Part 18

Foreign Relations.

Mr. MACON said, already had many resolutions been submitted to the consideration of the House on the subject of our foreign relations, and the embargo; some for a total and some for a partial repeal of it. As none of the motions had met his entire approbation, and as he considered this as one of the most important questions that could come before the House, he wished to submit to the House two or three propositions; which he wished to take a course different from that which had been given to the others on the same subject.

I have been astonished (said Mr. M.) to see so many resolutions on the subject of the embargo, and none contemplating its entire continuance. Is the American nation ready to bow the neck? Are we ready to submit to be taxed by Great Britain and France, as if we were their colonies? Where is that spirit which for this reason separated us from the nations of Europe? Where is that spirit which enforced a simple resolution of the old Congress, not then binding upon the people, as a law from Heaven? Is it extinct? Is it lost to this nation? Has the love of gain superseded every other motive in the breasts of Americans? Shall the majority govern, or shall a few wicked and abandoned men drive this nation from the ground it has taken? Is it come to this, that a law constitutionally enacted, even after a formal decision in favor of its constitutionality, cannot be enforced? Shall the nation give way to an opposition of a few, and those the most profligate part of the community? I think the stand we took last year was a proper one; and I am for taking every measure for enabling the nation to maintain it. Just as our measure is beginning to operate, just as provisions are becoming scarce in the West Indies and elsewhere, notwithstanding the evasions of our law, we are called upon to repeal it. I should not have made this motion at this time, had it not been for the petition just presented. When I stand here, sir, charged by a part of the community with being one of "the enemies of the people," notwithstanding I am willing to commit the petition, treating it with that respect which I conceive to be due from us to the prayer of any portion of the people, I wish my sentiments on this subject to be seen.

A proclamation has been issued by one of the belligerents since the passage of our embargo law, sir. Look at it. What says it? Clearance or no clearance, we will receive any neutral vessel into our ports; and, in speaking of neutrals, recollect that there is no nation in the civilized world that has a claim to the title, except ourselves. This proclamation then tells our citizens, "Evade the laws of your country, and we will receive and protect you." This is the plain English of it.

If the mad powers of Europe had entered into compact to injure us as much as they could, they could not have taken a more direct course to it. I consider them both alike, and the measures I would take would place them both on the same footing. I have made my resolutions as general as possible, to give all latitude to the committee.

Mr. M. then read his resolutions as follows:

"Resolved, That the committee appointed on that part of the President's Message which relates to our foreign relations, be instructed to inquire into the expediency of excluding by law from the ports, harbors, and waters of the United States, all armed ships and vessels belonging to any of the belligerent powers having in force orders or decrees violating the lawful commerce of the United States as a nation.

"Resolved, That the same committee be instructed to inquire into the expediency of prohibiting by law the admission into the ports, harbors, and waters of the United States, any ship or vessel belonging to or coming from any place in the possession of any of the above-mentioned powers, and also the importation of any goods, wares, and merchandise, the growth, produce and manufacture of the dominions of any of the said powers.

"Resolved, That the same committee be instructed to inquire into the expediency of amending the act laying an embargo, and the several acts supplementary and additional thereto."

On the subject of the first of these resolutions (said Mr. M.) it might be proper to interdict the entrance of all armed vessels, although I have confined the interdiction to the belligerents. A certain time might be fixed on which the second should go into operation.

