Mr. BAYARD said, he did not need this authority to confirm his remark. There could be no doubt that these Ministers possessed a sincere desire to settle the existing disputes between the two countries, if it could be done with honor. This was found impossible; and yet, after all this, a single individual, not appointed by the Administration, thinks he can accomplish what the whole Government could not do, and goes to France under this idea. And can it be right that an individual should go and offer terms of peace, which could have no other effect than to excite that clamor at home which the gentleman from Virginia has been pleased to say is the object of this bill, by making it appear that there is an unwillingness in the Government to make peace. But suppose a Treaty of Peace was negotiated by an individual thus situated, and Government should not approve of it, it would be thrown out to the people as a bone of contention, the consequences of which would be that one party in the United States would say that the terms ought to be accepted, and the other that they ought not; so that arash step of this kind might involve the country in a civil war. Mr. B. concluded by saying, hat he thought the bill was founded in justice ad policy, and he hoped it would pass. Mr. R. WILLIAMS said, the gentleman last up supposed all opposition to this bill had subsided. He knew not what had induced this belief, except it was thought that a want of the probability of access would induce members to neglect their duty. For his own part, be would never cease to oppose a measure so fraught with mischief as this bull appeared to be. It might not be amiss, Mr. W. said, to take a retrospective view of this bill. The resolution which was originally brought forward proposed to amend the sedition law. But now the bill is rought in, we find it is not in conformity to the resolution, but a bill for the punishment of certain crimes therein mentioned. How this happened he could not tell. He voted for the resoation, as he wished to see a report on the subject, and had no objection to a law which should punsh usurpations of Executive authority. But now the bill is before the House, it is seen that usurpations of Executive authority are not proposed to be punished, but persons who shall carry on any verbal or written correspondence or intercourse with any foreign Government, &c. This intercourse, which is to be punished, is of a very extensive latitude. If a citizen should at any time have it in his power to prevail upon a foreign Government to relax its measures towards as, this is to be deemed a crime by this bill; because, say gentlemen, it is an usurpation of power lodged in the Executive, who, as it respects all negotiation, is the representative of the nation. But, said Mr. W., have the people deprived themselves of all power to speak, when their speaking can do no possible harm, but good to their country. It does not follow that because the people have delegated a certain portion of power to the Executive, that they have deprived themselves of all power or interference, when that interference [H. OF R. is for their own interest. He should have no objection to a law to punish any man who should attempt to usurp the Executive authority, or who should so interfere in any dispute with a foreign Government as to defeat the operations of our Government. But gentlemen say, "No; the act itself, whether good or bad, shall be punished." What does this amount to, said Mr. W., but that a man shall be deprived of the privilege of applying for property which may be unjustly kept from him by a foreign Government, and upon the recovery of which the existence of his family may depend? Mr. W. mentioned the case of a person applying to a foreign Government to raise an embargo, in order to recover his vessel, which would be influencing the measures of the foreign Government, and consequently come within this law. It had been said that peace might be procured by dishonorable means, and that if an individual were to have the privilege to make peace, he might make war also. But, said Mr. W., an attempt has been made to accommodate gentlemen in this respect, by declaring that where the act of an individual defeats the design of the Executive, we are willing it should be considered criminal; but they will not consent to this. He would consent even to punish an individual who should defeat the Executive in bringing on an honorable war, as it is termed, but all this will not do. This does not appear to be the design of the bill. It had often been said, in this House, that there was a party who wished to restrain the Executive so as to stop the wheels of Government; but in this instance gentlemen propose to punish a person for aiding the Executive. It appears, therefore, that the bill is intended solely to increase Executive influence, let the consequences be what they will. The Government of the United States has said, that from the treatment which our Envoys have received, no further negotiation with France can take place. Could it then be criminal, when national pride has said that no further negotiation can take place, in an individual, to tell the French Government on what terms peace may be made? One would think not; yet, by this law, such a man would be a criminal. So far as this law goes to construe certain acts criminal, it is a departure from all usage, in order to discover what is criminal and what is innocent. When we wish to know whether an act is criminal or not, we inquire if it has produced any mischief. In the present case no evil is assigned. The offences are an attempt to procure peace for the country; to obtain a restoration of property, a release of seamen, or a recovery of debts. The people of this country never contemplated these acts as offences. This bill, though the gentleman who reported it said that it had no reference to any particular case, appears to have been produced by the heat of the moment. No one would ever have dreamt of the things described in this bill being offences, if nothing had happened to move their passions. The first feature of the bill has a direct allusion to a late transaction, and