Part 124

An honorable gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. CHEVES,) whom I am very much inclined to respect, in an ingenious argument which he made the other day, to prove that the French decrees were revoked, told you that the revocation of those decrees depended on the mere volition of the mind of the Emperor, not requiring authentication or form; and although they might be revived the next moment, or substituted by other regulations equally affecting our neutral rights, still they were revoked. Thus attributing an authority to Bonaparte, descriptive of the power of the God of nature--when he said, let there be light and there was light. And in reply to the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. QUINCY,) who contended that form was essential to the repeal of a decree, he remarked that the gentleman wanted form and not substance. From this course of reasoning, I conceive the gentleman has admitted, that this pretended revocation has neither form nor substance. An edict may be defined to be a law promulgated in such form as the institutions of the country require, or some act of sovereign authority, which has gone through the established forms of office, so as to become obligatory. The edicts of France have an appropriate form, their authority is attested by the Emperor and publicity is given, for the direction of those whose duty it is to carry them into effect. Sir, the decree of the most absolute monarch on earth is no decree till it is published. I contend that a revocation or modification of an edict requires the same or equal solemnities with its enactment; the fact must exist and be officially made known before it becomes obligatory--no declaration of an intention to revoke, can constitute an actual revocation. The act ought not only to be determined and public, but susceptible of authentication, and capable of being communicated to the nation and the world.

This opinion, if it needs authority, is supported by the instructions of the Secretary of State to our Ministers at Paris and London, of the 5th July. Mr. Pinkney is directed in these words--"If the British Government should accede to the overture contained in the act of Congress, by repealing or so modifying its edicts, as that they will cease to violate our neutral rights, you will transmit the repeal, properly authenticated, to General Armstrong, and if necessary, by a special messenger, and you will hasten to transmit it also to this Department--similar directions are given to General Armstrong."

Will it for a moment be contended, that the formal authentication required by the Administration, could mean a Jesuitical, insolent, equivocal, conditional letter, full of sound, and meaning nothing for our good? But, say gentlemen, the President received the evidence and issued his proclamation. This is true; but why has he done so, and how justified by the law under which alone he was authorized to act, is, to my mind, perfectly inexplicable; why, in the course of this arrangement with France, he has varied the ground which he first took--why dispensed with requisites at one time declared indispensable--why he advanced in exactions from Great Britain in proportion as he receded from demands on France, is left for himself and those who have more wisdom than myself, to determine. I trust, sir, I have a proper share of confidence in the Executive, and have no disposition to detract from his merit; but he is only man, and therefore subject to the frailties man is heir to. We have as yet no such maxim among us, as that the Executive is infallible--he can do no wrong. Whatever may be the disposition of other gentlemen, I am as yet too free, too much of a genuine Republican to subscribe to such a doctrine. I said, sir, that in the course of this arrangement with France, the Administration advanced in their demands on Great Britain and receded as to France.

I argue from the documents, which accompanied the President's Message at the opening of the present session of Congress. The first letter in the documents from the Secretary of State to Mr. Pinkney, of the 20th January, 1810, does not contain a word on the subject of blockades--on the contrary, the Orders in Council are alone required to be repealed, as preparatory to a treaty with Great Britain; and the British Government are assured of the cordial disposition "of the President to exercise any power with which he may be invested, to put an end to acts of Congress which would not be resorted to but for the Orders in Council, and at the same time of his determination to put them in force against France, in case her decrees should not also be repealed."

His letter of the 4th of May, which was the first after passing the act of the 1st of May last, that enclosed a copy of that act, is not published. On the 22d of May, another letter is sent enclosing a second copy of the act of Congress, in which there is not to be found any requisition of a repeal of the blockade which is now made a sine qua non to an arrangement with Great Britain. But on the 2d of July, after the arrival of the John Adams, which brought the correspondence between our Ministers at Paris and London, and the Agents of the British and French Governments, on the subject of the repeal of their several orders and decrees; and when it was known that the British Government would not abandon her system of blockade and adopt the principles contended for by France--in this letter, I say, is contained not only a demand of the repeal of the Orders in Council, but also of the blockading order of May, 1806. I have already shown, from the letters before me, of the 5th June and July, that the restoration of the property of our citizens, confiscated by the order of Bonaparte, was declared by the Executive as an indispensable prerequisite to an arrangement with the French Government. But the proclamation of the President has been issued without a cent of property being restored; nor is there the most distant prospect of our regaining a shilling from his iron grasp. Thus have the Administration changed the ground first taken, increased the demands on Great Britain, and abandoned what was deemed indispensable on the part of France.

