authorities of France had disavowed their former aggressions, and refrained from them; they did not think it right to permit a trade with particular parts of the possessions of France, considering that the measure was originally taken to distress the French Government, and bring it to terms; but this section gives the power of opening a partial intercourse with St. Domingo, though the Government of France should not disavow any of her former illegal acts; and the present amendment only proposes to except cases of insurgency. Nor could he see what possible objection can be made to it, except that it will prevent a lure from being held out to promote the independence of St. Domingo; for in nothing else does the amendment differ from the bill as it now stands. If we are to hold out this lure, said Mr. G., it must be because we have the right, and it is our interest to do it. When he asserted we have not the right to do it, he would remark upon the word "right." Gentlemen say we have a right to do this, because we are an independent nation. No doubt. But when he said we have not a right to do it, he meant that we could not do it without infracting the law of nations, or those rules which we have declared ought to govern every nation. And though the gentleman from Connecticut has said that there is no connexion of a political nature between us and France, and therefore considers this as merely a commercial regulation, Mr. G. said, he has mistaken his meaning, by making use of the word "connexion" instead of relation. We have no connexion, either commercial or political, with France; but we stand, as a nation, in a political and commercial relation with France and other nations. There is no connexion between us, but there is the same relation, both political and commercial, that there is between all other nations. And, said Mr. G., it is, doubtless, an infraction on the law of nations to offer any lure, or promote the independence of a colony. We certainly have a right to give assistance, in case of a rebellion, by running the risk of becoming a party in the war, but not without infracting the law of nations; still less could we do it without breaking that morality in politics, the breach of which we have so often complained of. We may suppose the Government of France radically wrong, and the people exercising it corrupt, but neither would justify the overturning, or holding out any encouragement to others to overturn, the Government of any part of her dependencies. A conduct of this kind could only be justified in time of war. In this country, in our speeches, at least, we have gone further, and said that, even in case of war, it would not be right to sow the seeds of insurrection; for, on what other grounds could we account for the philippics which have been pronounced on this floor against France, for her conduct not only against countries with whom she was at peace, but also against those with whom she was at war. This was the case with respect to all the charges made against France with respect to Holland, or the Milanese (now Cisalpine Republic) with whom she was at war when the attempts condemned were made. But we have [JANUARY, 1799. said, war is at best an unfortunate state, and it is not right to heighten its evils by exciting insurrections and commotions. If this principle is right. and Mr. G. believed it correct in most cases, it is clear that we shall not be justified in promoting insurrections, even in war, much less in this state, which is a state of hostility, but not of war. Notwithstanding the respect which he paid to the opinion of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. PINCKNEY) he could not be persuaded tha the independence of St. Domingo could be a desi rable object. To-day, it had been avowed, in wha fell from his colleague, (Mr. HARTLEY,) that thi was the ground upon which the clause was found ed, all the French force being withdrawn. H gave credit to the candor of his colleague fo the declaration, and it was in this point of viev which he had always considered it, because h had stated that, no doubt, an agent from tha quarter had come with propositions to our Gov ernment. Mr. G. repeated some of his former reason against the policy of promoting the independenc of St. Domingo. He heard the gentleman from Rhode Island, with regret, repeat one of thos illiberal ideas that had been so frequently intro duced here, by saying that gentlemen seemed op posed to this measure, because it would be injuri ous to France. Some remarks had been made on the probabilit of peace being made with France. He did no mean now to consider this subject, because h did not consider it as connected with this bill In the course of the session, he supposed ques tions would come before the House, in whic it would be proper to touch this point. At pres ent, he wished to make no change in our situa tion. Mr. CHAMPLIN observed, that he did not allud to anything the gentleman from Pennsylvania ha said, when he spoke of a common interest betwee this country and France. He drew this fron what fell from the gentleman from Virginia, tha we are interested