MARCH, 1806. Non-Importation of Goods from Great Britain. her Courts of Admiralty, under pretence that a trade not permitted to neutrals in time of peace ought not to be allowed in time of war. It is to be apprehended that the new regulations imposed by Great Britain are only an ostensible cause for capturing the merchant ships and vessels of the United States, and that there is another cause, proceeding from her policy, of more remote consequence. That cause may be the suppression of the commerce of the United States, or at least to reduce it to a complete dependence on her own commerce. This opinion will appear to be not without reason, if a retrospective view is taken of the policy, the conduct, and persevering industry of Great Britain to destroy the commerce of European Powers. H. OF R. is declared in the resolution of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, now under consideration. The measure which ought to be adopted should be effectual and within the power of the United States. Mr. R. said, he was not particularly attached to that resolution, his desire was, that some regulation might be made that would be commensurate to the object. Every nation has a right to determine whether it will or will not import merchandise from any other nation. If it determine not to import, and did not import, that is not a just cause, nor ought to be any cause of offence to the other nation. It was not his desire that the United States should give cause of offence to, or commence hostilities, or be at war with any nation. He was firmly determined not to surrender any right, which, in his opinion, did belong to the people of the United States. When the maritime power of Great Britain is contemplated, it may be inquired, what can the United States do to prevent the prostration of their commerce? Mr. R. said he was not sufficiently conversant in the commercial history of The United States import annually from Great Great Britain to know, what quantities of mer- Britain merchandise to the amount of more than chandise either Holland, Spain, or France, annu- thirty millions of dollars from the dominions of ally imported from Great Britain, or what quan- Great Britain. The vending so great a quantity tities of merchandise Great Britain exported to of merchandise to the United States is an object either of those nations, directly or indirectly; but of the first magnitude to Great Britain, and which he was induced to believe, that neither of those she would at any time, particularly at the present, nations, for that cause, had such strong hold on be very reluctant to lose. If adequate commerGreat Britain, to induce her to keep in peace, as cial regulations be adopted, there is reason to bethe United States have. That Great Britain had lieve that Great Britain will be induced, for the not such interested inducements to preserve peace preservation of her own interest, to make friendly with either of those nations, as she had to pre-arrangements, will remove all existing differences, serve peace with the United States. Each of and do justice to the United States, in their comthose nations was a near neighbor to Great Brit-mercial concerns, agreeably to the existing, known, ain; the United States are west of the Atlantic ocean. Neither of those nations imported annually such great quantities of merchandise from Great Britain and her dominions as the United States do; it is questionable whether any other nation ever did. Great Britain has commenced her career of injuring the commerce of the United States, not by direct warfare, but by a mode of restraint and spoliation, as efficient in event, if persisted in and suffered. There is reason to believe that these restraining regulations are put in force as a matter of experiment, and if it is perceived that they are submitted to, other new regulations will be invented, adopted, and enforced, until the desired object is obtained. Great Britain (and every other nation, whatever system be acted on to obtain) is bound only by her own interest. If that interest directs her policy to attempt a diminution or subversion of the commerce of the United States, that attempt will be made. An attempt already has been made to restrain the commerce of the United States, by impressing seamen and capturing ships and vessels. Mr. R. said, it was his opinion, that some principle of reaction ought to be adopted; that it should consist of certain commercial regulations, which may be commensurate with the injury. That this regulation may be a suspension of the importation of goods, wares, and merchandise, from the United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, and the colonial dependencies thereof, as used, and accustomed laws of nations. If, on the reverse, it shall so be, that Great Britain will refuse to make friendly arrangements, and to do that justice which the United States are now entitled to, and will persevere in impressing seamen, citizens of the United States, and will continue to commit injuries on their commerce, one of two things must be the consequence. The United States have either to submit their commerce to the policy of Great Britain, or to call forth their energies to resist the attempt of deprivation. If Great Britain shall hazard a contest, she has much to lose, and a war may terminate as much to her injury as to that of the United States. In discussing the subject under consideration, arguments had been deduced from geographical divisions of the United States, and from the injury which might be done to the exportation of particular articles of particular States. These geographical distinctions might as well not have been made. These United States on every national question are one. Arguments deduced from any injury which may accrue to the exportation of any particular production of any particular State, are not well founded. In this case is involved the welfare and interest of the United States. The