Part 164

As to respect abroad, what course can be more certain to insure it? What object more honorable, what more dignified than to behold a great nation pursuing wise ends by appropriate means; rising to adopt a series of systematic exertions, suited to her power, and adequate to her purposes? What object more consolatory to the friends--what more paralyzing to the enemies of our Union--than to behold the natural jealousies and rivalries, which are the acknowledged dangers of our political condition, subsiding or sacrificing? What sight more exhilarating than to see this great nation once more walking forth among the nations of the earth, under the protection of no foreign shield? Peaceful because powerful--powerful because united in interests, and amalgamated by concentration of those interests in the national affections.

But, let the opposite policy prevail; let the essential interests of the great component parts of this Union find no protection under the national arm--instead of safety let them realize oppression, and the seeds of discord and dissolution are inevitably sown in a soil the best fitted for their root, and affording the richest nourishment for their expansion. It may be a long time before they ripen. But, sooner or later, they will assuredly burst forth in all their destructive energies. In the intermediate period, what aspect does a Union, thus destitute of cement, present? Is it that of a nation keen to discern, and strong to resist, violations of its sovereignty? It has rather the appearance of a casual collection of semi-barbarous clans, with the forms of civilization, and with the rude and rending passions of the savage state. In truth, powerful--yet, as to any foreign effect, imbecile--rich, in the goods of fortune, yet wanting that inherent spirit without which a nation is poor indeed; their strength exhausted by struggles for local power; their moral sense debased by low intrigues for personal popularity, or temporary pre-eminence; all their thoughts turned not to the safety of the State, but to the elevation of a chieftain. A people presenting such an aspect, what have they to expect abroad? What but pillage, insult, and scorn?

The choice is before us. Persist in refusing efficient maritime protection; persist in the system of commercial restrictions; what now is, perhaps, anticipation, will hereafter be history.

Mr. FISK said that, when this subject was first presented to the House, he felt inclined to vote for a small increase of the Naval Establishment; but it now appears that, what is asked for is considered only as laying a foundation for a great system--a system which, he feared, if carried into execution, might change the Government.

Mr. F. contended that the Navy never had, and never could protect our commerce. Like standing armies, he considered navies as dangerous to liberty. As to the constitutional provision, with respect to a navy, it is nothing more than a mere grant of power, which Congress is at liberty to use or not, as they may deem it necessary or expedient.

Though he had listened with candor to all the arguments which had been used in favor of an increase of this Establishment at the present time, he was far from being convinced that such an increase, at present, is either necessary or expedient. It appeared to him that every nation which has embarked, to any extent, in Navy Establishments, has been eventually crushed by them. Whether you go back to ancient, or look upon modern Europe, you will find navies have not afforded that protection which gentlemen are desirous of persuading the House they are capable of affording. Has the navy of Russia protected her commerce? There are in the Russian dominions from twenty-five to thirty millions of people; but, by every account we have of them, their situation is not very enviable; nor have they any great degree of commerce to protect. Where are the navies of Sweden and Denmark? The latter, it is well known, were swept away and destroyed by the British fleet; and the fleet of Sweden serves only to keep the country in poverty to maintain it. A navy looks pretty well in theory; but look into the experience of nations, and it will be found to have been the bane of every country which has had any thing to do with it. We should want wisdom, therefore, to pursue a system which has proved so ruinous to others.

With respect to Great Britain herself, it had been said that her navy had been the basis of her wealth and prosperity. Mr. F. said he did not envy the situation of that country. The glory and honor which such nations are in the habit of acquiring, prove a curse to them in the end by enslaving them with expense.

As to the protection and encouragement of commerce, he believed commerce would always flourish best when left to itself unshackled by regulations. It will then be carried to every part of the globe. In the course of the debate, it had been said that the exports of Great Britain, in 1797, were not greater than ours before our commerce was restricted, though that nation had possessed a navy which had triumphed on the ocean for half a century. How did this happen? It was owing, said Mr. F., to the freedom of our commerce.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. QUINCY) had spoken of the naval force formerly possessed by Massachusetts. But, what security did those ships afford? They were of no use, as he believed; they were nothing but a heavy expense to the State; and he believed the merchants had found their commerce in a much better state since, than it was when they were in being.