in the preservation of the French marine. Mr. PINCKNEY wished to make a single observa tion upon what fell from the gentleman from Pennsylvania. In order to defeat all that has bee said about this section holding out a lure for th establishment of the independence of St. Do mingo, it need only be said, that it is confine to the colonies which are under the jurisdic tion of France. The language of this clause is so long as you continue dependent, we will trea with you. Mr. NICHOLAS explained. Mr. SPRAGUE observed that the gentleman from Pennsylvania insisted upon it, that, without thi amendment, this bill would hold out a lure to in surrections in St. Domingo, and that if gentleme did not wish to encourage these, they must agre to the amendment. What is thls encouragement It is, "if you will forbear committing depreda tions, which we have heretofore experienced from you, we will open our trade with you." Ther according to the gentleman's reasoning, acts o hostility against the commerce of this country, are favorable to France; or rather, ceasing to commit them is an act of rebellion against the mother country; and, to hold out a lure on our part, to stop these depredations, is so contrary to he views of France, as to give a high offence to that country. [H. or R. separate parts of the United States, instead of negotiating with the General Government. The right must be reciprocal. France may, for instance, consider the law authorizing the fitting out of vessels in the United States, to cruise against her, as an act of hostility, and very injurious to her. Suppose, then, the Mr. MCDOWELL remarked, that gentlemen op- Government of France were to say to the inposed to this amendment, all agree that the sec-habitants of New York, or Boston, "Provided ion, as it stands, holds out no lure to insurrection you shall refrain from fitting out any vessels in the French West India islands; if not, why against our trade, we will refrain from capturing should they object to this amendment, which is your vessels." Would not a conduct of this kind only calculated to make certain what is at present excite a far greater degree of indignity in the doubtful to some members. He wished gentle-American Government and people, than any conmen to consider what might be the consequence duct of the French Government has yet excited? of authorizing the President to treat with unau-It certainly would. Yet, where is the difference thorized persons. Gentlemen have stated, and he supposed truly, that the trade of this island of St. Domingo is a gold mine to the merchants of this country; and he was afraid that the richness of this trade had too much attraction to be resisted by those concerned in it, though it might be dearly purchased by the nation at large. He differed widely in opinion from the gentleman from South Carolina, with respect to the effect which the independence of that island would have upon this country; he believed it was by no means a desirable event to this country. between this conduct and that which we are pursuing? He could see none. Will gentlemen say "we are right, and they are wrong; because they are making depredations upon our commerce, and refuse to do us justice?" This will give no answer. Every nation is its own judge, and can always declare themselves right, and their enemy wrong. But gentlemen say no negotiation is to take place. Will the President, said Mr. L., when he finds privateers no longer fitted out at certain ports, renew intercourse at once with such ports, Mr. LIVINGSTON was afraid, and it could not be without any assurance that the same conduct will too often repeated, that the committee are losing be pursued? Some intercourse must take place sight of those great principles which gentlemen before a proclamation can be issued declaring have heretofore so warmly espoused, viz: the dan- that the practice of privateering has ceased at any ger of interfering with the concerns of other Gov-place. Here is then a negotiation, and a treaty, ernments. It has been said that this detestable plan has been practised to an extent in Europe, unknown to the ancient or modern world. If this is true, though he was not himself inclined to believe it is a modern doctrine, it certainly ought not to be practised by nations who make the law of nations their rule of action. to the different Powers which have been established during the Revolution in France. This was reasoning from particular agencies to a General not only with a colony, but with any other port or place, which will make application for it; yet we say an interference with foreign Governments cannot be sufficiently detested. We say this, and yet we are about to do the same thing, not by words only, but by a solemn legislative proceeding. Gentlemen say wherever an authority is exerWe have complained, said Mr. L., that anothercised, it must be supposed to be legal, and referred Government has, by invitation, by words, not by acts, attempted to separate the citizens of this country from its Government. If the fact is well founded, and could be proved, it ought doubt-Government. less to have excited