Part 261

HUBBARD, JONATHAN H., Representative from Vermont, 124, 187, 316.

HUFTY, JACOB, Representative from New Jersey, 124, 187, 315, 424, 577.

HUMPHREYS, REUBEN, Representative from New York, 36.

HUNGERFORD, JOHN P., Representative from Virginia, 424; declared not entitled to a seat, 432.

HUNTINGTON, EBENEZER, Representative from Connecticut, 315.

HUNTER, WILLIAM, Senator from Rhode Island, 400, 570.

HYNEMAN, JOHN M., Representative from Pennsylvania, 424, 577.

ILSLEY DANIEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 36.

Impeachment.--See Index, vol. 3.

Importation of Slaves.--See Index, vol. 3.

Imports.--See Duties on Imports.

Imprisonment for Debt.--See Index, vol. 2.

Inaugural Address of James Madison, on commencing his second term as President, 575.

Indemnity for Spoliations. See Index, vol. 1., Great Britain.

Indiana Territory.--Committee appointed to consider the expediency of dividing, 87; report of committee relative to a division of, 96.

Indian Affairs.--In the House, a resolution offered to extend the laws of the United States over all white persons residing on Indian lands within the United States in which the title is not extinguished, 428; Indian countries have become an asylum for persons guilty of every enormity, 428; do not the laws of the United States at present extend to cases of this kind, 428; a recent case in Georgia, 428; some defects in the present law by which petty officers escape, 428; laid on the table, 428.

Indian lands within a State, rights over.--See Index, vol. 1.

Indian Trading Houses.--See Index, vol. 1.

INGERSOLL, JARED, voted for as Vice President in 1812, 574.

Inoculation of the Army, petition relative to, 709.