Gentlemen speak of the embarrassments of our commerce, as if they were owing to our not having a navy; but, if they will look around, they will find that those countries which have navies have not escaped; our embarrassments have arisen from the wrongs committed against us by other nations, which we had no power of preventing.

It had been shown that the Navy Establishment proposed could not be supported but by an expense which would prove ruinous to this country. Rather than incur this expense, he was willing to dispense with the honor supposed to be attached to such an Establishment. Mr. F. was opposed to this system, too, because it could not be supported without having recourse to a force similar to impressment to obtain a number of seamen sufficient to man such a fleet. He was anxious to protect every part of the Union; but he could not consent to support any scheme so pregnant with mischief to the country, as he considered this large Navy Establishment to be.

The question on agreeing to strike out the section for building the frigates was carried--yeas 62, nays 59.

The next question was, on agreeing with the Committee of the Whole to fill the blank for providing ship timber and other imperishable materials, with the words two hundred thousand dollars, which was carried--yeas 82, nays 37.

Another question was on agreeing with the Committee of the Whole to make the above appropriation for three years, viz: for the years 1812, 1813, and 1814. This motion was carried--yeas 67, nays 52.

The next question was on agreeing with the Committee of the Whole to appropriate one hundred thousand dollars for providing a dock yard.

Mr. RHEA moved to strike out the section; but this motion being decided to be out of order, Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS spoke against the propriety of appropriating money, without estimate, for an object not wanted until we went about building seventy-fours. The House adjourned, on motion of Mr. SMILIE, without taking the question.

TUESDAY, January 28.

Naval Establishment.

The order of the day, viz: the bill concerning the Naval Establishment, was then taken up, and the question on agreeing to the report of the Committee of the Whole, to fill up the blank in the section providing a dock yard, with one hundred thousand dollars, being under consideration, Mr. CHEVES stated the grounds upon which the committee had recommended this provision of the bill, and replied to some remarks of his colleague (Mr. WILLIAMS) made yesterday.

Mr. RHEA then moved to strike out the whole section in relation to the dock yard; which, after some little debate, was carried--yeas 56, nays 52.

Mr. BLACKLEDGE moved a new section to the bill, providing for the building of four seventy-four gunships. As an inducement to the House to adopt this new section, he stated there were sufficient timber and guns on hand; that the whole expense would not exceed $1,300,000, and the guns and timber being already provided, an appropriation of $824,000 only, would be necessary to complete them.

The question was negatived--yeas 33, nays 76.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading to-morrow.

MONDAY, March 2.

Divorces in the District.

Mr. LEWIS, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, made the following report:

The Committee for the District of Columbia, to whom were referred the petitions of Jane Deakins, praying for a divorce from William Deakins, and of David Beck, praying for a divorce from Ellen, his wife, submit the following report:

The only object which the petitioners can have in view is to be enabled, respectively, to enter into new contracts of marriage. Were marriages only a civil institution, the courts of law would be open to all parties seeking the redress now prayed for, for alleged breach of the marriage contract: but it is something more; it is a divine ordinance, and has been pronounced such by the highest legal as well as spiritual authority. The competency of any human tribunal to dissolve its sacred obligations may well be doubted. The justice or policy, under any circumstances, of weakening the matrimonial institution, upon the purity of which depends the very fabric of society itself, may be boldly denied. Divorces are not merely the effect of corruption of manners; they are the cause also. They hold out temptations to crime which human infirmity cannot at all times resist. They hold out incentives to that adultery which they are called in to remedy. Extreme cases may indeed be put, but they are rare; both parties are generally in fault. Shall a very few individuals, who present themselves in a questionable shape, be debarred from contracting a second marriage, or shall the foundations of society be loosened for their special accommodation? Shall the heaviest public injury be encountered for the convenience of those, who, for the most part, have shown how little reliance is to be placed upon their virtue or discretion? Shall incentives to nuptial infidelity be presented to the great body of society for the personal gratification of a few unfortunate members, diffusing dissatisfaction and discontent, where, but for the deceitful hope of divorce, they had never been known?