Part 117

THURSDAY, January 31.

Another member, to wit, from Massachusetts, ORCHARD COOK, appeared, and took his seat.

Mississippi Territory.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the report of the select committee in favor of admitting the Mississippi Territory into the Union on an equal footing with the original States.

A desultory debate of two or three hours took place on the resolution.

Messrs. POINDEXTER, JOHNSON, GHOLSON, MCKIM, SHEFFEY, HOLLAND, and WRIGHT, spoke in favor of the resolution, and Messrs. BACON, PITKIN, QUINCY, BIGELOW, and BLAISDELL, against it. The arguments in favor of its passage were, among others, that the territory could, when possessing a population of 60,000, claim admission as a right; that it now contained probably 45,000, and would, more than probably, before a Representative could be elected under the new constitution, contain full 60,000 souls; that, after admitting Orleans to the rank of a State, with a minor population, at the present session, it would be the height of injustice to refuse the same privilege to Mississippi, which had been so much longer a part of the united territory, and against the admission of which into the Union none of the constitutional objections had weight which had been urged against the admission of Orleans. The opponents of the resolution argued that some respect was due to the feelings, however grounded, of the eastern States, in relation to the creation of new States on the western waters; that the admission of one State during a session was sufficient; if two were admitted into the Union, in the course of three months, the people of the eastern States would be justly alarmed at the diminution of their relative weight in the scale of the Union; that, since it was acknowledged the new State could not be represented before the thirteenth Congress, there could be no occasion for pressing this subject so urgently at this time. Why not, it was asked, wait for the actual census of the territory? The very solicitude which was manifested to get this subject through Congress, it was said, showed there was something wrong, and was a strong argument against the adoption of the resolution.

The resolution was agreed to in Committee of the Whole--ayes 62.

The committee rose, and reported their agreement to the resolution.

The question was then taken to concur with the Committee of the Whole in their agreement to the said resolution, and resolved in the affirmative--yeas 68, nays 47.

FRIDAY, February 1.

Commercial Intercourse.

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the following bill reported by the Committee of Foreign Relations:

A bill supplementary to the act, entitled "An act concerning the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes."

Be it enacted, &c., That no vessel owned wholly by a citizen or citizens of the United States, which shall have departed from a British port prior to the second day of February, one thousand eight hundred and eleven, and no merchandise owned wholly by a citizen or citizens of the United States, imported in such vessel, shall be liable to seizure or forfeiture, on account of any infraction or presumed infraction of the provisions of the act to which this act is a supplement.

Mr. EMOTT moved to amend the same by striking out the words in italic, and to insert in their place, "or merchandise." The bill, as amended, would read as follows:

"That no vessel or merchandise shall be liable to seizure or forfeiture on account of any infraction, or presumed infraction, of the provisions of the act to which this act is a supplement."

Mr. EMOTT.--Mr. Chairman: As the bill which is now on your table is calculated to relieve our merchants in part from the restrictive system which has again been attempted to be put in operation, I so far approve of it; but as it does not appear to me to go far enough, I rise for the purpose of moving an amendment, which, if adopted, will once more give us a clear deck; and while I am up, the committee will permit me, as concisely as the nature of the subject will admit, to assign the reasons which induce me to propose the amendment.

By the law of the first of May last, the President was authorized, in case either of the great belligerents, before the third of March, revoked her anti-neutral edicts, to proclaim the same, and if the other did not in three months also revoke, a non-intercourse with her was to follow. On the second day of November, the President had proclaimed, as a fact, that France had made the necessary revocation; and it follows, if he was correct as to the fact, that on the second day of this month, the non-intercourse went into operation against Great Britain.

As many formerly, and more latterly, have doubted as to the fact thus proclaimed, it becomes, sir, a duty which we owe to ourselves and to the people, to inquire into its existence; for if it be true that no such repeal, as was contemplated by the law, has taken place; if, indeed, the President has been deceived, or was mistaken, we cannot too soon make it known, and relieve the country from the vexation and embarrassment which must result from the present state of things.

If, sir, additional motives were necessary, we may find them in the bills which have this morning been introduced into the House by the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, at the instance of the Secretary of the Treasury, one of which goes to lay large additional duties, and the other to authorize a loan. The reasons assigned by the Secretary for this new and heavy tax on our citizens are, that as the greater part of our duties on imports are collected on goods coming from Great Britain and her colonies, and as those duties will cease with the revival of the non-importation, it becomes necessary, in order to prevent a defalcation in the revenue, to tax the production of other countries much beyond the present rate. On this presumed defalcation, too, in some degree depends the proposition for a loan, or, if a loan be necessary, the amount of it. In this point of view, it becomes highly important to ascertain whether the non-intercourse has gone into operation; for if it has not, I trust we shall not proceed to give form and shape to the recommendation of the Secretary, that we shall not burden the country with new taxes, or subject it to large loans.

