ecutive Magistrate. They knew, for they had felt, the sufferings, distress, and crimes, which it produces. They had seen, too, in the history of other nations, how often it had resulted from the ignorance, the folly, and the ambition, of princes and rulers; and they resolved to guard themselves and their descendants from such an evil. Hence the provision of the constitution, "Congress shall have power to declare war." But it may yet appear that their caution was vain; that the people and Congress may be driven to it against their interests and judgments; and that the Executive has still the capacity, by the language which he uses, and the mode in which he conducts negotiations, to place us in conditions in which we have no alternative, and in which the best friends of peace may be compelled to yield themselves to sustain the honor and the interests of the country against the arms and the assaults of a foreign nation. We may have war; but if we do, there will be tremendous guilt somewhere. It can have resulted only from the folly or the crimes of those who have conducted the negotiation on the one side or the other, or on both. There is nothing in the cause of dispute which ought to have led to such a termination. I fear that we shall be compelled to trace it to the boastful vanity of one man, the petulance of a second, and the fitful violence of a third; and these met by ill-disciplined national pride, and mistaken notions of national honor. If it do come, it will be no common struggle, and produce no ordinary results. We all know what our own countrymen can and will do when the scabbard shall be thrown away; and we cannot be ignorant of the capacities of modern France, regenerated as she has been by the controlling genius of the last age, and possessing, as she does, a navy inferior in science and discipline to none which has existed in any age of the world; superior in numbers and power to all but one, whose flag is now upon the ocean. For such a struggle there ought to be adequate cause and full preparation.

Are we prepared? The Senator from Missouri informs us, and very correctly, that we are not. But he seemed unwilling to speak of our situation, lest he should give to the enemy a knowledge of our want of defence. He may relieve himself from all fears on that point. Our actual condition is as well known in Paris as in Washington. We have not a fort upon our seaboard, the precise location and strength of which is not as well understood by them as by us. Our navy, both the scattered portions which are at sea and the remainder at our dock yards, has been the subject of their diligent study. Our coast, with all its inlets, bays, and harbors, is familiar to them. The most accurate maps and charts of our whole seaboard, and especially of its most defenceless portion, the Gulf of Mexico, are not only known, but regularly published in the French capital. Our revenue and materials for defence and attack are examined by them with intelligent care. All this is due to their own interests, by those who control the movements of their Government, and this knowledge would be acquired by them, whether peace or war was their object. Our debates, here, will give them no light on such subjects as these. The Senator may safely declare to the nation the truth, and the whole truth, in regard to them; and I unite with him in the declaration that the country is without the necessary and proper defences. Are your fortifications erected, armed, and manned? Is any one of all the entrances into your ports sufficiently defended? What guards have you provided for Pensacola, the Chesapeake, the Delaware, and the other portions of your coast? How is your little army disposed of? Look at Florida, now ravished by a band of Indians, and your Executive, either strangely ignorant of their strength and their intended incursions, or criminally sleeping over its duties and the demands which

[SENATE.

In

Where is your navy? You have, in actual service, in the Mediterranean, two frigates, one sloop, and one schooner, the ship of the line being on her return. the West Indies, one frigate and three sloops. In the Pacific, one frigate and two schooners. In the East Indies, one sloop and one schooner. On the coast of Brazil, one sloop; and one somewhere on or near the African coast. This is the whole force now employed in the protection of your commerce, which extends to every portion of the globe.

What is the condition of Pensacola and Key West? They are positions of indispensable necessity, in possession of which an enemy may seal hermetically the mouth of the Mississippi, destroy your whole commerce on the Gulf, watch your coast, and be prepared for a descent upon its most unprotected points, at any moment. Why have they been so much neglected? Why have not sufficient preparations been made for the repair and sustenance of your vessels at one or both those places? Has their importance escaped the notice of those whose views are directed to "the general defence and perma nent security of the country?" It was long since predicted by one of our ablest and most valuable naval officers, that the first naval battle in which our country would be engaged, would, in all probability, be in the neighborhood of Key West. Yet what is its condition? Unprotected for the relief of our own navy; fitted for the rendezvous of an enemy. Every thing which relates to the efficiency of the right arm of your defence has been treated with cold indifference; and no man who is attached to it, as I am, can look at its condition without pain and mortification. Sir, cast your eyes where you will, we are unprepared for war. The Senator from Missouri is right.