I have thought proper, sir, to bring forward all these resolutions together to show my own opinion on what ought to be done. It is time for those who think the embargo a lawful and proper measure, to come forward and declare it. No other person having as yet thought proper to do it, I have now done it. I believe the embargo was right; that it was right to pass laws to enforce it; and believing this, I feel no hesitation in avowing it. Time has been when the impressment of our seamen was cried out against by a large majority of Congress. Now the cry is, that we will not let them go out and be taken. For if they go out they must be taken. Neither of the two great powers of Europe have shown the least disposition to relax their measures; neither I hope shall we. I believe we have but three alternatives--war, embargo, or submission. The last I discard; this nation never would submit; nor are there many people in it that would. That is out of the question; then, the only question is, whether in the present state of the world, the embargo or war is the best for us? Arm your merchantmen, as has been proposed, send them out, and you have war directly? If we are to have war, I should rather have it openly, and let the nation know that we mean it. I am for the embargo yet. I am told flour is from thirty to fifty dollars a barrel in the West Indies; I am also told that wheat is fourteen shillings sterling a bushel in England. This must have an effect, if adhered to, through Spain and Portugal. France, if she carries her armies into that country, cannot support them. Nor can Spain support her own armies, and at the same time those Great Britain sends there; for where war is waged, almost all agriculture is destroyed; and it only requires firmness in us to force them both by this measure to acknowledge our rights. If I am mistaken in my opinion, I wish that measure to be adopted which may best maintain our rights and independence.

It is not the embargo which causes the pressure on the people. No, sir, it is the orders and decrees of England and France. Take a license from England, and you may trade, but on no other terms. Let an officer of the British fleet visit your vessel, and France will condemn it. These are the things which destroy commerce. The country in which I live feels the measure as much as any; there are agriculturists, and their crops remain unsold; and if they will do without the principal, and resist imposition by withholding their produce, those who make a profit by the freight of our produce, may afford to lose that profit. Can any man tell what would be the consequence of war, in these times? In common war some regard is had to the laws of nations by belligerents, and they fight each other. In the present war the belligerents disregard the laws of nations, and fight every one but one another.

Mr. QUINCY said he wished the last resolution to be separated from the first, as the House would be committed by its adoption. Not that he wished to avoid a discussion of that subject, for he wished for nothing so much as that the House would permit them to go into a discussion of the subject in Committee of the Whole. [Mr. MACON consented that the last resolution should lie on the table.] Mr. Q. said he wished to press a discussion on the subject of the embargo; for such was the state of public opinion in the Northern part of the Union, that but one general sentiment prevailed, that the embargo would be immediately raised. Instead of postponing the subject from day to day, he only wished it to come before the House that gentlemen might understand one other, and put an end to the doubts that now existed.

The first and second resolutions offered by Mr. MACON were agreed to without a division. The third was ordered to lie on the table--yeas 78.

FRIDAY, November 18.

Territorial Governments.--Ordinance of 1787.

On motion of Mr. POINDEXTER, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill concerning Territorial Governments.

The bill having been read--

Mr. BIBB said, that if the House were now called upon for the first time to pass an ordinance for the government of the Territories of the United States, he should attach very little importance to the decision of the present question. But he considered it not now an abstract question of expediency, but as one of great moment, from the circumstances with which it was connected. He denied the right of the House to pass the bill; and if they had not the right, it was surely unnecessary to argue the question on the ground of policy. It would be recollected that the Mississippi Territory was formerly the property of the State of Georgia, and ceded by that State to the United States on certain conditions, one of which was that the ordinance for the government of the Territory Northwest of the Ohio should be the basis of the government of the Mississippi Territory. If this, said he, be one of the conditions of a compact between the United States and Georgia, surely the United States have no right to infringe it without the consent of Georgia; and I, as one of her Representatives, formally protest against the passage of this bill. It may be said that Georgia is very little interested in the abstract question, whether the Governor should or should not have the power of prorogation; but, if a right exists to alter one part of the ordinance without the consent of Georgia, it certainly implies a power to alter it in every part.

Mr. POINDEXTER said he would state the reasons for which he had introduced the bill, and which would, he hoped, insure it the sanction of the committee. I will, in the first place, said Mr. P., advert to that part of the ordinance which is proposed to be amended by the bill under consideration. In the ordinance for the government of the Northwestern Territory will be found this article: "The Governor shall have power to prorogue and dissolve the General Assembly, when, in his opinion, it shall be expedient." The bill proposes to take away this power, as being arbitrary and oppressive in the extreme, and incompatible with the Constitution of the United States. This ordinance was passed previous to the adoption of the Federal Constitution, and if it had been the subject of consideration subsequent to its adoption, this provision had never been inserted, giving to Governors of Territories a power paramount to any power possessed by the President of the United States. Take away this power and a Governor will still have left the power of negativing all acts, so that none can pass without his assent; and, being the agent of the General Government, he would give consent to no law incompatible with the interests of the United States.