So conscious was the President of the just expectation of the people of this country, that provision would be made for the restoration of their property, he informs Mr. Armstrong on the 2d of November, the day the proclamation was issued, that "in issuing the proclamation it has been presumed, that the requisition on the subject of the sequestered property will have been complied with." From what this presumption arose, I am at a loss to say--the letter of the Duc de Cadore to General Armstrong, of the 12th September, had been received here; we had been told there would be no compromise; the law of reprisal must govern. Sir, the law of reprisal, as recognized by the laws of nations, could never have authorized the seizure. Reprisals can only be resorted to in case of an act of hostility committed by one nation on the property or citizens of another, and after compensation for the injury has been demanded and refused; and even in that case, the property taken is to be held only in pledge, till satisfaction is made by the offending nation. The moment that confiscation takes place the principle of reprisal ceases and it becomes an act of war. We had done no injury to France; we had violated neither the rights of the persons or property of her subjects--no demand of indemnity was ever made; not a complaint whispered, till nearly twelve months after the passing of the law, (and after its expiration too,) which is made the pretext for this monstrous outrage. The law of reprisal had nothing to do with the affair, and the confiscation of our property excludes the idea of restoration. I confess I was astonished, and felt humbled as an American, when I heard the language of the President of the United States, in his Message to Congress at the opening of the present session on this subject. Instead of that high indignant tone, demanded by the honor and feelings of the nation, he, in the mildness of calm philosophy, says, "It was particularly anticipated that as a further evidence of just dispositions towards them, restoration would have been immediately made of the property" of our citizens, seized under a misapplication of the principles of reprisals, and a misconstruction of a law of the United States. This expectation has not been fulfilled. Thus the question as to the restoration seems to be abandoned; one kind, loving word from Napoleon the Great, (as he has been triumphantly called in this House,) this modern Alexander (without his virtues, with all his faults) disarms us of our rage, and we give millions for his embrace.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee (Mr. EPPES) who reported the bill, in reply to the very able speech of a gentleman from New York (Mr. EMOTT) who addressed you in the early stage of this discussion, appeared to me rather to question the purity of the source from which they came, than to have answered the arguments of that gentleman. This mode of reasoning may answer the purposes of gentlemen, but is surely unfavorable to fair investigation; it tends to abridge the freedom of debate, and prevent that firm, decisive, and candid exposition of those measures, which we conceive may vitally affect the happiness of the people. This is a privilege and a duty which I shall ever regard and ever perform. The same gentleman (Mr. EPPES) and several others, have reminded us of the arrangement made with Mr. Erskine; and offer it as a precedent for the justification of the President's proclamation and this bill, (which are substantially one and the same thing.) I had supposed that that unfortunate arrangement would have been kept out of sight by gentlemen on the other side of the House. It was to have been expected they would carefully avoid an attempt to make one bad precedent justify another; they must have forgotten how that arrangement militates against the proclamation, and the demand which is now so positively made of a revocation by Great Britain of her order of blockade of May, 1806. That arrangement, almost dictated by the Administration, and which was perfectly satisfactory to us all, did not contain one syllable, not the most distant information, relative to the repeal of that order, which now appears to excite so highly the indignation of gentlemen, and has been magnified into a cause of war. The order of blockade was at that time more recent, and if so injurious as now alleged, could not have escaped the attention of the Executive, and his vigilant Cabinet, when they were providing for the annulment of the Orders in Council of January and November, 1807. That arrangement was made without requiring a repeal of the blockade--now nothing can be done without a repeal, and thus we are to be blockaded both at home and abroad.