takes from the people of these States a power which they never meant to H. OF R.] Usurpation of Executive Authority. [JANUARY, 1799. Mr. G. said, he would not detain the House by further observations, because he believed the subject was perfectly understood; but gentlemen say the bill goes too far, as it will prevent individuals from pursuing their claims upon a foreign Government. If it did this, he should acknowledge it did what was wrong; but it did not; it lays no restrictions upon individuals in the prosecution of their individual claims. He need do no more than asking them whether they believe that any court in the United States would condemn an individual under this law for a mere personal application to a foreign Government for a restoration of his property, for the release of seamen, or for the payment of his debts? If gentlemen do say that a court would thus act, they would say what he did not believe they would say. delegate that of seeking their own interest by their own means. It has been introduced, like some others of late, on a plausible resolution; but when the bill itself appears, it is found to violate the most sacred rights of the people. The bill, which it was said this was intended to amend, was introduced in the same way. It was on a resolution for the punishment of sedition. Every one allowed sedition ought to be punished; but when the bill was brought in, it was found to re-appeal to the candor of gentlemen themselves, by strict the liberty of the press; and the present bill, instead of punishing usurpations of Executive authority, as originally proposed, goes to punish individuals for honestly seeking for their own. Mr. W. said, it appeared to him, that if this bill passed, it would establish a dangerous principle, víz: that an individual may be prevented from carrying on any verbal or written correspondence or intercourse with any foreign Government respecting his own private concerns, lest he should influence the measures of that Government in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States. If we have the power to deprive an individual of this right, I do not see why we may not also deprive an individual of seeking redress for an injury at home, lest, in any possible manner, he should, in doing so, affect the Government of the United States. He hoped, there. fore, the bill would not pass. Mr. GRISWOLD observed, that the gentleman last up had found fault with the manner in which this bill had been introduced. It was true, that the instructions to the committee were to consider the propriety of amending a certain act, or of providing other punishments for the contemplated offence. The committee, believing that a separate law would best answer the purpose, and that the resolution gave them power to draw a separate bill, had so reported. If the gentleman from North Carolina had thought, in doing so, that the committee had exceeded their powers, his objections ought certainly to have been made in an earlier stage of the business The principle of this bill, Mr. G. said, had been very frequently explained, and must be perfectly well understood. Its object must be known to be to prevent all interference with the Executive power in our foreign intercourse. If this object cannot be justified, then the bill is bad. Have not the people, said he, delegated this power to the Executive? Has not every individual done this, and therefore deprived himself of the power by the delegation, which he has no right to resume? No gentleman can say he has. The principle would be a dangerous one, because, if one man may do it, any man may do it; and if it be done for one object, it may be done for another. There can be no limitation to it. And it certainly would be dangerous to entrust individuals to exercise a power of such magnitude-a power in which the honor and dearest interests of the country are so intimately concerned. He should himself be as much opposed to the interference of an individual to promote peace as to procure war, because he thought both equally an usurpation of Executive power. Mr. PINCKNEY observed, that if he had not been a member of the committee who reported this bill, and if he did not rise in its support, it might be supposed he shrunk from the investigation, he should not have troubled the House with any farther remarks upon it. But being thus situated, he must take leave to offer his sentiments upon what had fallen from the gentlemen opposed to the bill this morning. The first gentleman up, from Virginia, (Mr. EGGLESTON,) seemed to think this bill unnecessary and improper, because it proposes to punish foreign intrigue, and he does not think there is any foreign intrigue in these States; that he is ready to vouch for his own State, and supposes other gentlemen are equally ready to vouch for theirs. He alluded to this subject because it had relation to what had been said about the diplomatic skill of France by a gentleman from Pennsylvania, on a former occasion. It had been said that no charge of this kind ought to be made against France, because they had displayed the greatest ignorance in this respect, in relation to the Ministers which had been sent to this country. But Mr. P. apprehended that this failure in the diplomatic skill of France towards this country arose from the misinformation which they received on their side of the water as to the true state of America, and from no want of a wish on their part to employ every means of diplomatic skill in their power to divide the people of this country from their Government. Certain it is that their skill did not succeed to the extent of their wishes. But the gentleman from Pennsylvania must have recollected a letter written by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of France, (which had appeared in all the papers,) addressed to the public agents of that country in foreign nations, on this point of diplomatic skill. It is true that he does not publicly direct them to use undue means, but he directs them to use all the means in their power to cause the French Republic to be respected. This shows that the diplomatic skill of France has not been idle, but that their