consequences which can possibly result from the adoption of it. I consider it more proper for the Legislature of the nation to apply its time and resources to objects of utility, than to descend to useless debate on a subject which can be of no importance. What is the object of the resolution? Is it to communicate information which shall regulate the conduct of the President of the United States in the detail of the negotiation, the basis of which is formed? If so, the President can obtain it from a proper source. Holding,

by the Legislature; he had issued a proclamation on his own mere motion. I mention with great diffidence that it was questioned whether this measure was not a stretch of Executive power; and if it was so, it was necessary for the Legislature to recognise the act, inasmuch as it was one of the highest importance. Therefore I say that the case is not a precedent.

Several other reasons have been mentioned in favor of the resolution, which have been so ably answered by the gentleman from New York that I shall not notice them. Here might be an end

H. OF R.

Vote of Approbation.

JUNE, 1809.

non-intercourse, against everything? What measure did he advocate to resist taxation? [Mr. RANDOLPH.-Arming our merchantmen.] Arming our merchantmen! I ask that gentleman and this House, sir, to determine whether that was not a measure of hostility fraught with greater inconvenience than any other; and whether it would not have produced the voting of supplies for the bombardment of New York, as certainly as any other mode of warfare? It is to my mind as clear that arming these merchantmen would have produced war, as the radiant orb of day is to my sight. How then does the gentleman obtain his title to the credit of the present peaceful situation of our country? I conceive that his claim will not be supported by this House or the nation. I should have been happy, for the gentleman's sake and for my own, that this subject had never been presented for discussion. But as it has, I have thought it my duty to express my sentiments on it. Those feelings under which a young speaker necessarily labors, have deprived me of much of the matter, and most of the manner, of what I intended to say. I have given most of the reasons which will induce me to vote for indefinite postponement; if that does not carry, to vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts, and finally as those events will place it in my power.

to the discussion, was it not for the manner in the gentleman vote against the embargo, against which the subject has been discussed by the gentleman from Virginia, and I think it fair to answer him in his own way. He seems to contend for the credit of the late accommodation-with whom? I have not understood that the Republican party have claimed any merit from it. It has not been said that this or that party should be entitled to the merit. No such claim, as far as I have any knowledge, has been set up in this country. It will then be fair to examine, on this subject, whether the gentleman's right to the credit which he claims is fairly made out. We are told that it is owing to the passage of the non-intercourse law that the overtures were made by Great Britain. The gentleman from Virginia has told you that he was opposed to the passage of that law, not from any dislike to it, but because he supposed that he might get clear of the embargo wholly. Suppose the gentleman had succeeded in his vote upon the non-intercourse, and then repealed the embargo, there would then have been existing no measure of resistance to British oppression. The Orders in Council would have been acquiesced in by this Government. Suppose that the disposition of the British Government to accommodate with America be ascribed to her misfortunes in Spain; I ask whether she would have had any inducement to withdraw her Orders in Council in this state of things? The reverse in Spain having produced a disposition to accommodate, yet, no measure of hostility being presented to the Orders in Council, why would Great Britain have withdrawn them? Is it to be supposed that the British Government is so very ignorant of the situation in which she was placed by the Orders in Council, that she would have withdrawn them? It cannot be attributed to this motive. If not, to what? Will you suppose, sir, that she has feelings of such sympathy towards America that she would have done it? I need only call to my aid the history of that nation from 1774 to the present day, for proof of a contrary disposition; for she could not withdraw a law in relation to this country, much less advantageous to her than her Orders in Council, until its fields were stained with the best blood of the country. It is then to be ascribed to the non-intercourse. If the embargo had been repealed without the latter, we should to this day been groaning under the Orders in Council, and perhaps our situation would have presented as mournful an aspect at the meeting of Congress, as the gentleman so feelingly described us, voting supplies, marching to Canada, &c.; for, sir, what would then have been our situation, if we had at the last session repealed the embargo wholly ? We should have been retracing our steps, or plunging the nation into war, hesitating between the one and the other, exhibiting a stain on the American character, which years could not have effaced. Is this picture too highly colored? Is not the consequence which I have portrayed fairly resulting? Or will this visionary phantom, which I have raised. vanish into air at the slightest examination? Did not