It has been said that the ordinance cannot be altered without the common consent of the parties to it, and that the State of Georgia must be called upon to give its assent before the Congress can alter it. There are two parts of this ordinance; the first contains the form of government, and the second several articles of compact which are declared unalterable but with common consent. After reciting the form of government, the ordinance says:

"The following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States and the people of the States in the said Territory, and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent, to wit."

The Constitution of the United States says that Congress shall "have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States." Can an agreement arising from the exercise of this power, supersede the right of exercising the power expressly delegated by the constitution itself? Certainly not.

On the ground of policy I presume that there is no gentleman who will contend that the power of which I wish to deprive the Governors, ought to be retained. The gentleman from Georgia himself says, that if he were about to frame an original ordinance, he would not think of such a power. As the opinion of Judge Tucker has been referred to on one subject, I will refer to it on the subject of prerogative. Let it be recollected, that the power to prorogue and dissolve is one of the highest prerogatives of the King of England: that it crept into the governments of his colonies, and thence into this ordinance, previous to the adoption of the constitution. It now remains for the United States to say, whether they will copy after Great Britain, and because it is a high prerogative, give the Governors of the Territories of the United States the same powers as she gives to her Territorial Governors. I trust it will be expunged.

"The title 'prerogative,' it is presumed, was annihilated in America with the Kingly Government." "This definition (of prerogative) is enough to make a citizen of the United States shudder at the recollection that he was born under a government in which such doctrines were received as catholic," &c.

This is the opinion of Judge Tucker. Is not this sufficient to induce us to take away from Governors this prerogative? Is not this feature modelled after the feature in the Government of England? Certainly; and that it is transferred from her Colonial Government, I can show by the present ordinance for the government of Canada, [to which Mr. P. referred.] It is the same principle, and we have copied it.

I will not object to retain this power, if any gentleman can show any advantage to be gained by it. I will suppose an extreme case; that any of the Territories designed to commit treason, and the Legislature were to pass an act giving it their sanction; (and they have shown less treasonable disposition than some of the elder States, if we may judge from occurrences of a few years past)--could not the Governor put his negative on this law? There could be no such law without his consent. It is therefore entirely unnecessary, in any possible case, to give the Governor the arbitrary power of dissolving the Legislature.

There is a special reason which has operated upon my mind as forcibly as the general reason in favor of the bill on the table. In the Territory which I have the honor to represent, we have been nearly twelve months without any Legislature. The Governor thought proper to dissolve the Assembly without any reason given, for the ordinance does not bind him to assign reasons for his acts. Within a few days, a new Council has been chosen, which may again be dissolved as soon as it meets, and the Territory again left without a Legislature, and no reason assigned for the procedure. Is it possible that this Government will sanction such arbitrary practices? If it does, it will be the first case since the Revolution in which such a procedure has been sanctioned. I beg leave to refer gentlemen to the glorious year 1776. I beg them to revert to that instrument, in which all the sins of our political father, George III., were delineated, and they will find that one of the charges against him was that he permitted his Governors to dissolve the Legislatures from time to time. Are we prepared to ingraft these arbitrary principles into our constitution, and cherish them when practised in so arbitrary a manner? Instead of this ordinance being passed with deliberation, it must have passed originally sub silentio, and been adopted for all the new Territories without any discussion at all; for, if the principle had been investigated, it would never have been enacted into a law. In the Declaration of Independence it is stated that "he (George III.) has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people." Here we see that, at that day, we complained of the arbitrary exercise of power, and I hope that, at this day, we shall give it a death-blow. If any gentleman wishes to retain it, let him show a single possible case in which it can properly be exercised--never, but to gratify the ambition or caprice of an individual. The people elect Representatives and send them to legislate; if they do not please the Governor, he can say, "gentlemen, go to your homes--I dissolve you." Can there be any necessity for this? But I will not detain the House longer, except to express a hope that the committee will not rise, unless it be to report the bill.