public agents have been directed to do all in their power to influence the people of the countries where they reside in favor of France. It was scarcely necessary, Mr. P. said, to repeat what had been so frequently stated on this floor with respect to the state of Europe, and to show the effects which an exercise of this skill has produced there. He would not repeat what had been said on this subject, but barely state that the present situation of Europe does show, and that most forcibly, that there is an evil existing, which it is time for all nations to prepare against. It is an evil which has arisen out of the late revolutionary state of things. This evil is no less than an endeavor on the part of one Government, by means of its diplomatic skill, to overset all the Governments which do not concur with them in its mad career. It is become necessary, therefore, for us, in common with other nations, to guard against this evil, and to oppose it by such barriers as are within our power. Upon this footing the bill now before the House might be justified, if no inconveniences had already been experienced, which make such a law necessary. But the gentleman from Virginia says, no danger can be apprehended from this evil in this country, and therefore this bill is unnecessary. But, said Mr. P., it is better that we should be prepared against an evil that may happen, than run the risk of the evil coming upon us when unprepared to meet it. If there is no delinquency against the bill, there can be no punishment, no oppression under it; and if there should be any correspondence carried on, upon which it ought to operate, it will doubtless be allowed the person carrying on such correspondence ought to be punished. The gentleman went on to state, that this bill would tend to prevent a free investigation of publie measures, and of the conduct of public men. Mr. P. could not see how this remark could apply to this bill; it might have done very well against the sedition bill, but could not have any connexion with this. [H. OF R. on those who have been appointed by the people to administer the Government? If such an act produces any effect at all, it must produce a bad one. Any sensible Government must either laugh at such a man as mad, or conclude that he is the agent of a deep-rooted party opposed to the Government of the country from whence he comes. And certainly no individual ought to be permitted to do an act with impunity which might throw so great a contempt upon the Government of his country. As much had been said about the gentleman lately in France, he would state it as his opinion, that that gentleman did not view the matter in this point of light. Personally, Mr. P. said, he considered himself as under obligation to that gentleman, and nothing but what he conceived to be the public interest could have induced him to have remarked upon a conduct which he considered as calculated to bring the greatest mischiefs upon this country, if not put a stop to. But it had been said that this bill was introduced into the House with no other view than to raise a clamor in the country against gentlemen of a certain political opinion. If, however, there is a great evil existing, to which it is proper to apply a remedy, he thought it would have been more fair to have attributed the motive of the gentleman to this cause. But why is it supposed that this bill is intended to raise a clamor against persons of a particular description? Why is the gentleman from Virginia afraid of this clamor? What can be his objection to meet it? If an individual has gone forward of his own mere notion and done an improper thing, no mischief can arise to those who have had no concern in it. The people of the United States are not to be duped by mere vague reports. If gentlemen are accused with being privy to the business, will they not say, let gentlemen who say this, come forward with proof? The people could not, he believed, be so easily led away by unfounded assertion, as some gentlemen seem to imagine. But the gentleman says, this bill will have a tendency to bring into disrepute good actions. If the gentleman conceives the acts guarded against by this bill as good, he for himself should be contented to have them brought into disrepute. The next gentleman from Virginia. (Mr. NICHOLAS) has repeated the observation of the gentleman from Pennsylvania with respect to the inconsistency of the conduct of those who support this bill. He thought this argument had been so fully answered by the gentleman from Connecticut yesterday, that nothing farther need be said upon it. But it is again repeated that there is no criminality in the acts proposed to be punished, and that the advocates of the bill have not been able In a former debate, Mr. P. said, a great distincto show that any moral turpitude is attached to tion had been made between an individual acting the correspondence proposed to be punished. Mr. in his own behalf, in a dispute between his own P. said he thought the act had already been shown Government and another, and one deputed by a to be criminal. He asked upon what principle party. Mr. P. gave reasons, which have formally an individual could undertake to exercise these been assigned, why both are equally criminal; and Executive functions? If an individual goes for- he thought the acknowledgment that this conduct ward to a foreign Government to negotiate on would be wrong in a party, was a tacit confession national concerns, what answer could he give to that it is wrong in an individual. For, said Mr. such a Government, when he was asked, Upon P., if at any future time, a party should arise what authority do you come?" He must say, "I which shall attempt to divest the Executive of have no power, I am undelegated; but our Ad- any part of his constituted authority; if they should ministration is either weak or wicked, and will wish to carry on a negotiation with a foreign not do what is for the interest of the country, and Power, can it be expected it will be done in an therefore I come, because I think myself more open manner? Certainly not. A party thus diswise, and better disposed to serve my country posed