It may be further remarked, that by the law of February, 1808, the President was authorized to suspend the embargo as to France or Great Britain, on the same conditions pointed out by the act of May, 1810. In the exercise of that power, the President instructed Mr. Pinkney to propose to the British Government a repeal of the embargo as to that nation, and its continuation against France, if the Orders in Council of January and November, 1807, should be rescinded. At that time nothing was said, no demand was made, not even a proposition offered on the subject of the blockade in question. My attention, sir, has been somewhat drawn to this part of the subject by the importance which has been given to it in the document before me, and the arguments of gentlemen of this House, particularly the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. EPPES,) who said much on this subject the other day, in answer to arguments which the gentleman from New York (Mr. EMOTT) did not make. He reiterated last night that his arguments were unanswered and unanswerable. I do not profess, sir, to be perfectly acquainted with the practical extent of the order of blockade of May, 1806, nor do I know the precise quantum of injury we have sustained by it, nor am I to be understood as attempting its justification--I should be the last to concede any principle or any right to which my country has a claim. But, sir, I am compelled to believe, that an artificial importance is at this moment given to the subject, which it has not received at any other period since the adoption of that regulation by the British Government. I have already shown that, in the negotiation of 1808, and in the arrangement with Mr. Erskine, the question was not even made a matter of contestation; and, sir, from an examination of the Executive papers, from the date of the order of the blockade, down to the present session of Congress, I have not been able to discover a single paper remonstrating against the order, or insisting on its revocation, nor do I know of a single case of the condemnation of an American vessel under its operation. On the contrary, at the time of its adoption, (during the administration of Mr. Fox, who was believed to be as friendly disposed towards us, as any man who ever administered the affairs of the British Cabinet,) this measure was spoken of by our Minister at London (Mr. Monroe) as a relaxation favorable to neutral commerce. It may not be improper to refer to the order itself, as communicated by Mr. Fox to Mr. Monroe, on the 16th of May, 1806; after the preamble this note states "that the King, taking into consideration the new and extraordinary means resorted to by the enemy for the purpose of distressing the commerce of his subjects, has thought fit to direct that necessary measures should be taken for the blockade of the coast, rivers, and ports, from the river Elbe to the port of Brest, both inclusive; and the said coast, rivers, and ports, are, and must be considered, as blockaded. But His Majesty is pleased to declare, that such blockade shall not extend to prevent neutral ships and vessels, laden with goods not being the property of His Majesty's enemies, and not being contraband of war, from approaching the said coasts and entering into and sailing from the rivers and ports, (save and except the coast, rivers, and ports, from Ostend to the river Seine, already in a state of strict and rigorous blockade, and which are to be considered as continued,) provided the said ships and vessels so approaching and entering (except as aforesaid,) shall not have been laden at any port belonging to, or in possession of, His Majesty's enemies, and that the said ships and vessels so sailing from the said rivers and ports, (except as aforesaid) shall not be destined to any port belonging to, or in possession of His Majesty's enemies, nor have previously broken the blockade." This order, then, only excludes from those ports vessels having enemies' property on board or articles contraband of war, in both of which cases they are liable to seizure by the law of nations, at least it has been long contended for on the part of Britain; it also prevents the direct carrying trade from one port to another of an enemy. If this latter extension is not recognized by the law of nations, it is generally the subject of treaty, and was provided for by our treaty with the British Government, and the late convention formed by Mr. Monroe with the British Government, but which was rejected principally because Great Britain required us not to submit to the Berlin decree--a requisition, sir, infinitely short of what we are now to comply with, at the dictation of France--by which colonial produce was required to be relanded in the United States before it would be admitted into the ports of the continent. By this order, bona fide neutral vessels, with neutral produce, sailing from our own country, never were affected.

The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. EPPES) has said this order of blockade has not a single feature of a regular blockade; in this, the gentleman is tolerably correct, and when he denounces, what in the fashionable cant of the day are called paper blockades, I join most heartily in the execration. It is true this order of May, 1806, has scarcely a feature of a regular blockade. It was not avowed at the time to be even a constructive blockade, nor was the right contended for of blockading without an actual investing force. It does not, like ordinary blockades, attempt a complete prohibition to all trade with those ports, but only to the particular objects and specified cases which I have mentioned. The previous measures of France are declared by Mr. Fox to be the cause of this order. What were those measures? They were no less, as regards ourselves, than a violation of the treaty which had been solemnly entered into between this country and France; by harassing our trade, seizing and confiscating our vessels in pursuing the commerce guaranteed to us by that treaty; she had usurped authority in almost every port and city from Elbe to Brest, and excluded the introduction of British products and merchandise, whether belonging to American citizens or British subjects.