Mr. GARDENIER said, that having been one of those who had looked up to the elevation of the present Chief Magistrate as one of the most calamitous events to this country that could take place, he rose to make that atonement which was in his power for that error. Yes, sir, said Mr. G., this tree, from which I honestly expected so much bad fruit, is bearing fruit of gladness and rejoicing for our country. I am not only willing but take pleasure in making this avowal. The first important act of the Chief Magistrate of the United States, is one, which, while it calls for the confidence of the nation, demands no less the expres sion of it by this House. Being of the old school, sir, I am not of course very much frightened at the speech-not from the throne; thank God we have none, and I hope we shall long be without any-but by the idea of the terrors which are carried in the countenance of the Executive magistrate. If he would favor us with his presence to make his speech, my poor eyes would stand the dazzling glare of such an exhibition. Even in the British Parliament I have never understood that a speech from the throne humbles that body. I have never seen in their debate that the minority have been abashed by it; for, notwithstanding the speech, they have carried the terrors of their eloquence to the throne itself, and they have carried it by means of the answer to the speech from the throne. On that occasion it is, that the rights of the minority are unrestrained; it is then that they speak to the throne in language of freemen-for the House of Commons, elected by the people, though irregularly, constitute the democratic and consequently free part

JUNE, 1809.

Vote of Approbation.

H. OF R.

people meeting the Representatives of the people face to face. I should like to receive a communication from the Executive, into which he could throw something of his own soul. On the other hand, when a message is sent, what practical good results from the change? I presume to say none at all. The only principle on which it could be excused, is, that the President could not read it to so august a body as this. If this were the case, it might be excused, but on that principle alone.

which it ought never to have parted with, of
animadverting upon the course of public measures,
upon things which have passed. I would not tie
myself down to approbate the conduct of the
President, be it what it might; but when the
President has done well, I will claim the right of
approving him. I would
say, "Well done, thou
good and faithful servant;" and in so doing, I am
permitted to say, if I please, "Ill done, thou bad
and faithless servant." Where we have a right
to praise, we have a right to dispraise, and vice
versa; and will any one say that there is anything
in censuring misconduct which is inconsistent
with a republican form of Government? No,
sir; whoever may feel it, no one will say so. I
am, therefore, against a postponement of the
question.