And why are these things so? In whose hands have been the resources of the country for the last seven years? Who have governed and directed the energies and the treasure of the nation? Your wondrously energetic Executive! To whom, then, is due the security and the glory of our present position? To him and his friends. They have possessed the power to dispose of your treasury as they saw fit. They have so disposed of it. They have had the care of your interests, and they have never called, without success, for a dollar for the defence and security of the country. No obstacles have been thrown in the way by any effort of the opposition. Look back through the period of this adminis tration, and see if you can find an estimate for your navy-your fortifications-for any object of defence, which has been defeated by the opposition. I know of none. The records of this administration exhibit none. They have had all for which they have asked. The appropriations have been made liberally. The last year, for naval purposes, more than $3,600,000; a larger sum than was ever before granted. The average of the appropriations for all such objects has been greater than at any former period. Why is it, then, that we are in our present condition? And who must answer for it? And what, during this period, have been their employments? They have been very busy. They have had employment enough in fighting the bank; talking about a specie currency, taking the treasury out of the hands of Congress; securing offices and jobs and deposites for partisans; sustaining a profligrate administration of the Post Office, whose criminality is now admitted; weakening the popular respect for the Judiciary; and warring against the Senate. And now an Indian war takes them by surprise; and they are endeavoring to rush into con

flict with a powerful nation, and, by way of preparation for it, assail the Senate, as faithless to their duty. The charge is destitute of plausible justification, but may serve as a cover to their own delinquency.

Mr. President, it gives me no pleasure to refer to such a state of facts. We may be near to war. We shall have war if more prudent counsels do not prevail. You would have had it ere this, but for the Senate. If it come speedily, it will find us unprepared, but not unequal to its exigencies, in the end. France should make no miscalculations on that point. We shall suffer losses, defeats, perhaps, but there is power and energy enough to bear them, and to triumph still. This nation has been yet unconquered, and is unconquerable. With a free country, possessing such resources and such a population as ours, nothing but the folly and weakness of those who direct its means of defence can hazard ultimate success. On the principal theatre of conflict we may, we shall, probably, for a time, be defeated; but on our own shores a hostile foot cannot long remain, and our little neglected navy will do all that may be hoped from human exertion. Even in defeat its still untarnished honor will be secure. While it carries the " flag of the ocean" and "the land," "flag of the free heart's only home," it will bear it aloft in triumph, or, if subdued, still unstained and undisgraced.

But, sir, is the criminality the less with those who, without the most ample cause, shall force us unprepared into such a conflict? Will the sufferings, the losses, the agonies of humanity be unfelt, because we may and shall escape final overthrow? No; execrations, deep and lasting, will be the lot of those upon whose heads shall rest that guilt.

We have been told that the Senate has been criminal on this subject, not in urging the nation into war, but in refusing to prepare for it; and an effort is made to hold us up for the rebuke of the nation. I did not anticipate the course of observation of the Senator upon this point, in discussing the merits of this resolution. I did not perceive the application of the argument to the subject. But I had expected that, at some period of the session, the Senate would, in some way, be put upon its defence. The official herald of the Executive had sounded to the charge; the trumpeters of the phalanx, reckless of the justice of the cause, had aped their leader, and the people were assured that the delinquency was in us. At the opening of the session, the President from his high station announced to the country and the world that we were guilty. It was not to be doubted that some members of the Senate might think as the Executive thought; and, if they did, that they would feel it their duty, in some form, to exhibit the indictment against us. It was as well, perhaps, that it should be done in supporting these resolutions as upon any other subject. I do not regret that the accusation has been made by the Executive, but I meet it, and deny its truth and justice; and beg, while I investigate the facts, that it may be recollected by Senators that this contest has not been sought by us. The investigation has been forced upon

us.

The country is, if possible, to be urged into war; and, if unprepared or unsuccessful, the blame is to be cast upon the Senate. It is one of the movements of the war upon this body, which has been waged with such unrelenting severity.