In the commencement of this inquiry, Mr. Chairman, we naturally ask ourselves, what edicts are to be revoked, and how are they to be revoked? It is not material to extend this inquiry to Great Britain, as we know of no revocation on her part, and, under all circumstances, we have not, I fear, much reason to believe that there will be such revocation. But it may be well to notice here something which has the appearance of inconsistency, on the part of our Executive, towards that Government.

The non-intercourse law of March, 1809, contains a provision, that, "in case either France or Great Britain shall so revoke or modify her edicts, as that they shall cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States," the President shall declare the same by proclamation, and the non-intercourse was then to cease as to the nation revoking. It was under this law, and in consequence of the power so given to the President, that the celebrated, though ill-fated arrangement, was made between the Executive and the British Minister, Mr. Erskine. Now, sir, by referring to this arrangement, you will find, that on April 18, Mr. Erskine proposed to Secretary Smith the revocation of the orders in council of January and November, 1807, as a compliance on the part of Great Britain with the terms of the act of March; and our Secretary, on the same day, declaring that the withdrawing of such orders would be deemed satisfactory by the President, the arrangement was completed on the 19th, and a proclamation accordingly issued on the ground, and assuming the fact, that the British edicts had ceased to violate our neutral commerce, and again opening the intercourse between the two countries after the 10th of June.

This arrangement, and the short and hasty correspondence connected with it, you will recollect, sir, were presented to Congress with the Message, at the opening of the summer session of 1809, and we then passed a law, the object of which was to ratify and to carry into effect the arrangement. Here, then, we have an explicit opinion from both the Executive and the Legislature, that the only British orders which came within the spirit and intent of the law of March, were those of January and November 1807, and that, when those orders were revoked, the edicts of Great Britain ceased to violate the commerce of the United States.

I pray you now, Mr. Chairman, to turn with me to the law of May last; you will there find the precise phraseology of the act of March: "In case either Great Britain or France shall so revoke or modify her edicts, as that they shall cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States," the President is to make known the fact by proclamation. The authority given to the President is in both cases the same, and it was to have been presumed that it would have been exercised on the same terms. But, sir, it will be found, on referring to the papers, that, under the act of May, the Executive made a further requisition. The revocation of the orders in council of January and November was not to satisfy us, but the blockade of the year preceding was to be also annulled.

In the letter from Secretary Smith to our Minister at London, of the 5th of July, 1810, and which enclosed a copy of the law of May, it is said, "that in explaining the extent of the repeal which is required on the British side, Mr. Pinkney will let it be distinctly understood, that it must necessarily include an annulment of the blockade of 1806;" and our minister accordingly, in his letter to Lord Wellesley, of the 21st of September, tells him it is his duty to state "that an annulment of the blockade of May, 1806, is considered by the President to be as indispensable, in the view of the act, as the revocation of the British orders in council." Nay, so far has the President gone in this particular as to give the French Government a pledge that this will be required on the part of Great Britain. In the letter from Secretary Smith to General Armstrong, of the 5th of July, 1810, the latter is authorized, if it should be found necessary, to "let it be understood that a repeal of the illegal blockades of a date prior to the Berlin decree, namely, that of May, 1806, will be included in the condition required of Great Britain."

It is not my intention at this time, to enter into a discussion on the subject of blockades, nor am I to be understood as giving countenance to the system of paper blockades, whether that system proceeds from or is attempted to be enforced by England or by France; but, sir, I have gone into this examination to show that the President has acted differently under two laws which ought to have the same practical construction, because the terms used in them were alike; that under the law of May, 1810, he added a condition to a settlement with Great Britain, which he did not require under the law of March, 1809; and why this difference?

Will it be said, that when the arrangement was made with Mr. Erskine the President had no knowledge of the blockading orders of May, 1806? Not so, sir. By recurring to a report made by Mr. Madison, as Secretary of State, in December, 1808, of belligerent decrees and orders affecting neutral commerce, you will find this very blockade; and certainly what he knew as Secretary in December, he must have known as President in the April following. Shall I be told the President had discovered that the blockade had been "avowed to be comprehended in, and identified with, the orders in council?" I fear this will not be a satisfactory answer. For, in this case, if the orders in council are rescinded, the connection between them and the blockade will then stand as it was supposed by the Executive to stand when the arrangement was entered into.

Persons, Mr. Chairman, more prone to jealousy than myself, and who are disposed to find fault with the late Executive projects, may perhaps point to that passage in the letter from Secretary Smith to Mr. Pinkney, of the 22d of May, 1810, in which it is said, that the President has read, with surprise and regret, the reply of Lord Wellesley to the note requiring explanations with respect to the blockade of France, which "evinces an inflexible determination to persevere in the system of blockade," as affording a reason for this added condition: they may say that it was thrust in when our Administration were satisfied that it would not be acceded to by the British, and for the purpose of preventing an accommodation with, and keeping up the irritation against, that nation. But while, for myself, I disclaim this inference, I must confess that I am at a loss to assign a sufficient motive for the difference in the two cases.