the indignation of all America. Let us, said Mr. L., see what we are about to do. We are about to say, by law, "that we will give particular advantages in trade, whenever any part of the dependencies of France shall be found to act differently from the whole body of the nation, and, of course, contrary to the will of their Government." Are we not about to do this? No man who reads this bill can hesitate to say we are. But gentlemen say it is no lure thrown out to the dependencies of France, to say to them, "You ought to refrain from committing depredations upon the commerce of the United States." This is a strange argument. The refraining from these acts, for the advantages of our commerce, is the lure. If it is right in the United States to negotiate with a part of the French dominions, in order to induce them to act differently from their Government, whether right or wrong, it would be right for a foreign Government to negotiate with In case of a revolution in the Government of a nation, he would not inquire how the new Government came by its power. It would be sufficient for him that they had it. But with respect to individuals who exercise a subordinate power, they can never be equal to making a national compact. A governor, commandant, or justice of peace, may be negotiated with under this act; and, if this amendment be rejected, we not only say we will negotiate with particular persons, but we expressly declare that we will negotiate with persons not under the Government. Gentlemen say this bill means that persons legally constituted only should be treated with, but they refuse to say so by admitting an amendment which makes the matter clear. What is the meaning of this? What, but if the general expression is suffered to stand, the President would have it in his power to negotiate with any man who chooses to say he is in power under the authority of France. The inference is clear. An insinuation had been thrown out that gen It was negatived-49 to 41. [JANUARY, 1799. tlemen wished rather to promote the interests of the country requires. This jealousy of the PresiFrance than of their own country. If any infer-dent has a bad effect; because, from a want of ence of this kind is proper, said Mr. L., the re- confidence in this officer, he will be unable to do verse is true. Gentlemen say they do not mean anything for us. He hoped the amendment would to detach any part of the dependencies of France not be agreed to. from the Government-and if so, it certainly must be an advantage to France to open a commercial intercourse with such of them as are in distress for provisions-to allow them to receive directly, what they now receive in a circuitous manner. If, therefore, he and his friends wished to serve France, they had only to join gentlemen in this measure; but, intead of this, said Mr. L., we give it our most decided opposition. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. PINCKNEY) yesterday told the committee that an ungrounded jealousy had taken possession of the minds of some gentlemen, and particularly, said Mr. L., of mine. That a constant distrust was shown with respect to the execution of every Executive measure. It may be so. Whether I have reason for this distrust, circumstances may determine. [Mr. PINCKNEY said he did not mention the Executive; he was speaking on the subject of war.] Mr. L. said, it amounts to the same thing. A distrust relative to war, must relate to Executive measures; for the measures taken in this House relative to war, must be in connexion with Executive measures. Mr. L. said he had never considered jealousy, though a fault when carried to excess, a much less fault in governmental proceedings than blind confidence; and if I, said Mr. L., am to be considered in the light of a jealous man, I must consider the gentleman from South Carolina as a blind lover, who cannot see faults where they really exist. Which of the two dispositions may be indulged with the least danger, he left to the committee to determine. For his own part, when he saw gentlemen oppose an amendment, which goes to meet what they say is the object of this bill, he could not avoid a jealous fear that something more is meant than meets the ear. Mr. EGGLESTON hoped, since gentlemen had opposed several amendments which had been offered, with a view of benefiting the commerce of certain parts of the United States, to which they belong, he hoped they would support an amendment which he should propose, out of regard for the commerce of that part of the country to which he belonged. We are, said he, engaged in carrying on a commerce in tobacco to France. This commerce is of no advantage to France, but it is of great advantage to the part of the country where it is raised; and though we do not think it prudent to trust American vessels to carry it to France, from the risk they would run of being plundered and robbed, he hoped this commerce would be suffered to be carried on by foreign neutral vessels. To effect this purpose, he moved to strike out of the first section the words "hired or employed." This would give an opportunity to such as choose to