The President, in his message of the 7th of December last, says: "Much loss and inconvenience have been experienced in consequence of the failure of the bill containing the ordinary appropriations for fortifications, which passed one branch of the national Legislature at the last session, but was lost in the other. The failure was the more regretted, not only because it necessarily interrupted and delayed the progress of a system of national defence, projected immediately after the last

[JAN. 25, 1836.

war, and since steadily pursued, but also because it contained a contingent appropriation, inserted in accordance with the views of the Executive, in aid of this important object, and other branches of the national defence, some portions of which might have been usefully applied during the past year."

In the importance of the ordinary appropriations for this object I entirely concur. The system of defence demands support. But the allegation here made is, that the contingent appropriation was inserted in accordance with the views of the Executive, and that the bill containing it and the ordinary appropriations was lost in one House, (the Senate,) after it had passed the other, (the House of Representatives.) This allegation has been made by the first Magistrate of the nation, manifestly with a view to cast reproach upon this body; and, sir, it will be believed by thousands. It is made by him, and that is enough for blind credulity. They will inquire no further, and ask no other evidence. No effort made here can reach them, no demonstration exhibited here will meet their eyes. Their oracles will hide the truth from them. But, so far as depends upon me, I will repel the accusation; and if they choose to believe without evidence and against evidence, it shall not be from my silence. The Senate, upon that bill, did its duty, and its whole duty, fully, firmly, fearlessly; and, whenever justice shall be done, will be more than acquitted at the bar of its country.

Is the accusation true?

I ask, in the first place, if the three millions had been granted, ought it to have been expended? And would the situation of the country be now more safe? What is there which would have justified its expenditure previous to the meeting of Congress? War does not exist, cannot be declared but by Congress. To have forced us into it, without our approbation, would have been treason against our institutions and our rights. And if war had been commenced by France, what could the Executive have constitutionally done without assembling Congress? And what would three millions have been in such an emergency? You would have needed ten times that amount before the end of the year. It may be that the Executive thinks otherwise. The present head of the Committee of Ways and Means is reported to have assured the House, at the last session, that "he understood" that one million for the army, and two for the navy, "would be all that would be required by the executive branch of the Government." And he was probably sincere in thinking it enough. When a proposition is made to devote the interest of the nation in the Bank of the United States, amounting to seven millions, to national defence, in order that France might learn therefrom that we had resources for war, independent of taxation, what calculations may not be expected about the means necessary for preparation? (Globe, 2d March.) The passage of the ordinary appropriations for fortifications was important; the grant of the three millions for defence in war was absurd.

The first piece of evidence offered by the Senator from Missouri, by which the guilty purpose of the Senate is to be proved, and its designs, in the rejection of the item of three millions, exhibited, is the treatment bestowed upon the resolutions of that Senator at the last session. Those resolutions are declared to have had the same object as those now under discussion, and I beg the attention of the Senate to them, as they appear on page 167 of our journal. They are twelve in number, and relate to a multiplicity of objects: to the reduction of revenue on dutiable articles-the amount to be received from public lands-the payment of the stock in the bank-the probable expenditures of the Governmentstate of the fortifications-expenditures upon them-expense of armories and arsenals-amount expended on

naval objects. But they are all inquiries of the Executive for information only. They express no opinion, they declare no principle, they disclose no object. The mover did not explain his purpose, and the Senate was never called upon to express an opinion, or take a vote, in regard to them. When they were offered for consideration, Mr. Poindexter moved to lay them upon the table, and it was so ordered, without debate or vote, so far as I can discover. (Journal, p. 168.) The mover had it in his power to call for their consideration at any time, yet he did not do it. When and how, then, did the Senate express any opinion in regard to them? How was its guilty purpose to defeat the national defence proved by | the treatment of them? How was the Senate to learn the object with which they were offered? Besides, these resolutions were not offered until the 16th day of February, within fifteen days of the end of the session, and were not to be answered until the commencement of the present session of Congress. By the argument, we were now to have information to guide upon a bill to be passed nine months ago. Yet such is a part of the evidence of our criminality, which the Senator spreads before the American people, unexplained and unaccompanied by the resolutions.