Intercourse, Commercial.--In the House, bill from the Committee of Foreign Relations considered, 352; the bill, 353; exempts all vessels, owned wholly or in part by American citizens, and merchandise, from seizure or forfeiture, which have left British ports prior to February 2d, 1811, 353; moved to amend so as to exempt all vessels and merchandise, 353; the amendment will at once give a clear deck, 353; the law of May last, authorized the President to proclaim the fact, if either France or Great Britain revoked her edicts, and non-intercourse should ensue with the other, 353; France revoked her edicts; Britain did not, and non-intercourse is in force with her, 353; this fact doubted, and should be inquired into, 353; the bills to lay additional duties, and to authorize a loan, furnish additional reasons for this bill, 353; if the non-intercourse has not gone into effect, new taxes and loans are not needed, 353; proceedings of the Executive relative to Great Britain, 353; the President has acted differently under two laws, which ought to have the same practical construction, 354; is it said, the President had no knowledge of the blockading orders of May, or that it was avowed to be comprehended in the Orders in Council? 354; as to France, what are the edicts revoked, and how? 354; the Rambouillet decree, 354; it purports to be an act of reprisal on this country, 354; what ought to have been the feelings of the Administration and of the country, in relation to this measure? 355; this is taking property under false pretences, in its nature, 355; another view of this decree, 355; another mistake of this Government, 355; the practical operation of our law, 355; apologists of the Emperor point to the act of 1st June, 355; object in view in this examination of the decree of Rambouillet, 356; threats and insults of the French Emperor, 356; have these decrees been so revoked or modified as to cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States? 356; these decrees have two distinct operations, 356; the seizure of our property, and its sale, 356; if there has been any modification, it only prevents future seizures, leaving the property already seized to take the course of confiscation and sale, 356; has there been such a revocation of the Berlin and Milan decrees, as warranted the proclamation? 357; it was not credited that it could be issued on the letter of the Duke of Cadore, 357; what is the understanding of the French courts and officers on the subject? 357; the revocation, if any, was a future one, 357; it was also conditional, 357; puzzling to determine whether it was a condition precedent or subsequent, 358; the conditions on the part of England, 358; conditions on the part of France, 358; conditions on the part of this country, 358; the right of not being vexed or endangered by paper blockades, respected, 358; the flag is to protect the property, and search is not to be permitted, 359; how are we to cause those rights to be respected? 359; are we prepared for those conditions? 359; it may be said, that the letter of the Duke of Cadore, if not itself a decree, is evidence of a rescinding decree, 359; the letter of Mr. Russell, 359; moved to strike out the whole of the bill, 360; it is a new duty for Representatives to present under a suspicious aspect, either the motives or the acts of the Executive branch of their Government, 360; in no nation, ancient or modern, was such a thing seen, unless in the last stages of corruption, 360; the whole fact should have been stated in regard to the letter of the Duc de Cadore, and the answer of General Armstrong, 360; why is the President's proclamation disapproved? 360; the letter of Mr. Erskine was not a repeal of the British orders, 360; no difference in the ground taken by the Executive, except that one arrangement was with Great Britain, and the other with France, 360; shown from the correspondence, that the President did not, under the act of the last session, require the revocation by Great Britain, of any blockade, except that of May, 1806; and that blockade must have been included in the demand under the act of last session, 361; extract from the Message of the President, 361; declaration of our Secretary to General Armstrong, 361; declaration of General Armstrong and the Duc de Cadore, 361; statement of Lord Wellesley, 361; do. 361; thus the demand was confined to the blockade of 1806, 362; was this blockade such a violation of the neutral rights of the United States, as to come decidedly within the act of last session? 362; this blockade presents three distinct characters, 362; 1st. It obstructs a trade from one port to another, of the same enemy; 2d. It obstructs trade from the port of one enemy to the port of another; 3d. It obstructs trade of neutrals from their own country to any part of the coast from the Elbe to Brest, 362; it is in violation of the principles contended for by every Administration under the American Government, 362; letters of Mr. King and Mr. Marshall, 362; some observations on the bill before the House, 363; the construction put on the non-intercourse law is perfectly within its object, 363; further explanation of the law, 363; views of the committee, 363; unwillingness to imply by any vote, a recognition of the efficacy of the non-intercourse law, which could not have an operative force until May, is a motive to sustain the amendment, 364; truth of the position as to the operation of the law, demonstrable, 364; not answer to argue from the intention of the legislature, 364; the words of the act are explicit, and the meaning plain, 364; pledge contained in the act relative to commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, 364; explanation of this pledge, 364; the same proposition was presented to both the latter nations, 365; if either would revoke its edicts, no goods or wares of the other, should, three months thereafter, be imported into the United States, 365; France did so revoke her edicts, 365; this amendment proposes to repeal the non-intercourse act, excluding the merchandise of Great Britain, although France has so repealed her edicts, and Great Britain has not, 365; this is a direct breach of faith, 365; the excuse is, that the President had no right to issue his proclamation, and that the assurances of France were deceptive, 365; the President is expressly instructed by the non-intercourse act to make the proclamation, 365; as well might the legitimacy of a treaty be questioned after it had been ratified, 365; how could the President act a different part upon the evidence in the case? 365; if this diplomatic evidence is not to be received, an end is put to all diplomatic intercourse, 365; if Great Britain had made the like communication, and the President had taken the like course, what would have been said by these gentlemen? 365; they approve the proclamation in the case of Great Britain, but denounce a similar proposition in the case of France, 366; it is said, the non-intercourse act is not in force; whence do gentlemen derive the power to declare an act of Congress not in force? 366; the revoked decrees of France are considered by some as more obnoxious than the British Orders in Council, 366; who can be an apologist of France or England, when each has charged the other with the first aggressions on our commerce? 366; while Great Britain finds some able advocates in this House, she will find no necessity to redress our wrongs, 366.