accept of it, to employ neutral vessels. Mr. DENT said, this amendment would not be in order until the bill was gone through. The CHAIRMAN confirmed this opinion. Mr. EGGLESTON said he would move it at that time. Mr. SPAIGHT said, as he had been so unfortunate as to lose one amendment, he would propose another, which would, if agreed to, leave the bill as he wished it to have stood at first. Mr. S. then moved to amend the 4th section, so that it should read thus: shall be lawful for the President of the United States, "That, at any time after the passing of this act, it if he shall deem it expedient and consistent with the interest of the United States, to remit and discontinue the restraints and prohibitions aforesaid, either with respect to the French Republic, or to any island, port, or place, belonging to the said Republic, with which commercial intercourse may safely be renewed: and also revive the said restraints and prohibitions, whenever, in his opinion, the interest of the United States shall require, and he shall be, and hereby is, authorized to make procla mation thereof accordingly." This amendment was agreed to, there being 52 votes for it. Mr. J. WILLIAMS did not intend to have said anything on this subject, as it is principally a commercial concern, of which he knew but little; but he also conceived that the agricultural interest is connected with it. Gentlemen are afraid more is meant by this bill than meets the eye; they are afraid to take a worm or a fly, lest a hook should be concealed in them. Instead of war, he thought this bill calculated to promote peace. It is ad- The fifth section then came under consideramitted, on all hands, said Mr. W., that Hispaniolation; it was in the following words: cannot support itself. How must they, then, get support? Either we must supply them, or they must depend upon neutral islands, or the people must bend their whole force upon our commerce. What, said he, is most prudent to do? He thought the regulation proposed by this bill the best that could be hit upon. But the gentleman from Virginia said we are obliged to send our tobacco through Spain to France; is this, said he, an advantage to the people of this country? It may be presumed, Mr. W. said, that the President will go no further in this business than the interest of "SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, if he United States, to issue a proclamation for suspending shall judge it expedient and for the interest of the and prohibiting all commercial intercourse between the United States and any port or place in the West Indies or elsewhere, in which vessels or privateers, commis sioned by or sailing under color of authority from the French Republic, shall be built, repaired, or otherwise equipped as vessels of war, for the purpose of cruising against or capturing the vessels of the United States, or with any port or place at which ships or vessels of JANUARY, 1799.] Intercourse with France. [H. OF R. the United States, captured by ships of war or priva-induced the committee to insert this clause in the teers, sailing under the authority or color of authority bill. It was stated to the committee, that ravages from the French Republic, shall or may be carried in, and depredations to a great and mischievous exand condemned or sold. And it shall also be lawful tent are sanctioned by the Governors of various for the President of the United States to revoke any ports in the West Indies, with which the United such proclamation, whenever, in his opinion, the public States are at peace. At Curacoa, Havana, Porto interest may require the same. Provided, That the departure of any ship or vessel shall not be restrained Rico, &c., our vessels, captured by French privaby any proclamation issued by virtue of this act until teers, are taken in and sold, and sometimes by vessels uncommissioned. It also appears, by docuthe expiration of one month from the date thereof, nor shall the entry of any ship or vessel within any port of ments on the table, that the judges and officers the United States, be prevented by any proclamation, who condemn them, are concerned in the vessels until the expiration of two months from the date of who make the captures. This being the state of such proclamation, unless such proclamation shall re- things, it was thought necessary to introduce a mit and discontinue all the restraints and prohibitions section of this kind; for, since the fourth section imposed by this act." is agreed to, it is most probable that all the vessels which heretofore sailed from St. Domingo will be driven to these places. It would, therefore, be doing the business by halves, were not a section of this kind to be adopted. With respect to the argument that these islands are obliged by treaty to admit French prizes into their ports, there may be a treaty between France and Spain of this kind; but if these prizes are taken from a neutral Power instead of an enemy, and Spain thus becomes leagued with France against us, such a He could treaty ought not to be binding upon us. not believe that Spain had entered into any treaty which would