Now, sir, let me state to you the language of our Minister (Mr. Monroe) at the time this order was issued. In his letter of the 17th of May, to the Secretary of State, speaking of the order, he says, "the note is couched in terms of restraint, and professes to extend the blockade further than it has heretofore done, nevertheless it takes it from many ports already blockaded, indeed all east of Ostend and west of the Seine, except in articles contraband of war and enemy's property, which are seizable without blockade; and in like form of exception, considering every enemy as one power, it admits the trade of neutrals within the same limits to be free, in the productions of enemy's colonies, in every but the direct route between the colony and parent country.

"It cannot be doubted but the note was drawn by the Government in reference to the question, and if intended by the Cabinet as a foundation on which Mr. Fox is authorized to form a treaty, and obtained by him for the purpose, it must be viewed in a very favorable light; it seems clearly to put an end to further seizures, on the principle which has heretofore been in contestation." This view of the subject, which surely is a fair one connected with the silence of the Administration for four years, must put an end to the clamor so often raised against this order, which has been the alleged cause of the Berlin decree, and charge against Great Britain, of having been the first aggressor on our neutral rights. Sir, we have indeed been insulted, injured, and abused by both nations, to an extent which would justify any measures in our power, but let us not palliate the crimes of one, and magnify those of the other; and, above all, let us not whip ourselves because they will not respect us; let us not become so Quixotic, as to act the part of a famous knight in the tales of chivalry, who tortured himself because his mistress would not be kind.

Mr. Speaker, as the arrangement with Mr. Erskine has been often mentioned, and much relied on by the advocates of this bill, it deserves some further notice. That arrangement was the first act of the present Executive, after he came into office; it was presumed to have been fairly and properly made--it was hailed as a political jubilee by all denominations of politicians--particularly those who had not contributed to the elevation of the present Chief Magistrate; we thought we perceived in that event the evidence of a disposition in the present Executive (which we could not discover in his predecessor) to relieve this country from that system of commercial restriction, that self-destroying policy, which had made us poor indeed; we also thought a determination was manifested not to decline any advantageous accommodation with Great Britain, whether France said yea or nay. It will be but too well remembered that we had been groaning for two years under the pressure of non-importation, embargo, and non-intercourse--your treasury was drained, your citizens unable to pay their debts, and your courts of justice actually shut up, at least so far in many States (and among the rest the State which I have the honor in part to represent) as to suspend the effect of executions; your cities and seaports were inactive or deserted; gloom and dismay marked the features of the nation, and hope had almost bid us farewell; we fancied in this arrangement the glimmerings of returning sunshine, peace, and prosperity: with honest and upright hearts, we were willing to applaud the hand that gave it, without questioning or suspecting the manner or motives with which it was given. The delusion soon vanished; and I have no hesitation to declare, had I then known what I now know, I should have not offered such unqualified applause.

Mr. Speaker, let us make a very strange and very false supposition, that the Berlin and Milan decrees were actually repealed, and did cease to have effect on the first of November. What have we gained? What advantage have we derived from it? And have we not been officially informed by the French Minister in this city (General Turreau) in his letter to the Secretary of State, of the 12th December, 1810, that our most valuable productions, particularly of the Southern States, are at this moment excluded from the ports of France? As to the important articles, cotton and tobacco, he says: "their importation into France is at this moment especially prohibited, but I have reasons to believe (and I pray you meanwhile to observe, sir, they do not rest on any facts) that some modifications will be given to this absolute exclusion. These modifications will not depend on the chance of events, but will be the result of other measures, firm and pursued with perseverance, which the two Governments will continue to adopt to withdraw from the monopoly and from the vexations of the common enemy a commerce loyal and necessary to France as well as the United States." In this letter we find the touchstone, the true clue to French favor--war with England. Connected with this letter from Turreau, is a decree of the 16th July, 1810, which, in point of principle and arrogance, is not surpassed by any act in the history of Bonaparte. By this decree thirty or forty American vessels may import into France, under license, cotton, fish, oil, dye-wood, salt-fish, codfish, and peltry; they must export wine, brandy, silks, linens, cloths, jewellery, household furniture, and other manufactured articles; they can only depart from Charleston and New York, under the obligation of bringing with them a gazette of the day of their departure, also a certificate of the origin of the merchandise, given by the French Consul, containing a sentence in cypher. The French merchants who shall cause their vessels to come, must prove that they are concerned in the fabrics of Paris, Rouen, and other towns. Here is an attempt to extend French influence by bribing a select class of our merchants; granting favors to favorites. It is an attempt to make commercial regulations in our own ports, and to violate our constitution, by giving a preference to the ports of Charleston and New York, over all the rest in the United States, which is specially denied by the constitution. In addition to all this, we have a list of duties established at the French custom-house on the 5th August (the very day on which twenty or thirty American vessels and cargoes were sold and the proceeds given over to Bonaparte--the very memorable 5th August, the birthday of the celebrated letter of the Duc de Cadore) subjecting long staple cotton to a tariff of eighty cents per pound, short staple sixty cents, and tobacco forty cents per pound. By another decree of the 12th September, 1810, potash is taxed at one dollar twenty-five cents, codfish two dollars, rice four dollars per hundred--thus are we loved, favored, and taxed.