policy of Great Britain may be to suppress the commerce of the United States, if possible, or to reduce it to an entire subserviency on her own commerce. It has been said that Great Britain is fighting ure under consideration, I expected that it would have been examined on its own merits; but, contrary to this expectation, I was surprised to hear the gentleman from Virginia state in his first breath that this was not a proposition of mine, but a Cabinet measure. I wish the gentleman had deigned to inform us what he meant by a Cabinet. I per for her national existence, and that this being so, the United States ought not now to urge their complaints. If it be so, the United States have not been the cause of that war. The United States have not been aiding the enemies of Great Britain; they have preserved an impartial, neutral position. They have not been hostile or inimical to Great Britain in the course of that war.ceive no such thing in the Constitution or laws. Their conduct has been that of friendship. But Great Britain is said to be fighting for her national existence. If so, to what cause is that war to be assigned? Is the non-performance of the treaty of Amiens, as it related to Malta, a cause of that war? If so, what nation refused the performance? Great Britain or France? The answer is evident. Can Great Britain justify injuries done to her friends? Will Great Britain attempt to justify her unjust attempts to suppress the commerce of the United States? But it is said that Great Britain is fighting for her national existence. Admit it to be so, will any gentleman say, that if, in the event of the war, Great Britain shall lose her national existence, that that loss, in the day of retribution, shall be attributed to the United States? Certainly not. Agriculture and commerce are mutually assistant to each other: agriculture supports commerce, and commerce gives life and vigor to agriculture. Agricultural industry would become languid and feeble if it were confined to supply the mere necessaries of life. Commerce subservient to the will of another will soon cease to be. The idea that the commerce of these United States can be suppressed is not to be admitted. That commerce may not be suppressed, it must increase and enlarge itself. Empire and commerce originated in the East, and travelled to the West. A period may not be far distant when commerce will take up her favorite residence in these United States, and these United States then be the greatest commercial nation in the world. Mr. GREGG. If no other gentleman is disposed to occupy the floor, I will ask the attention of the Committee for a few moments. Indisposition, if there was no other cause, would prevent me from detaining them longer. I feel myself under some obligation, before the question is taken, to make some explanation of my motives for bringing forward this measure, as I have been particularly called upon to do this by several gentlemen who have taken a part in this debate. I believe the phrase is peculiar to the Court of St. James, where the Ministers of the King are called the Cabinet. I have heard the Heads of Departments and the Attorney General, assembled by the President on great occasions, called the Cabinet. I have also heard three or four members of this House, who have considered themselves the organs for conducting all its business, called the Cabinet. If it be either of these Cabinets, they have not been consulted by me. The origin of this business is no secret. A number of gentlemen, who thought something ought to be done, showed me a proposition which they wished to submit to the House. I saw several propositions—one in the hands of a gentleman from New Jersey, going to a prohibition of all commercial intercourse with Great Britain, and others embracing a more moderate system of measures. I showed these gentlemen what I had drawn up: they differed from me in opinion, and the result was my putting this resolution upon the table, that it might receive that fair discussion which I conceived its merits entitled to. The gentleman from Virginia has also brought into view a vote of mine given on the bill making an appropriation for carrying into effect the treaty commonly called Jay's Treaty. I should have taken no notice of this allusion, had it not been made in such a way as appears to be calculated to impress the idea that my vote might have prevented that treaty from going into operation. This is not the fact, as on the final vote there were fifty-one affirmatives and forty-eight negatives. I voted in the affirmative. Had I voted in the negative, the vote would have been fifty to fortynine. And the sense of the Speaker was well known, as he had previously voted in Committee of the Whole. There was a proposition offered to the House, which I voted for as a preamble to the resolution, the object of which was to express the opinion of the House that the treaty was a bad one; that it was not such as the country had a right to expect; but, that, under all the circumstances, it was better to make the appropriation for When I had the honor a few days ago of address- carrying it into effect. I believe it was undering the Committee, I stated that I had reflected stood, if the preamble was carried, the minority maturely on the subject, and that the resolution would vote for carrying the treaty into effect; and, now under consideration appeared to me the best though it was not carried, I did not consider that measure in our power to adopt in the present cir- a sufficient reason for voting against it. The treaty cumstances of the country. I stated. however, at had been regularly negotiated: I do not say it was the same time, that if a majority of the Commit- such as it ought to have been, but it was better to tee entertained a different opinion, I should be will-let it go into operation than lose it by a small maing to relinquish my own impressions on this sab-jority. The