In viewing the course which has been adopted this session, it is surprising that the present measure should be called up for adoption, 367; it is now evident that the President was duped by the French Emperor, and led to issue his proclamation, 367; what has occurred to alter the face of affairs, to induce this new attempt to fasten on the restrictive system against our intercourse with Great Britain? 367; the last communication from the President furnishes the most conclusive evidence of the treachery of Bonaparte, 367; how has the President's proclamation been verified? 368; the remonstrance of Mr. Russell remains unanswered, and the New Orleans packet remains under seizure to this day, 368; after thirteen days a partial suspension of the decrees was ordered, 368; a suspension not as to sequestration, but as to condemnation, 368; with this statement before their eyes, will gentlemen assert that the decrees were revoked? 368; are we bound by any faithful performance had on the part of France? 368; have either France or Great Britain complied with the condition? 369; must this sacrifice be made in order to bolster up the President's proclamation so prematurely issued? 369; is this an honest neutrality to revive the restrictive system against Great Britain, while the French decrees are still in force? 369; the present measure is intended as a propitiatory sacrifice to conciliate Napoleon, 369; is it calculated to produce this effect? 369; a view of the course which has been pursued can answer, 369; the amendments contemplate the continuance and enforcement of the non-intercourse law, 370; after long delay the Administration has condescended to develop their policy, 370; the proposition contained in these amendments has relation to the most momentous and most elevated of our legislative obligations, 371; the nature and effects of this commercial restrictive system are no longer matter of speculation, 371; only a word on its nature necessary, 371; the system contained in the law of May, 1810, and March, 1809, is injurious, is not fiscal in its nature, nor protective of manufactures, nor competent to coerce either belligerent, 371; who was ever the friend of non-intercourse? 371; it was agreed upon because the majority could agree upon nothing else, 372; the system should therefore be abandoned, 372; its advocates say we cannot abandon it, for our faith is plighted, 372; is any such faith plighted? if so, whence did it arise? 372; under the act of May, 1810, 372; what is its character and the obligations arising under it? 372; the obligations arise under a certain section, 373; divested of technical expression, it provides that a new commercial condition shall result on the occurrence of a certain fact, which fact the President shall declare, 373; the terms our act proposed was the modification or revocation of certain edicts; the effect to be produced was that this revocation or modification should be such as that these edicts should "cease to violate our neutral commerce," 373; has the act been done, and in such a manner as to amount to an honorable fulfilment or acceptance of our terms? 373; the occurrence of the fact of revocation involves the propriety of the proclamation, 373; has the fact occurred? 373; this point examined with regard to France, 374; letter of the Duc de Cadore examined, 374; point of honor to be saved to France, 376; how was Great Britain to accede to the terms? 376; the declaration on the part of France further examined, 376; the fact must be done and the effect produced, but the terms of that act must be excepted, 376; the proffer we made was only to revive the non-intercourse law against the contumacious belligerent, after three months from the date of the proclamation, 376; what the French mean, 376; our efficient concurrence in Bonaparte's plan of policy, 376; is it possible to point out any variation in the policy of France to this country before and since this letter? 377; the true nature of this Cadore policy is to be discovered in the character of Bonaparte, 377; it is impossible to reason with those who deny that the decrees now exist, 377; the act now proposed is required by no obligation, 377; the present is the most favorable moment for the abandonment of these restrictions, 377; the edicts of the President are far more detestable to the merchants than those of France or George III., 377; it is time to take our own rights into our own keeping, 378; why not give the same credence to the letters of the Duke of Massa and the Duc de Gaete, as would be given to a letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain? 378; about to shut up the only avenue to our commercial hope, it is said, 378; this point examined, 378; extracts of letters from Liverpool, 378; one gentleman willing to surrender the carrying trade to Great Britain, 378; three classes of your citizens to be provided for as contemplated in the provisions of this bill, 379; first, sequestrations in France, Spain, Italy, &c.; second, those who have sailed to France under the faith of the Duke of Cadore's letter; third, importers of British manufactures, 379; it is to be hoped the time is not far distant when we shall assert and defend our rights, 379; are we prepared, after having been insulted, robbed and deceived by the French Emperor, to follow the example of petty servile states, and throw this people into the embraces of that monster? 