There can be no importation of American productions into France but on terms utterly inadmissible. The act of May last, in the language of the Secretary of State, had for its object not merely the recognition of a "speculative," legitimate principle, but the enjoyment of a substantial benefit. The overture then presented obviously embraced the idea of commercial advantage, it included the reasonable belief, that an abrogation of the Berlin and Milan decrees would leave the ports of France as free for the introduction of the produce of the United States, as they were previously to the promulgation of the decrees. If, then, for the revoked decrees, municipal laws, producing the same effect have been substituted, the mode only and not the measure has undergone an alteration. If France, by her own acts, has blocked up her ports against the introduction of the products of the United States, what motive has the Government in a discussion with a third power, to insist on the privilege of going to France? Whence the inducement to urge the annulment of a blockade of France, when, if annulled, no American cargoes would obtain a market in any of her ports? In such a state of things, a blockade of the coast of France would be to the United States as unimportant as would the blockade of the Caspian Sea. This is the language of truth and common sense, language which I did not very much expect to hear from the Secretary at this time; because it exposes the proclamation of the President, and condemns the present bill. But truth, like murder, will out, and it ought to strike dumb the advocates of this bill, and open their eyes to a different policy. But, sir, going on to the supposition that the French decrees are actually repealed, and cease to have effect, pursuing the principle about to be established of taking words for deeds, and form for substance, what is to become of the promise of Lord Wellesley to Mr. Pinkney, of the 31st of August, 1810, when he states that he is commanded by his Majesty to repeat the declaration made to this Government in February, 1808, of his Majesty's desire to see the commerce of the world restored to that freedom which is necessary for its prosperity, and his readiness to abandon the system which had been forced upon him, whenever the enemy should retract the principles which had rendered it necessary; and to assure us that whenever the repeal of the French decrees shall have actually taken effect, and the commerce of the neutral nations shall have been restored to the condition in which it stood previously to the promulgation of those decrees, he will feel the highest satisfaction in relinquishing a system which the conduct of the enemy compelled him to adopt. Here is a promise equally solemn, (and as there is at least as much virtue in the British Government as there is in that of France,) as much to be relied on as that of the Duc de Cadore; and as certainly as the Berlin and Milan decrees were revoked, and would cease to have effect on the first of November, so certainly have we the same assurance that the orders of Great Britain would be rescinded. Shall we then believe the one and not the other? Shall we frown and look big at England, while, with timid and abject submission, we crouch at the feet of France, and quietly rivet the chains prepared for us? Mr. Speaker, the goddess of justice has been described as being blind, with sword in one hand, and the scale and balance in the other, but if she is invoked in this measure, she comes blind indeed, with a sword in one hand, but no balance in the other; in one hand is the emblem of war, in the other the badge of slavery.