President had ratified it, and a maject, as I considered it all-important to combine ajority of the Representatives, in Committee of the strong vote in favor of such measures as we might adopt. I believe that a weak measure carried by a great majority will be more powerful than a strong measure carried by a small majority. Having confined myself to the discussion of the meas Whole, approved it. I will ask, then, the gentleman from Virginia, if he will be for putting General WASHINGTON, two-thirds of the Senate, and fifty-one Representatives, in straight-jackets? I believe the sense of the nation will revolt at the MARCH, 1806. Non-Importation of Goods from Great Britain. idea; and I believe the people, if the subject had been submitted to them, would have voted as I did. How do I infer this? Because every man who voted for the treaty came to Congress again if he chose. I voted for it, and I never was elected by a greater majority. There is no district in the State of Pennsylvania more republican than that which I then represented; for I am now the representative of another district-the man now from it is republicanism itself. The gentleman from Maryland, in making some observations on the remarks I made on introducing this measure, has ascribed to me an expression which I deny absolutely having made. I wished an opportunity at the time to explain, but the gentleman did not see proper to indulge me; and I believe this is the only instance in which such a refusal has been made. The idea which I expressed, was, that this measure would attack Great Britain in her warehouses and workshops, and would thus reach her vitals. I observed that the merchants and manufacturers were the great support of that nation, and that, if we adopted this measure, it would so affect those two classes of men that they would become our friends, and the advocates of our measures. The gentleman from Maryland has, on the contrary, attributed to me the wish of stabbing Britain to her vitals-ascribing to me the idea of wishing to destroy her Government. I should be sorry to see this effect produced. On the contrary, I wish to see that Government preserved in its vigor, as a check to her great rival Power. I believe a considerable portion of our own safety depends on the two nations checking each other. I observed that I had no idea this measure would lead to war. I deny that it is a war measure. There is nothing warlike in it. It is a plain commercial measure, which we have a right to establish. But I observed that if Great Britaiu should view it in a different light, and go to war, she was not so much to be dreaded, as we should be able to take as many of her trading vessels, or at least an equal value of them, by means of our privateers, as she could of ours. From this, the gentleman has inferred that I am for meeting the British navy with the privateers of our citizens, and added, that any man who talked so absurdly ought to be shut up in a dark room, and confined in a straight-waistcoat. I am willing that the gentleman from Maryland should have the credit of being the author of all such flourishes; but, before he undertakes to anathematize other gentlemen, he ought to give some specimen (which I am sure he has not yet done) of his own superior powers. I have no expectation that this resolution will prevail, as I find many gentlemen who advocate strong ground consider this too strong. As I said, at the beginning, I am ready to meet them on any other ground. Why do they not come out, and propose their measures? If I think the measure they propose will do, I will vote for it. But while we are going on this way, we can never come to the point. Let gentlemen, then, avow themselves for or against this measure. It appears to me that those who object to this measure as too strong, H. OF R. have been answered by unanswerable arguments; and I can hardly see how we can relinquish this ground, and descend to another. I regret that some things have been said in the course of this discussion, whose natural tendency is to divide instead of uniting us. Of this description is the alleged jealousy between our merchants and farmers; a topic more fitted to destroy than promote conciliation. I wish to bury all kinds of party distinction in the discussion of this subject; I think such topics highly improper; and that every pains ought to be taken to keep out of view such sources of jealousy. I myself am a farmer, a practical farmer; and have no idea of giving up the interests of agriculture to commerce. But I have always considered the two so ultimately connected as to be inseparable. If it were not for the merchants of Baltimore and Philadelphia, the people I represent would be in a perilous condition. What they raise beyond their own wants, they dispose of to them; and were it not for them, their surplus productions would rot on their hands, and they would become indolent and poor. There is another view of this subject, largely dwelt upon, which I exceedingly regret the power and importance of Great Britain. I am willing to agree that Great Britain is a powerful nation, and that her navy is invincible. Still I am not willing to resign my rights and the rights of the nation into her hands. We have, on a former occasion, heard almost every argument brought forward in the same manner as on the present occasion; they had not then influence, however, to prevent a similar measure with that under consideration. I regret that they have this influence now. If we shall not adopt this resolution from its influence on our revenue, or any other cause, I hope we shall not regret it, because Great Britain may take offence at it. wish this consideration had been left entirely out of view; that whatever we do, we may do as the Representatives of the nation, without regard to Great Britain. The Speaker, in the course of his remarks, has alluded to an observation of mine relative to the sequestration of British