379; principal object of the amendment to renew the non-intercourse of 1809, so far as respects Great Britain, 379; the amendment to suspend the whole restrictive system should be adopted, 379; this amendment changes the position recommended by the Executive, but not much more than the bill with the amendment under consideration, 379; this bill would have been scouted as the production of a madman previous to the reign of Bonaparte, 380; we have conclusive evidence that the edicts are not so revoked that their operation ceased on that day, 380; how are we to cause our rights to be respected? 380; further debate respecting the operation of the decrees, 381; examination of the non-intercourse system from the date of the law of March, 1809, to inquire what its professed object is, 381; it is thus demonstrated that if we suffer this system to go into operation, we are not only again to reduce our citizens to a state of bankruptcy in their private fortunes, but our Treasury is likewise to be more completely bankrupt, 382; what has been the further effect of this law? 382; history of its results, 383; further remarks, 383; correspondence examined, 384; will the servile manner in which the rescinding the blockade is coupled as a condition with the withdrawing the Orders in Council, escape notice? 385; what American can read this correspondence without laying his hand upon his heart and exclaiming O, my Government, my Government, now is the gold become dim, &c., 385; after seeing how the law of May, 1810, has been used with the French Government, until it had assumed the character of a threat, together with the various changes of position taken by our Government, it demonstrates a management which will not leave much doubt whether it be indispensable to suffer this law to go into effect as a measure of resistance against England, or good faith to France, 385; the proclamation was issued when there was no official information of the repeal of the decrees, 385; the faith of the nation is not pledged by the law of 1810, 386; it may even be admitted that this law has all the binding force of treaties, 387; before France can claim a fulfilment of any such promise, she should not only revoke her injurious acts, but it should be done fairly and honestly, and without at the same time adopting other measures equally injurious, 387; is this that fair and honest repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees? is this that bona fide performance of the condition? 387; it is an attempt to gull and deceive us by an artful, intriguing policy, 387; this is the favorite moment to erase the restrictive system from your statute books, 387; the consequences of its continuance examined, 387; it becomes this Government, in all our concerns with the belligerents of Europe, to manifest to both a fair, impartial and equal conduct, 388; has such a spirit characterized the proceedings of our Government? 388; has a similar temper and disposition been shown to Great Britain as to France, in the interpretation of the Cadore letter? 388; this part of the case will not well bear scrutiny, 389; the bill on the table is calculated much more to put in jeopardy the neutral character of our Government, 389; the principle of the act of May was just and equal, 389; the most copious source of error is found in the extent of the Berlin and Milan decrees, 389; had France proved faithful to her engagements, the United States would at this moment have had a prosperous commerce with Europe, 390; why shall we at this moment make this marked distinction between France and England? 390; the great question is, does the fact upon which the proclamation was alone to issue, and on which its legitimacy solely depends, exist, or does it not exist? 391; the very doubt ought to decide the question, 391; such is the case that we are enabled to prove a negative, 391; the letter of the Duc de Cadore examined, 391; the case further examined, 392; the purity of the source whence our arguments come has been questioned, 393; the order of May, 1806, has scarcely a single feature of a regular blockade, 394; notice of the arrangement with Mr. Erskine, 395; if the Berlin and Milan decrees had been actually repealed, what would we have gained? 395; there can be no importation of American productions into France, but on terms utterly inadmissible, 395; it is vain to seek for the justification of this measure from any thing France has done, 396; the disposition of Bonaparte towards us rests not alone on his acts of aggression, rapine and plunder, 396; motion to postpone lost, 397; it was contended that the Emperor of France had not fulfilled his engagement, 397; amendment offered, 397; lost, 397; further debate, 397; previous question moved, 397; carried, 397; adjournment moved, 397; lost, 397; bill passed, 398; the bill, 398.