countenance such a practice. We into a treaty with Spain to receive stolen goods, might as well suppose that France had entered or to make their ports receptacles of pirates. He did not mean to enlarge, because gentlemen seem determined to oppose every principle of this bill, and he believed it would be as well for the friends of the bill to let these gentlemen have their talk to themselves. Mr. NICHOLAS moved to strike out this section. He did not know why authority was given to the President to suspend our commercial intercourse, on the terms here stated. It is said that this intercourse may be suspended with any port or place in which privateers shall be built, or repaired, &c. He supposed that the nations alluded to are under obligation, by treaty, to permit vessels thus to come in and repair, &c., and because this is allowed, shall the President cut off our commerce with these places? He hoped not. He was not willing to go to any such extremity, and he hoped the committee would not. Mr. CHAMPLIN hoped the section would not be struck out. Great abuses were committed in the Dutch and Spanish islands in the West Indies. In Curacoa our seamen are imprisoned, and vessels commissioned by the French Republic are permitted to equip in those ports, and follow our ships immediately upon their getting under way He did not believe the law of nations would justify the treatment which our seamen there received. Whether or not these abuses could be corrected, he could not tell; but he thought it would be well to give to the President the power of cutting off our intercourse with those islands; which, however, it might be necessary to hold over them in terrorem. Mr. BAYARD said, it was clear to him that the gentleman from Virginia had not considered this subject in its proper light. If the United States have a beneficial trade to any of these islands, it would not be cut off by this bill; because the authority given is discretionary, and it must be exercised for the interest of the United States. And will any gentleman say, that anything in the law of nations will prevent us from thus protecting our commerce? What have we to do with the treaties of these islands? If they are obliged by treaty to give harbor to these privateers, it may be a good reason why we ought not to declare war against them, but not against our cutting off our intercourse with them. Our right, in this respect, is unlimited, and the exercising of it could not, therefore, give any just ground of complaint. If those who indulge these practices think it is nore their interest to do so than to have an open ntercourse with us, let them continue to indulge hem. If not, they will refrain from them. Mr. NICHOLAS Said, the gentleman from Delafrom Massachusetts seems to have understood ware did not understand him. The gentleman him, but had not satisfied him. Mr. N. did not mean to deny that we have the right to interdict our commerce with any country we please; but, if prior to our Treaty of Amity and Commerce with Spain, a treaty existed between France and Spain, in which the right was reciprocally allowed to carry prizes into each other's ports, with which we were acquainted at the time, if we, because Spain admits of these prizes, interdict our commerce with any of her possessions, we violate our treaty, and she will be at liberty to say the treaty shall be no longer binding. This, Mr. N. said, was the objection in his mind to this section, for which he did not think himself deserving of the reproof which he had received. As to the argument that no harm could arise from giving the President this power, it was sufficient to answer, that when power is given it is expected to be exercised, and if this power be likely to run foul upon a treaty, it ought not to be given. Mr. GALLATIN believed it impossible to mistake the meaning of this section. It is extremely plain, and the gentleman from Massachusetts is doubtless right in endeavoring to make this a party question, in order to prevent its rejection, because he defied that gentleman to support Mr. Oris said, he would state the motives which | the propriety of the section by argument. He, therefore, makes an appeal to party, by saying it will be best to leave gentlemen to their own conversation. Mr. G. believed so too, because it would be impossible for the friends of this section to answer the objections brought against it. But the gentleman from Massachusetts complains that every section of this bill is opposed. No part of this bill, said Mr. G., which is similar to the law as it now stands has been opposed, but only the new principles which have been introduced into it; and could it be expected that we should sit silently to see a section pass like the present, which authorizes the President of the United States to interdict all our intercourse with Spain and Holland, without saying it is wrong? Because this power is to be lodged where the gentleman thinks it is expedient for the United States it ought to be lodged, are we, said Mr. G., to place an unlimited confidence in the President on the subject of commerce, which the Constitution has exclusively