debts; regretted that I made it, and expressed his belief that I would not myself agree to the measure. I certainly should not, except in a case of extreme necessity. I said that if Great Britain should violate the treaty between us in every respect but one, she could not consider us as bound by the single remaining article. But should we be released from the treaty it is said to be questionable whether the sequestration would in any case be justifiable. I believe there are extreme cases in which it would, and the Speaker and myself once agreed on that point. If Great Britain should, in violation of the treaty, let loose her cruisers, and seize our property without notice, I believe such a measure would be justifiable, though even then I should take it with reluctance. I have no further o' servations to make. If gentlemen indisposed to this measure will suggest one that is more moderate, I will exercise my right of judging on it. H. OF R. Non-Importation of Goods from Great Britain. Mr. DAWSON. I have indulged the disposition, which I always feel to be silent, during a very lengthy debate, and have attended to the observations of other gentlemen, sometimes with pleasure-sometimes with pain. I should continue that indulgence, did I not apprehend, that, from the length which the debate seems to promise, I shall not have an opportunity of giving my yea or nay; and as I propose to vote against the resolution, it might be concluded, that I view it as other gentlemen do, who are in the opposition, or that my vote is influenced by any of the reasons or considerations which have been urged by most of them. I consider that resolution simply as a commercial regulation, which, under the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution, we have a right to to pass, and I hold it to be an internal regulation which it is our duty to pass, whenever the true interest of our country in our judgment shall require it, without inquiring what effect it will have on the feelings of any foreign nation whatever. At present, however, I deem it premature, and I hope it will never become necessary; whenever that necessity shall arrive, I will join the advocates of this resolution in its support, or in the support of any other measures which shall go to injure those who persevere in injuring us; and this has been my conduct during the whole session. I have been in favor of every measure which goes to secure the honor or interest of our country, let that measure be directed against what nation it may; but I repeat, that I hope it will never be necessary. This hope does not arise from any confidence which I have in the magnanimity or forbearance of any nation. I believe that they are all disposed to aggress when they have power, and that that disposition is only checked by the opposition of others acting on their own interest; and a discovery of this spirit on our part, with a manly determination to support our own rights, and a sacred regard for the rights of others, will, I trust, produce that effect at the present crisis; should they not, 1 repeat that I will join in any measure to support these rights and to obtain justice. MARCH, 1806. sel when blinded by passion or superior power, Should I be disappointed in this hope, I pledge myself to unite in any measures which shall go to maintain the rights, honor, and interest of that country so dear to us all. Let those measures be directed against what nation they may, I will never surrender a perfect right, or temporize with principle. Mr. EARLY.-I believe it must be seen by gentlemen that there is now no probability of adopting this measure; and I am convinced that, if adopted, it will not answer the purposes which they themselves intended to answer by it. It is not because it takes too strong ground that I am opposed to it; I am opposed to it on other grounds. This resolution has been supported by some of On the ground that the measure, if carried into its friends, and met by all its opponents, as a war operation, will be weak and impotent, as it remeasure. It is extremely difficult to ascertain spects Great Britain, and ruinous as it respects what gentlemen mean by a war measure. If ourselves. These are the grounds on which my they mean that it is a measure which we have opposition is founded. The gentleman, therefore, not a right to adopt without consulting others, and the adoption of it will give just cause for war, I dissent from them in toto. I believe it simply to be a commercial regulation intended to meet the present state of things, and that we have a perfect right to pass it, without inquiring what influence it will have at St. James's, or St. Cloud. I believe this is the place intended for the free exercise of all powers granted by the Constitution. If, sir, they mean that it may afford a pretext for war, I, without hesitation, admit that it may and so may either of the resolutions which have been submitted to the Committee, over which you, with so much propriety, preside. I well know that nations, like intoxicated individuals, who submitted this proposition is mistaken if he supposes I opposed it on the ground that it was too strong; but it is not my intention again to go into the merits of this subject. I have barely risen in consequence of the diversity of opinion expressed by gentlemen, all tending to show that if this measure cannot be adopted, they are willing to meet on other ground, to invite them to give us an opportunity to occupy this ground, which I believe will be found in the resolution of the gentleman from Maryland. It is because I think that eligible ground to occupy; a ground which will not recoil upon ourselves, or do us more harm than our enemy, that I think it time to put an end to the discussion of this first resolution. Gen MARCH, 1806. Non-Importation of Goods from Great Britain. tlemen must have discovered that they cannot carry it. To put the thing then gently to sleep, and to give us an opportunity to occupy more eligible and efficacious ground, I move that the Committee rise. When the House shall be resumed, it is my intention to move to discharge the Committee from the resolution under consideration. Mr. MACON.