against the trade of the United States, in entire disregard of the law of nations, and even of the definition of legal blockades, laid down by the British government itself. Examples of these illegitimate blockades will be found in the notifications of the blockade of May 16th, 1806, of the coast from the river Elbe to Brest inclusive-blockade of 11th May, 1807, expounded 19th June, 1807, of the Elbe, Weser, and Ems, and the coast between the same-blockade 11th May, 1807, of the Dardanelles and Smyrnablockade of 8th January, 1808, of Carthagena, Cadiz, and St. Lucar, and of all the intermediate ports between Carthagena and St. Lucar, comprehending a much greater extent of coast than the whole British navy could blockade, according to the established law of nations.

4th. To these injuries immediately authorized by the British government, might be added other spurious blockades by British naval commanders, particularly that of the\ island of Curracoa, which for a very considerable period, was made a pretext for very extensive spoliations on the commerce of the United States.

5th. The British proclamation of October last, which makes it the duty of the British officers to impress from American merchant vessels, all such of their crews as might be taken or mistaken for British subjects—those officers being the sole and absolute judges in the case.

For the decrees and acts of the French government, violating the maritime law of nations, in respect to the United States, the committee refer to the instances contained in the report of the secretary of state, January 25th, 1806, to the Senate, in one of which, viz. a decree of the French general Ferrand, at St. Domingo, are regulations sensibly affecting the neutral and commercial rights of the United States.

The French act next in order of time is the decree of November 21, 1806-declaring the British isles in a state of blockade, and professing to be a retaliation, on antecedent proceedings of Great Britain, violating the law of nations.

* VOL. IIT. 28

This decree was followed, first by the British order of January, 1807, professing to be a retaliation on that decree, and subjecting to capture the trade of the United States, from the port of one belligerent, to a port of another; and secondly, by the orders of November last, professing to be a further retaliation on the same decree, and prohibit ing the commerce of neutrals, with the enemies of Great Britain, as explained in the aforesaid letter of Mr. Erskine.

These last British orders again, have been followed by the French decree of December 17th, purporting to be a retaliation on the said orders, and to be put in force against the commerce of the United States, as stated in the aforesaid letter of M. Champagny.

The committee forbear to enter into a comparative view of those proceedings, of the different belligerent powers, deeming it sufficient to present the materials, from which it may be formed. They think it their duty, nevertheless, to offer the following remarks, suggested by a collective view of the whole.

The injury and dangers resulting to the commerce of the United States, from the cause and increase of these belligerent measures, and from similar ones adopted by other nations, were such as first to induce the more circumspect of our merchants and ship owners, no longer to commit their property to the high seas, and at length to impose on Congress the indispensable duty of interposing some legislative provision, for such an unexampled state of things.

Among other expedients out of which a choice was to be made, may be reckoned—

1st. A protection of commerce by ships of war.

2d. A protection of it by self armed vessels.

3d. A war of offence as well as of defence.

4th. A general suspension of foreign commerce.

5th. An embargo on our vessels, mariners and merchandise.

This last was adopted, and the policy of it was enforced,

at the particular moment, by accounts quickly after confirmed, of the British orders of November, and by the probability that these would be followed, as has also happened, by an invigorated spirit of retaliation, in other belligerent powers. The happy effect of the precaution is demonstrated by the well known fact, that the ports of Europe are crowded with captured vessels of the United States, unfortunately not within the reach of the precaution.

With respect to a protection of our commerce by ships of war, it must be obviously impracticable, in any material degree, without a lapse of time, and an expense which amounts to a prohibition of that resort; besides that it would necessarily involve hostile collisions with one or more of the belligerent powers.

Self armed merchantmen would have the same tendency, at the same time, that they would be utterly inadequate to a security against the multiplied fleets and cruisers to be encountered.

An entire suspension of foreign commerce, as the resort in the first instance, would evidently have produced some inconveniences, not incident to the embargo, as it was modified. But the committee do not suppress their opinion, that after a reasonable time, it may not improperly take the place of the embargo; in case of a protracted adherence of the belligerent powers, to their destructive proceedings against our neutral commerce,

With respect to a resort to war, as a remedy for the evils experienced, the committee will offer no other reflection, than that it is in itself so great an evil, that the United States have wisely considered peace and honest neutrality, as the best foundation of their general policy. It is not for the committee to say under what degree of aggravated injuries, and sufferings, a departure from this policy may become a duty; and the most pacifick nation find itself compelled to exchange for the calamities of war, the greater distresses of longer forbearance.

In the present state of things, the committee cannot recommend any departure from that policy which withholds

our commercial and agricultural property, from the licens ed depredations of the great maritime belligerent powers. They hope that an adherence to this policy will eventually secure to us the blessings of peace, without any sacrifice of our national rights; and they have no doubt that it will be supported by all the manly virtue, which the good people of the United States have ever discovered, on great and patriotic occasions. But the committee would suggest, on this subject, that better councils in the belligerent governments, producing a juster conduct towards neutral nations, would render a continuance of the embargo unnessary, and that it will be a provident measure to vest in the executive a power, in such an event, to suspend until the next session of Congress, wholly, or in part, the sevcral acts prohibiting the departure of our vessels for foreign ports.

Although the committee have abstained from entering into any particular comparison, of the proceedings of the French and British governments, towards the United States; they cannot reconcile with their duty, or with the just sensibility of the nation, not to advert to the tenour and language of the late communications, made by the respective organs of those governments.

In the letter of M. Champagny, the United States are not only threatened with confiscation, as the final destiny of American property, seized under French decrees, unless disposition shall be manifested by them against Great Britain, satisfactory to France, but they are even declared, without reserve of any sort, to be actually in a state of war against Great Britain.

In the letter of Mr. Erskine to the secretary of state, the United States are explicitly charged with justly subjecting their commerce to confiscations under the British orders, by not opposing an effectual resistance against the decrees of France; in other words, by not making war against that nation, in case no other interposition should be effectual.

There are in this exposition of the British orders, certain features, which claim particular attention; among the

regulations of which they consist, it is provided, that the commerce of the United States, bound from their own ports to its legal and ordinary markets, shall pass through British ports, shall there, in all cases, take their clearances from British officers, shall, in some cases, obtain special licenses, and in others, pay a direct and avowed tax; thus putting the U. States on a commercial footing, even worse than was allowed to British colonies-which were left free to carry their exports directly to foreign markets, in cases where an intermediate voyage to the parent country would be too oppressive. In the present case, not a single article is permitted to be sent from the United States to the most southern parts of Europe, without a previous voyage to Great Britain, and in some instances, not without purchasing even that privilege, without paying a tribute to the British treasury.

The committee have taken into consideration the documents relating to the attack on the frigate Chesapeake ; but they have not deemed it their duty, in the actual posture of that subject, to make any other remark, than that it strengthens the motives for persevering in all the provisional and precautionary measures hitherto contemplated.

MESSAGE

FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, TO BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS, AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE SECOND SESSION OF THE Tenth congress, Nov. 8, 1808.

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE U. STATES.

It would have been a source, fellow citizens, of much gratification, if our last communications from Europe had enabled me to inform you, that the belligerent nations, whose disregard of neutral rights has been so destructive to our commerce, had become awakened to the duty and true policy of revoking their unrighteous edicts. That no means might be omitted to produce this salutary effect, I