of the English constitution. If you were to exclude them from the right of expressing their opinion on public measures, they would say with great justice that an ancient and Constitutional right was withheld from them. They would protest against any measures calculated to deprive them of the right of speaking with freedom of the measures of the Ministry and King. The course which has been here pursued, in theory though pleasant to the eye. has in practice been a course which has fortified the Executive magistrate, and built around him a wall which prevented ap- However, sir, be the practice of the Executive proach, through which the measures of his Ad- what it may, I stand upon the rights of the House, ministration could not be reviewed by any mem- and I will never give up any portion of my right bers of this House; because, forsooth, the House to speak of public men and public measures. I might be disposed to press a flattering reply upon am rejoiced, therefore, that the gentleman from him-but, in point of fact that this minority, a Virginia has laid before the House the resolution strong, ungovernable animal, might be muzzled. now under debate, because it enables us not to Your President was not unwilling to turn the sing Io Pæans, not to offer up incense to the Exdelighted ear to the addresses of citizens assem-ecutive, but to bring back to this House the right, bled in meetings; and at no time has he frowned with severity at that courtly adulation of the Legislatures who have sung his own language in his own ears. He has thanked them for their patriotism, and republicanism too, in addressing him in this way. But if the Executive magistrate was, under the good old practice, flattered by these addresses in answer to his speeches, it was here to be canvassed whether he was entitled to that incense to be offered up by the majority; and I much doubt, when the praise of the majority was mixed up with the dispraise of the minority, if the bitter did not prevail over the sweet. The practice of communicating by message was one I will not say gone into for the purpose of precluding debate, but the effect has been that if we ever did examine the measures of administration, we were obliged to examine them As to the amendment of the gentleman from piece-meal. We could not take them all in one Massachusetts, I do not know precisely what he view, to make that impression which is so proper means by it; and, therefore, know not whether I for keeping in check the Executive branch of the am for or against it. I find language almost Government. There might have been an apology literally accordant with it in the Message of the made for the late President of the United States, President of the United States. Now, sir, if this which, if my late information be correct, could be meant as a mere echo of the President's Meshardly be made for the present. I understand sage, that I do call adulation; that I do not like; that in Great Britain the King can speak but can- it is too kingly even for me; I do not want these not write. Now I think it very well there that echoes. I wish the House to express its opinion; the King should have at least something to do in but, after receiving the Message of the President public concerns, and inasmuch as he cannot of the United States, to breathe it back upon him write, let him speak (for the King of England was is really nauseous. I believe the gentleman is a never remarkable for great natural gifts) what good republican; I extend to him the same charothers have written for him. And if we have ity which I ask for myself. This is a mere error had a President of the United States who would into which he was led from the situation into write but could not speak, it was very well to re- which the House was drawn. To let the resoverse the usual order of proceeding under this lution pass entire, would not do; there was no Government. Whenever, sir, we have a Presi-objection to the substance of it, but that it should dent who can first write his speech and then deliver it to the House, I should like to see it, because it would show our superiority as a nation in point of talents. I wish to put down monarchy, sir-I am a republican, sir, and wish to show the men who will live the slaves of monarchy that they have nothing to boast of. It is, therefore, with these views of the subject that I could have been very well satisfied to have seen revived the good old way, of the Executive magistrate of the

be adopted as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) moved it, there were a variety of reasons which I will not detail, which rendered it manifestly unjust. It was, therefore, proper to move an amendment. In this point of view I object to it.

But, in another view, (as I cannot clearly comprehend the idea intended to be conveyed,) I will explain my difficulty to the House. "And fur'nishes additional evidence of the spirit of accom

[blocks in formation]

'modation on the part of our Government, which has at no time been intermitted." Now, I agree with this, it is true; and I am surprised that it escaped the sagacity of the gentleman from Virginia, that, as an amendment, there can be no objection to it. Has it been intermitted? Intermission necessarily implies commencement.Now, sir, since it commenced, has it ever been interrupted? The Government of the United States, since it began to entertain that spirit, has not intermitted it. This is all true, and I cannot object to the spirit of it; but I am afraid that I shall be compelled to vote against the amendment, because it is not republican-it is too much of an echo.

JUNE, 1809.