-Before the question is taken I beg to be indulged in stating that the gentleman from Virginia has misunderstood me. I stated that the best way in my opinion to prevent Britain from impressing our seamen, was to agree not to employ her sailors, on condition that she would agree not to take ours, relying on her being governed by a sense of interest. I should have thought the sentiment ascribed to me by that gentleman would have been one of the last in the world attributed to me. H. OF R. other articles. Other gentlemen made various allusions to the conduct of Great Britain. I had, therefore, no particular allusion to the Speaker, when I said I was sorry to find apologists of Britain on the floor of Congress. Mr. MACON.-I understood the remark as applicable to myself. I said the price of getting naturalized was as well understood as anything in the market. Mr. EARLY. In reply to the observations of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I will observe, that if the Committee should rise, it will be in the power of the House to dispose of the resolution as it pleases. The gentleman will there enjoy the same privilege of moving a postponement to a definite time, that I shall to move a discharge of the Committee from its farther consideration. For my part it is not material to me which motion prevails. I shall not oppose the motion to postpone this resolution to a day certain. I am as willing that one course should be pursued as the other. Mr. CLARK, in allusion to the remarks of Mr. JACKSON, said he had never supposed, from the feelings which he entertained, that he should have been considered as the apologist of Great Britain. The question was then taken on the rising of the Committee, and passed in the negative-yeas 53, nays 58. Mr. SMILIE. I am against the motion for the Committee's rising, though I have no objection to postpone the resolution for the purpose of taking up any other. There is a wide difference between postponing a measure to a day certain, and discharging a committee from it. Let me tell the gentleman from Georgia that I am not afraid of the fate of this resolution. It is far from me to undertake to say what that fate will be. I know it not, nor can I know it until the final vote of this House. But should this resolution be negatived, that circumstance will not change my conduct. It is enough for me that I am convinced its adoption will promote the interests of this country, and that I am not responsible for its fate, but only for my own conduct, and that I possess the privilege of recording my name in its favor whenever a decision shall be had upon it. If the gentleman will agree to postpone this reso-in its support. I will take the liberty of saying lution to a day certain, in order in the meantime to take up any other resolution on the table, I will agree to it. Mr. CROWNINSHIELD.-Mr. Chairman: The question is on the resolution for interdicting the importation of all goods, wares, and merchandises, from Great Britain and her dependencies. It is to be regretted that in the consideration of this subject its opponents have considered it as a war measure, or such as will lead to war. Had I viewed it in this light, I should have never risen a few words in reply to the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. NICHOLSON,) on certain observations which fell from me when this subject was first As we are now explaining, I am glad to see the brought into discussion. What I then said has gentleman from Virginia in his place. That gen- been misunderstood and misrepresented both by tleman, in taking notice of my observations, that gentleman and the gentleman from Virginia, doubted whether the friendship I'entertained for (Mr. RANDOLPH.) I am accused of wishing to him was sincere. If the declaration will be satis- plunge this nation into a war with Great Britain; factory to him, I will declare it was sincere: that deny the charge, and I believe I said nothing friendship is not removed; but I wish the gentle-which ought to have led gentlemen to have drawn man to understand it properly. Friendship requires an exchange of good offices between man and man; but there is a fund on which even friendship cannot draw-the fund of public good, which is of too sacred a nature to be sacrificed even to friendship; and I declare, that except so far as public duty requires, I am still willing to interchange the offices of friendship with that gentleman. Mr. JACKSON. I owe an explanation to the Speaker and the House. My colleague observed that some apology was to be found for the conduct of Great Britain with regard to the impressment of our seamen, from our having more of her subjects in our employ than she had of our citizens in hers. The Speaker stated that protections were a thing in the market-the price of which was as well understood as the price of such an inference from my remark. I am charged by the gentleman from Maryland with saying that our privateers would be a match for British seventy-fours; I did not say so. I said if Great Britain considered this as a hostile measure, and made war upon us, we should fit out privateers, and they would probably be able to capture two vessels to one taken by her. I here alluded to merchant vessels, and had reference to no other description of vessels. The reason I assigned for this was our experience during the last war, and our ability to defend ourselves in this way has certainly not diminished since that time. But could it hence be imagined, by any rational man, that I considered a privateer equal to a man of war? It has also been insinuated that I am in favor of a confiscation of British property, whether there shall be war or not, I suppose. I said |