If war with England must happen, let it be done openly and for ourselves; let us not commence the attack by practising on our own citizens; and let it not be said we have been caught in the snares of Bonaparte. Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose this bill because it professes to give some relief to those merchants whose vessels sailed before the date of the proclamation, and which may have departed from a British port, prior to the 2d of February, 1811, but, sir, because I wish to rid the country of this whole consumptive system; and, if that cannot be done, I will not aid in propping up the President's proclamation, by taking from the judiciary of the country the power of deciding on its validity, which is one of the avowed objects of this bill. I had rather trust to the opinion of the judges for entire relief to our citizens, from the operation of the law of May, 1810, than grant the partial exemption contemplated by this bill. The honorable gentleman (Mr. EPPES) who reported this bill, declares that its great object is to prevent questions arising in the courts, on the construction of the law of May, 1810, and the effect of the President's proclamation. This, to my understanding, is legislating retrospectively; it is ex post facto; and, like the Rambouillet decree, is not only prospective, but retroactive. It takes from our citizens the right of appealing to the courts of justice, and makes the fiat of the Executive the supreme law--a doctrine subversive of the first principles of republicanism, and strange to be advocated by gentlemen who came into power under the name of republicans.

It is in vain, Mr. Speaker, to seek for the justification of this measure from any thing France has done, or from the indications which she has given of her fixed course of policy. Her great object is the destruction of the commerce of the world; and she wishes to make us tributary to that end, and, if possible, to embroil us in a war with England.

The disposition of Bonaparte towards us rests not alone on his acts of aggression, rapine, and plunder; the imprisonment of our citizens, the burning and sequestration of our property. He has heaped upon this devoted country all the epithets which malice could suggest or tyranny dictate; he has exhausted the cup of bitterness, and made us drink the dregs of humiliation; he has declared his decrees should suffer no change, and that the Americans should take the positive character of allies or enemies. As long ago as the 15th of January, 1808, he issued a declaration of war for us against Great Britain; an unconditional surrender of your rights is demanded, or an obedience to his dictates. And are we not in the act of yielding obedience? Sir, the nation which pretends to dictate laws to another offers chains. With more than Christian charity do we seem to forget and forgive the indignities offered to our national character; and the unkind, the severest cut of all to the present Administration, contained in the letter of the Duc de Cadore to General Armstrong, of the 17th of February, 1810, in which we are told that His Majesty could place no reliance on the proceedings of the United States. We are advised to tear to pieces the act of our independence; declared to be more abject than the slaves of Jamaica; that we are men without honor, energy, or just political views; that we will be obliged to fight for interest, after having refused to fight for honor. Our present rulers are there contrasted with the brave and generous heroes of our Revolution, and they are declared to be fit for the yoke which had been thrown off by their ancestors. This letter had scarcely reached our shores, the ink was scarcely dry, it was fresh in our memories, when the letter of the 5th of August was received; which, like a Lethean draught, threw the shade of oblivion over our insults and our wrongs; we sipped the poison as it fell, and I fear it is fast spreading through the body politic.

Mr. Speaker, I turn with disgust from those polluted pages before me--this history of our wrongs, this tyrant's love--would to God they could be blotted from our memories; or, if remembered, let it be with abhorrence and detestation.

I deprecate the course of policy, if policy it may be termed, which is now about to be forced upon us. I protest against it as a measure injurious to ourselves; weak, temporizing, and partial in its operation on foreign nations; unauthorized by the actual state of things; and calculated to hasten the period of our union with the destinies of France.

Sir, unless we turn from this wayward course, this highway to ruin, the time cannot be very distant when your deserted ports, your uninhabited cities, your oppressed people, and even your firesides and your altars, will only exhibit the sad signs of what they were. And I fear, sir, the period is fast approaching when it will not again be said, "that we are a people with whom the fierce spirit of liberty is stronger than among any other people on earth; whose institutions inspire them with lofty sentiments; who do not judge of an ill principle only by an actual grievance; but who anticipate the evil, and judge of the pressure of the grievance by the badness of the principle; who snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze."

When Mr. P. had concluded, the House adjourned to six o'clock this evening.

Six o'clock, P. M.

The House was called to order, and resumed the unfinished business.

A motion was made by Mr. RANDOLPH to postpone the subject to Friday next, and lost--ayes 36, noes 36.

A motion was then made by Mr. R. to postpone it until to-morrow.

On this motion a debate, which from its nature caused irritation, took place, in which Messrs. RANDOLPH and EPPES were the principal speakers.

Much warmth was excited, and frequent calls to order made.

The question on postponement till to-morrow was decided by yeas and nays. For postponement, 44; against it, 74.