would act so secretly, that probably no perthan its constituted authorities." And is there no son but the agent employed could be discovered; criminality, said Mr. P., in thus throwing censure so that there is no way of preventing such a com 66 H. OF R.] Usurpation of Executive Authority. Mr. P. thought the gentleman from Virginia had deviated a little from the present question, in making use of an expression which ought not to pass unnoticed. He had stated that, from the effect which had been produced by a late embassy, it appeared that if persons of a different political opinion had been employed by our Government, a peace might have been obtained. To what, said Mr. P., does this amount? Does it not amount to what we have seen elsewhere, viz: that the French ought to have been indulged in the hoice of our agents? [Mr. NICHOLAS said that his remarks were applied to the original appointment of our Commissioners; for, after objections had been made to them by the French, on account of their political opinions, he would not have changed them.] If, continued Mr. P., a Government, in its appointment of foreign Ministers, is to consider only what will be agreeable to the foreign Government to whom they send them, and appoint only such persons as will be pleasing to them, it would matter not whether the demand was made or not. On the contrary, Mr. P. was of opinion, that a Government ought only to consider who are the persons who will best transact the business of the country, and not who are most in favor of the Government to which they go; because it is natural to suppose that persons most in favor with a foreign country, will be most disposed to favor that country; and it is also natural to suppose that such persons will have an undue bias on their minds, and be disposed to relinquish the interests of their own country in favor of that with which they have to negotiate. He therefore thought the position ill-founded. He believed the President. in his choice of Envoys to the French Republic, was desirous of choosing men of integrity, totally unprejudiced, and friends to their own Government. Mr. P. believed the gentlemen appointed were of this description; and though, said he, insinuations have been thrown out in the public papers to the contrary, can anything be collected from the documents on the table, which can support a contrary opinion; which can show that they possessed any undue partiality against that nation? He heard of no such insinuation; if any such had been made, he believed it would not have been difficult to have confronted the charge by those papers. This doctrine, said Mr. P., has been carried to a great extent; it has gone to the full length that the wishes of the French Government ought to have been consulted in sending Ministers from this country. We have seen, said he, a famous letter published in the papers, written by an American citizen in France to a gentleman in this country, (and which has since been the subject of a prosecution,) in which this matter is developed. This gentleman tells the world, he has been a fellow-laborer with the heads of the French Government, in bringing about the present state of things; that he is now intimately connected with (JANUARY, 1799. them. He tells us upon what terms we may make peace with France-terms which he believed no gentleman in this House would be disposed to agree to; that we must apologize for our past conduct, and become tributary; that we must send a man to treat who will be agreeable to them. He goes so far as to point out a particular character whom he thinks it would be proper to send. And, said Mr. P., I think the writer calumniates that gentleman, when he says that if that gentleman had gone forward, the dispute between the two countries would have been settled in twentyfour hours. He has told you the terms upon which a settlement might be had, and then, that if this gentleman had been employed, the dispute would have been settled in the short time he mentions. The natural inference is, that the gentleman referred to would have acceded to those terms. Mr. P. thought this calumny. He knew that gentleman well, and highly respected him for his talents and integrity; nor did he believe that either in twenty-four hours, or in twenty-four years, he would have agreed to any such terms. No, said he, that gentleman has too great a regard for his country, thus to barter away its independence. He thought this doctrine of favoring a foreign nation in the choice of Ministers, a dangerous one, and had therefore noticed it. The gentleman last up from North Carolina has made use of one or two ideas rather extraordinary. He says, that true it is, that this power of negotiation has been delegated to the Executive of the United States, but he also says that the people have by no means divested themselves of the power of carrying on negotiation, if they choose to do so. [Mr. WILLIAMS said, the gentleman from South Carolina had certainly misunderstood him. His idea was, that because the people have vested the Executive with this power, that it did not hence follow that they had not a right to correspond with a foreign Government for the purpose of recovering their own property, or that of their friends] Upon that point, Mr. P. said, they were perfectly agreed, and this bill does not prevent any such interference; it had only relation to disputes between the two Governments. These cases, as had been repeatedly shown, are perfectly distinct. But the gentleman said (if he did not also mistake him, and this he thought connected with his former idea,) that this law will have a tendency to increase Executive influence. If this, said Mr. P., is the tendency of the bill, I plead guilty, so far as it goes to confine the exercise of the power of negotiation to the Executive. That the people shall not interfere with it, so long as our present Constitution lasts; much less that an individual should take the power upon himself. Therefore there is no argument to be derived from that ground against this bill. Mr. P. could not help noticing, before he sat down, a circumstance which happened yesterday. Gentlemen are perfectly willing