have been avoided. Our Government, however, was silent upon this subject, though it was, in the nature of the thing, a common matter between this country and England; and I beg pardon of any fastidious gentleman, that I should think it possible that America and England could have common rights. As Great Britain could not be reached but through us, when she was so reached, both had one object: both were assailed, and ought to have made common cause. But, what did the Government of the United States? Did it show, at that time, a manly front to French injustice and arrogance? Did it consult with the British Government what measures should be taken to Now for the original resolution. I do much repel this assault? No, sir, but it took stepslike the two words promptitude and frankness. strange to tell-precisely of an opposite characThe compliment contained in them is highly mer- ter. The Berlin decree was issued on the 21st of ited; and I will proceed to show it, according to November, 1806; the treaty negotiated between my way of judging upon this subject. We have Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney and the British just emerged from that dreadful night of embar- Commissioners was signed on the 31st December go which plunged in utter darkness, distress, and of the same year-say forty days after the issuconsternation, this great nation. Yes, sir, we ing the Berlin decree. Did the Government of have emerged from it. It is well, now, after hav- Great Britain, willing to ruin your commerce, ing escaped so great a calamity, that we should (and many hold out this idea,) make use of this retrace the causes of that calamity, and the means pretext, at that time, to retaliate upon you? No, which have been happily employed ultimately to sir; but what was the actual state of things? The avert it. The original cause of this calamity may Berlin decree had been issued; a treaty was dibe distinctly traced to the issuing of the Berlin gested and signed by the Commissioners of the decree of the 21st November, 1806, and to the two Governments of America and Great Britain, conduct of the American Government subse- and there was much of friendly intercourse bequently to that period in relation to that decree-tween the two countries. I would demand the a conduct (I am free to express my opinion) not manner in which the American Government calculated for peace, and as little for war-calcu- received this decree. And much, I say, (for I am lated to produce no other practical effect than the not afraid to speak the truth,) was to be expected ruin of ourselves. By issuing the Berlin decree, from the American Government, placing itself the French Government infringed the rights of as a fair and impartial neutral between the two the American Republic and of the British Gov- Governments. Do you recollect that the British ernment. They did an act which, by the laws Ministers annexed to the treaty a note, in which— of nations, they had no right to do, either as it pointing to the consideration already mentioned, regarded this country, or as it regarded England. as regarded themselves, and the right of France It was a mode of attack, as it regarded England, to issue the decree-they said: "Such principles to which France had no right to resort. If I may are in themselves extravagant, and repugnant be permitted to simplify this idea, it was as im-' to the law of nations; and the pretensions foundproper for her to have recourse to this mode, as it ed on them, though professedly directed solely would be, in fair boxing, to knock an adversary against Great Britain, tend to alter the practice after he was down. There are laws of war as of war among civilized nations, and utterly to well as of peace between nations. You are not 'subvert the rights and independence of neutral permitted, legally, to do everything which you Powers." Did not the Berlin decree tend to do have the physical power to do. This need but be this? And was it not an injury of a new, and, mentioned to be clearly perceived by every gen- at the same time, of a most frightful character, as tleman. France had not a right to assail her regarded Great Britain? In this situation, when adversary through a neutral and friendly Power. an attempt was made by her antagonist to keep France had committed an act unauthorized to- from her her best customer-and this attempt was wards England by the Berlin decree. The inter- an injury to her customer as well as to her-was ests of Great Britain and of the United States it a point on which it could have been expected were both injured by the Berlin decree. Their that the British Government would have been interests and their rights, then, being mutually silent? Would not the British Commissioners attacked, it was a mutual concern necessarily be- have forfeited all claims to the confidence of the tween the two countries. Both were interested British nation, if, upon such a decree, they had in repelling this infraction of neutral rights; and not done something for themselves? Certainly. the study of our Government should have been, I speak of the time when they had only promulas to this Berlin decree, and as to that only, to gated the decree. They signed a note, in which have made a common cause with Great Britain, they said, that "They proceed to the signature and resisted the decree. If that common cause had been so made, a great deal of distress and ruin which has fallen upon the country would

[ocr errors]

'

under the full persuasion, that, before the treaty 'shall be returned from America, with the ratifi'cation of the United States, the enemy will either

JUNE, 1809.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Vote of Approbation.

[ocr errors]

H. OF R.

warranted in rejecting the treaty. Were the British Ministry to expect, after this, that the President would have recommended a resistance of the French decrees? No sir; it would have been giving more faith than we generally give to them or they to us.

House to a letter, dated at London on the 22d of April, 1807. If my frequent recurrence to docu-ments should fatigue the House, I beg them to bear in mind that, in these documents, they may find truth as well as the arts of able diplomatists. On the 31st of December, 1806, then, the note was annexed to the treaty. On the 22d of April, 1807, Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, in their letter to the Secretary of State, inform him that they had an interview with Mr. Canning: “As soon, however, (say they) as we glanced at the objects of this interview, he observed that he