placed in our hands? Could it be supposed that members on this floor who represent the western counties of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the States of Kentucky and Tennessee, should be silent when a provision is proposed to the House which might go to prevent those parts of the country from exporting a bushel of wheat or a barrel of flour? This could not be expected; for his own part, he could scarcely believe his own eyes, when he read this section of the bill. As to what the gentleman from Rhode Island had said about the imprisonment of our seamen, this bill has no relation to them. This section says that the President shall have power to suspend our intercourse with all those places in which French privateers shall be built, repaired, &c. Is it not known, said Mr. G., that Spain and Holland are parties in the present war against Great Britain, and that therefore their possessions in the West Indies and elsewhere must receive French privateers and suffer them to be repaired? Indeed, they are interested in all their captures of British vessels and property; and if, under the pretence of cruising against the British, they bring in American vessels, it cannot be expected that the ports of Spain and Holland can refuse them harbor. It is clear that every port of the possessions of Spain and Holland does and must admit French privateers. Whilst parties in the war they can in no way avoid it; and, unless we mean to make every nation in Europe a party in our disputes with France, and declare war against them as joint enemies with France, we ought not to pass a clause like the present. Is it, asked Mr. G., contrary to the law of nations to suffer the vessels of a belligerent Power to be built in a neutral port? Certainly not, for we admit of it ourselves. We are now building vessels for the Dey of Algiers, which are intended to cruise against neutral nations; and how can we, therefore, say it is a breach of the law of nations? In building these vessels, we do not suppose that we have anything to do with their employment. But the prohibition is still more extraordinary when it is extended to places in [JANUARY, 1799. which French prizes are permitted to be condemned or sold. So far as relates to condemnation, the gentleman from Massachusetts seems not to understand it. Most neutral nations have admitted of a consular jurisdiction by France with respect to the sale of their prizes, though we have not. They are considered as an inferior court of admiralty, and we have no right to find fault with any nation for admitting of them, though we have not chosen to do so. But the bill does not only contemplate cases of condemnation, but also those of sale. Did not we, said Mr. G., before the British Treaty, suffer the French to bring in and sell their prizes in our ports? It is true, a neutral nation is not obliged to permit the sale of the prizes of belligerent Powers; it is a thing which they may do or not, as they find it their interest; we have done it, and we should have thought it very extraordinary if, on that account, Great Britain should have said, we will prohibit all intercourse with you, because you permit French prizes to be sold in your ports. What is the ground upon which this business is taken? There is no official document before the House; it is true the gentleman from Massachusetts has read a memorial to show that the judges in Curacoa are corrupt, and have suffered prizes to be sold contrary to the law of nations. But what is the natural course to be taken in such cases? Certainly for our Executive to negotiate for a redress of grievances, and not cut off at one blow our intercourse, without waiting for any representation on the subject. The same ground of complaint, Mr. G. said, had existed in some of the British West India islands. Have gentlemen forgotten what was done at Cape Nichola Mole? And did we think it right at that time to suspend our commercial intercourse with the British? No; the first step was to negotiate with the British Government. It proposes to place an unlimited power in the A provision like the present is extremely novel. hands of the President as to the interdiction of our commerce. and says we have nothing to fear from this. If The gentleman from Rhode Islso, said Mr. G., Congress might as well pass a law for the President to do whatever he thinks proper with respect to our commerce. But, if we mean to preserve peace with all nations, except France, thorized by the law of nations in a conduct of this we ought not to act thus; for we are not au kind. Again with respect to Holland, we have declared by a treaty with that country that they shall be entitled to the same privileges which we grant to the most favored nation. We cannot, therefore, without violating that treaty, prevent vessels from Curacoa, or any other Dutch possession, from coming into our ports. Mr. G. wished, however, the gentleman from Virginia had postponed his motion until the amendments proposed to be made to this section had been adopted or rejected, as he supposed it would be necessary to retain the latter part of the section. |