that individuals should have an uncontrolled power to carry on any correspondence they please with a foreign Government; but the moment a gentleman from Massachusetts introduced an amendment, which might, by implication, have vested the power in the President alone to have sent a Minister, without consulting the Senate, as is directed by the Constitution, they immediately took the alarm. What! say they, will you give this power to the President alone? And the amendment was rejected. This must appear inconsistent. Upon the whole, Mr. P. said, he considered this bill as calculated to prevent an evil, which, from the present state of things, does exist; that it does not encroach on individual rights; that it will produce much good, and no evil, and therefore he was in favor of it. Mr. S. SMITH agreed with the friends of this bill, as to its general principle, of punishing usurpations of the Executive authority. Had it been confined to that object, he should therefore have voted for it; but the generality of the expressions used, would induce him to vote against it. For, if he understood the bill right, a private individual seeking for a restoration of his own property from a foreign Government, would be liable to its penalties. It was possible, however, he might be mistaken; if so, he should be glad to be corrected. He would state a case or two, which, if answered to his satisfaction, he would still vote for the bill. Suppose this law to be in force, and, upon the arrival of an American citizen at Bordeaux, he finds an embargo laid on American vessels, from a false impression taken up by the French Government that this country is immediately going to war with France, and that this war would shortly commence. This gentleman being direct from America would be possessed of the full views and feelings of the American Government and people; and suppose he were to state to the agents of the French Government (as we have no Minister there to whom he could apply) that they had been misinformed; that the American Government had no desire to go to war; that all the measures she had taken were measures of defence only, called for by the unexampled depredations committed upon our vessels and property by French privateers, whose abominable conduct, perhaps, they had not been informed of. A man capable of making a fair and just representation of the situation of things, and showing that all which had been done by this Government had been right and proper, might find it also necessary to speak of the relative situations of the two countries. He might find it necessary to do this, in order to obtain a release of his own property. And suppose, from his representations, the French Government should take off the embargo which had been laid, release our seamen, and restore our property, would such a man come under the lash of this law? As it appeared to him, he would, and he could not consent to a law which should punish such a person. Our Consul-General at Paris, he well knew, is not authorized, as a diplomatic character, to interfere in the existing disputes between this country and France. Suppose. however, he had come forward to the French Government at the time [H. of R. the embargo was laid, and, by using the same kind of arguments which he had supposed to be used in the former case, which he had stated, had convinced the French Government of the impropriety of its conduct, would he not, by thus acting, have made himself liable to the operation of this law? If so, it goes farther than he wished it. He would put another case. Suppose our Minister at the Hague should be applied to on the subject of the disputes between the two Governments, and should give such information with respect to the views and conduct of this Government as should induce them to relax in their measures towards this country, would our Minister at the Hague fall under the penalties of this law? He believed he would, though he might have been the means of averting a war from the country. If these objections can be answered to his satisfaction, he would vote for the bill; otherwise, he would not. Mr. DANA wished the law might have the credit which the vote of the gentleman from Maryland would stamp upon it; and, when he was shown that the cases which he had stated do not come within its letter or its spirit, he trusted he would give it his vote. The first case is that of an individual merchant applying to the French Government for a restoration of his own property. If this case, said Mr. D., could come within a fair construction of the law, it ought not to pass; but if the gentleman from Maryland will attend to the scope and phraseology of the bill, and recollect that every law must be explained according to its subject-matter, that the law proposes to punish only interferences in disputes between two Governments, he will be convinced that such a case cannot come within the law. Individual concerns cannot be interfered with by Government, without the consent of such individual; no more than a dispute between two Governments can be interfered with by an individual. With respect to the case of the Consul-General, the gentleman from Maryland must know that he has no diplomatic authority. Mr. S. SMITH said he had so stated the case. Mr. DANA. As to applying for the raising an embargo, and liberating seamen, they are acts within the Consular power for which he is expressly appointed. As to the other case, of a Minister resident at the Hague being applied to, he had no doubt that all our Ministers, being clothed with the powers of the Government, have a right to make such representations to any foreign Government as shall be for the benefit of this country. It is true, they have not the power to make a treaty with any other country than that to which they are sent, but it is certainly their duty to further the interests of their country in all cases within their power. If these answers prove satisfactory to the gentleman, I hope, said Mr. D., that we shall be favored with his vote. But gentlemen still insist that this bill is improper. In addition to what had been said by the gentleman from South Carolina, with respect to |