The next piece of evidence against the Senate is the loss of the item of $500,000. The history of this item has been fully stated by other members. It was moved in committee to add that sum to the appropriations, not by the Senator from Missouri, but by the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. CLAYTON.] It was reported on the 18th February. (Jour. p. 172.) On suggestion by the chairman of the Committee on Finance, it was withdrawn by the Senator from Missouri himself. There was no debate, and no vote upon it. Is it not, then, somewhat extraordinary that this should be proclaimed as a rejection of the patriotic purposes of the Senator from Missouri, and of the evil intentions of the Senate? I leave others to draw their own inferences about such an allegation.

But these matters are unimportant, compared with the loss of the fortification bill. Such a bill is at all times of magnitude to the public interests, and it is deeply to be deplored if it should be lost (if such a result may be considered possible) from party servility on the one hand, or party hostility on the other. Let us examine the facts, to see what is the truth in relation to it. Its importance will justify some repetition. The President has charged this body, before their constituents and the world, with the loss of the bill; the charge has been repeated by a Senator in his place, and we are exhibited as unwilling to defend the country. Let the whole truth be told, and let the nation understand how their agents have acted, and do justice to their conduct. I need not quote the message at the opening of the last session, (Journal, page 13.) It details our difficulties with France, recommends reprisals as a measure of peace, against which France had no right to complain, and closes by submitting "to Congress to decide whether, after what has taken place, it will still await the further action of the French Chambers, or now adopt such provisional measures as it may deem necessary, and best adapted to protect the rights and maintain the honor of the country. Whatever that decision may be, it will be faithfully enforced by the Executive, as far as he is authorized so to do."

[SENATE.

tion was to be put upon it. The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. HUBBARD] is entitled to the credit of the discovery, but it comes rather late. He did not make that discovery, so far as I know, during the last session. His own actions, as will appear presently, show a different opinion at that day.

What

3. The measure which it did recommend was reprisals, as a measure solely of peace. And these he recommends to be placed at his discretion, by the passage of a law “authorizing reprisals upon French property, in case provision shall not be made for the payment of the debt at the approaching session of the French Chambers." (Jour. p. 17.) If a law in this form had been passed, it is apparent that the power of peace and war would have been in the hands of the Executive. How he would have used it, may be learned by his "well-settled principle of the international code." He would have used his power, and we should have been at war. would have availed the dictum of books? If French property had been forcibly seized to pay the debt or avenge our wrongs, it would have been repelled. War would have instantly raged. It would have been so, not only with France, but with every modern nation capable of resisting the assaults of an enemy. The seizure of the property of the citizens of France, because the Government would not pay its debt, neither would nor could have been regarded as a measure of peace. But, pretending so to consider it, the President would have used it, and thus Congress would have transferred to him the power of making war.

The recommendation, then, was of a legislative meas. ure, with a view to peace. Although it might, in the hands of the Executive, have produced war, yet he urged it as a peace measure, and did not accompany it with proposals or estimates for increased appropriations.

Such as it was, it met the prompt attention of the Senate. And on the 15th January, (Jour. p. 94,) the Senate, by a vote perfectly unanimous, forty-five members voting, "Resolved, That it is inexpedient, at present, to adopt any legislative measure in regard to the state of affairs between the United States and France."

Thus, by the action of the Senate, all legislative action on the subject was, for the time, closed. And did any one then think that there was a call for war appropria tions? Not one said it; and, if they thought it, they failed in their duty in not calling for them. As a measure of peace, no such appropriations could be required. If no legislative measure was expedient, they could not have been necessary.

Subsequent to this time, but before the three millions were proposed, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the House, which had moved very slowly, did report, and the same decision, as to legislative action, was made there, as I shall show by reference to the journal of that body.

Thus was the whole question of legislative action, on the recommendation of the Executive, put at rest by the concurrent and unanimous action of both Houses of Congress. Who could have dreamed that, after this, a "provisional appropriation" of three millions, to be put at the discretion of the Executive, would have been proposed? But so it was. The President had been thwarted by a unanimous vote of Congress, in getting possession of a discretionary power, which would have

2. It was not understood by the friends or opponents of the administration as recommending appropriations for a state other than that of peace. No Senator or Representative in his place suggested that such a construcVOL. XII.-17

denied in one form may be sought and obtained in another. The power to use three millions of money, when he should think it necessary, would have answered an equally efficient purpose, and might have led to the gratification of the same wishes and designs. The history of the fortification bill will illustrate this remark. This history I understand, very differently from the Senator from New Hampshire.