Intercourse Foreign.--Message from the President relative to the execution of the act of 1806, appropriating two million dollars for defraying any extraordinary expenses attending our foreign intercourse, 26.

Intercourse Non.--In Senate, bill to interdict commercial intercourse, &c., read the third time, 28; the effect of the measure must be war with Great Britain, it is stated, 28; what excuse is there for leaving the country in such a defenceless state? 28; what are our preparations? 28; what is the state of the treasury? 28; what plans are offered for replenishing it? 29; if we are to have war, with whom is it to be prosecuted? 29; under these circumstances what is the course that policy would dictate to this country to pursue? 29; consequences of non-intercourse under such circumstances, 30; who has been the first aggressor? 30; bill passed, 31.

In the House.--Resolution previously referred, 106; nature of the bill reported, 106; whole subject of embargo and non-intercourse should be incorporated in one bill, 106; referred to committee on foreign relations, with instructions to bring in a bill, 107; the whole to present a general system, 107.

Bill for interdicting commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain considered, 107; moved to strike out the first section in order to try the principle of the bill, 107; impossibility of carrying the system into effect, 107; rather than accept this system it would be better to remain under the embargo, 107; the idea of the efficacy of this system examined, 107; for the future the remedy is--to follow nature, 108; she dictates the removal of all obstructions, 108; the removal of the embargo would give an opportunity for negotiations, 108; also show the effect of the orders and decrees, if these were not injurious no further steps would be necessary, 108; legal opposition to the embargo laws in Massachusetts, 108; when did the violation of our rights commence? 108; so long ago no time could be fixed, 108; the hot-bed politicians stirred up the people of New England, 108; if we cannot get war, or a continuance of the embargo, non-intercourse should be carried into effect, 108; England will treat before going to war, 109; when the embargo shall cease, war will be the only honorable course, if reparation is not made, 109; the embargo as a precautionary and coercive measure, 110; when the injuries were committed resistance or submission was our only course, 110; time to change our measures and place our future reliance in Providence and the energies and valor of the citizens, 110; this bill is conducive to the interests of the country, 110; it maintains our attitude and continues our solemn protest, 110; it reserves the great question to be decided at the next Congress, 110; objections to the bill considered, 111; question on striking out first section lost, 111; the embargo should be adhered to, until a majority of the people prefer war, 112; there is no middle course, 112; the great object of the United States in her foreign relations is to maintain honorable peace, 112; reason for resorting to the embargo, 112; objects for which it has been pursued, 112; why should they now be abandoned? 112; now is the most critical period for the effect of the embargo, 112; views of Great Britain, 113; what will be the inference drawn from adopting this measure? 113; firmness peculiarly requisite at this time, 113; motion to strike out lost, 114.

In the Senate.--Amendment to the act offered, purporting to extend it to all public armed vessels until modified by treaty, 118; a necessity to consider the subject arises from the limitation of certain sections of the act, 119; this extension should have been made at the last session, 119; it is merely a municipal proposition, 119; overtures of the British cabinet, 119; motive of resisting the aggression of France, 119; reasons why modifications should be made by treaty, 119; Great Britain cannot complain, 119; extract from Canning's speech, 120; two conclusions deduced, 120; the principle contended for not new, 120; report on the amendment, 122.

In the House.--Resolution to suspend the non-intercourse act offered, 127; bill from the Senate to revive and amend certain parts of the act relative to non-intercourse considered, 152; what led to the exclusion of British vessels? the attack on the Chesapeake, 152; shall the measure of hostility be continued after the cause has been done away, 152; the interdiction of the act was founded on the violation of our rights by the belligerents, 153; the hostility ceased when the act was passed, 153; it was not the act, 153; upon the passage of this bill may depend the destinies of this country, 153; the question is what regulation shall be made respecting public ships, 154; shall we exclude both--admit both, or discriminate? 154; England has made reparation, 154; the ground we have taken in respect to France and England reviewed, 154; the system proposed is one of impartiality to the belligerent powers of Europe, 155; why were French armed ships excluded? 155; it was considered a measure favoring Great Britain, 155; do away every possible justification that can be urged by France for not meeting our overtures for peace, 155; if you wish to gain the advantage of union at home, take away every pretext for the violation of your rights, 155; did not this bill place the two belligerents on equal footing? 156; state of the continent, 156; it is said, we should not discriminate, for France has no public armed vessels, 156; it is not consistent with our honor and dignity to admit French ships within our waters, 157; if we are at peace with Great Britain are they entitled to all the rights of hospitality one nation can show to another? 157; this bill is a concession to Great Britain and is not a hostility to France, 157; what injuries has France done? 157; if you discriminate under the same circumstances you jeopardize the peace of the country, 157; what has Britain done which would require a discrimination as to her public vessels? 158; the bill should be passed in its present form, any material alteration will cause it to be lost, and thus will end all that has taken place between this country and Great Britain, 158; purport of the amendment proposed, 158; admission of English and exclusion of French ships, 159; cause of the interdict of British vessels, 159; there has been no satisfactory adjustment of our difficulties with Great Britain, 159; proceedings adopted to obtain a direct question on the first amendment, 159; a precedent furnished, 159; moved to exclude both French and English vessels, 159; lost, 159; amendment moved that penalties and forfeitures incurred should be recoverable after the act had expired, 160.