' have formally abandoned or tacitly relinquished 'his unjust pretensions." Was this an unreasonable expectation? Was it unreasonable to hope that the system of injustice which the first nation in the world was, for the first time, practising against her, should be abandoned? Certainly not. But, if it was not, what next did she express a Now, sir, to carry you with me a little in the desire to have done? "Or (as the British Com-order of time, I would call the attention of the 'missioners said) that the Government of the 'United States, by its conduct or assurances, will 'have given security to His Majesty that it will 'not submit to such innovations in the established 'system of maritime law." Was there anything wrong in this request, sir? It cannot be controverted, that, upon this matter, we had a common cause with Great Britain, whether we chose to make it so, or not. She said, "Do you declare, either by your conduct or assurances, that you will resist the decree-do something that looks towards it? We do not require a specific pledge, but, as we are so deeply interested in the man-had just received intelligence, which, if true, ner in which you shall conduct, it becomes important to us to know what you will do about it." Ifsuch assurances had been given-if steps becoming the dignity of this Government had been pursued, would the British Orders in Council have been issued? There never would have been occasion for them. But this is not all contained in that note, for it continues thus: "The undersigned have presented this note from an anxious 'wish that it should be clearly understood, on both sides, that, without such an abandonment on the part of the enemy, or such assurances or such conduct on the part of the United States, His Majesty will not consider himself bound by the present signature of his Commissioners to ratify 'the treaty, or precluded from adopting such measures as may seem necessary for counteracting 'the designs of his enemy." Now, sir, was not all this fair? If we consider that Great Britain has rights as well as we-that one great right was in jeopardy in regard to her interest as well as ours-was this arrogance? Was it not reasonable? Having common cause with her, should we not have made that answer which she wished? But, what answer did we make? Was the Government of the United States content with being merely silent? No, sir; so far from giving any intimation that it meant to defend itself, the very circumstance of this note was made one of the causes for the rejection of this treaty, as the President of the United States, at the subsequent session of Congress, declared. He declares, that there was one consideration, independent of this note, which induced him to reject the treaty; thereby, clearly showing that the annexion of that note was considered as so offensive as to have induced him to reject the treaty, if there had been no other cause for it. After this, what in fairness could the British Ministers, bound to assert the rights of their own country, do? The United States never gave any intimation of the course which they intended to take. In the next place, the President had told Congress that their speaking to him was so offensive, that on that account, if on no other, he should have considered himself

[ocr errors]

would make it unnecessary for us to enter at present on any of the topics alluded to; that it had been represented to him that an officer just arrived from America, had that morning inform'ed the Admiralty that the treaty which had 'been lately concluded here had been rejected by our Government," &c. He observed that "such an event would place the relations of the countries in an embarrassing situation," &c. Here now it will be proper to bear in mind that this treaty was framed by the Ministry, one of whom made that fine speech in Parliament, which the gentleman from New York read, the Ministry most friendly to this country, if there be any such thing as friendship toward us, which I very much doubt. This treaty, thus made, was sent back immediately after the issuing of the Berlin decree, which so closely connected, in one respect, the interests of the two countries. Was this not a fair cause of suspicion? Well might Mr. Canning hesitate as to what he should do in this new state of things. But, to complete his disappointment and confusion on this subject, the American Ministers, on the 24th July, 1807, addressed to Mr. Canning another note. This was the first answer which was ever given in any way whatever to the inquiry as to what the American Government meant to do in relation to the Berlin decree. It was as follows:

"There is another object to which the undersigned have the orders of the President to invite the attention of His Majesty's Government, as affecting materially, and giving a new and unexpected character to the. proposed treaty. They allude to the written declaration, relative to the French decree of the 21st of November last, by which His Majesty's Plenipotentiaries accompanied their signature of the treaty; a declaration which, in its actual form, creates unnecessary embarthe United States. The undersigned persuade themrassments in the way of an acceptance of the treaty by selves that, as this proceeding, to which no sanction was given on their part, imposed on the United States no new obligation, could only be intended to declare that, in signing or ratifying the treaty, it was understood by Great Britain that nothing contained in it would be a bar to any measure, which, if no such trea

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »