able, whether one portion should be exempt, while another portion of our citizens are subject to the injury. As we cannot mean to injure them by the embargo, when its only object was to preserve their property, gentlemen when they seriously consider the subject, will say that this is not a just argument in favor of the passage of the law. I will again request gentlemen to point out what benefit can result to the United States by the passage of this law. If it is to compel foreign nations to do what we conceive to be justice, there can be nothing in it. It is idle to suppose that the preventing a few citizens in Vermont from trading with the Canadians, will prevent Great Britain from doing what she otherwise would. The very issuing of the proclamation of England, shows that the Ministry of that nation considered it essential to the preservation of themselves, and to combat France. Now so far from this bill having the proposed effect, the British had rather give up Canada altogether than to give up a tittle of what they consider so necessary to support their true interest. If the proclamation be considered or found not necessary, they will revoke it; but if it be considered necessary, what this country can do will have no effect whatever. I may say the same as to Georgia-that the prohibition of the trade of the citizens of that State will have no effect on any political operation between this and the old world. Being convinced that this is the case, and that the bill will only go to injure a portion of our own citizens, without doing the least possible good, I cannot vote for it. But, above all, the fishermen are to make oath that they have sold no fish or part of their fare, while out on their voyage. The fishermen might as well throw their fish overboard as go to the British territories to sell them. There have been instances in which they have gone to France; but now, when the French shores are lined with cruisers, there is no danger of their attempting it. Gentlemen ask what injury can it do them, to come forward and make this oath? Being a troublesume thing, for which there exists not the least necessity, it is injurious to their liberty, if to nothing else. A fisherman might sell some part of his cargo to vessels in absolute distress. Now if this act is carried into effect, the poor man is prohibited from doing this, or exchanging any part of his fare for those small articles of which he stands in need. If he does it, he is liable to a heavy penalty; if not, he is liable to suffer for the want. But I need not single out a particular part of the bill, for I object to the whole. If any good can result from it, let gentlemen come forward and show it. Mr. DANA said, he rose, as he had some agency in perfecting the provisions of this bill, to say that whenever a general principle had been adopted, although he might have been opposed to that bill, he would render his assistance to construct the provisions of a bill amendatory of the original bill, so as to connect it perfectly with the original principle. But as he did not wish to pledge himself to support the embargo, and as it might be FEBRUARY, 1808. supposed by some that if he voted for this bill his opinion of the original measure had changed, he should vote against it. Mr. GARDENIER said, before the bill passed, he would beg the attention of the House while he stated as briefly as he could, the objections which he had to the bill, and which satisfied his mind of the impropriety of passing it. This bill appeared on the face of it to be a bill supplementary to an act supplementary to the law laying an embargo. The first thing, said he, which strikes the mind on this subject, or at least strikes my mind, is the improper name which has been given to the bill. This bill is in my conception not one which is intended to render more perfect or more certain the operation of the original embargo act; it does not proceed upon the principle, nor is it bottomed upon the ground of the original embargo.. It is totally a new measure, in its principles and tendency totally different from the one to which it is said to be supplementary. It is different as to the causes in which it originated, and as to the operation it will have. I have observed on a former occasion that the object professed by the President when the embargo was recommended to the House, the end which he intended to secure, the only object which he intended to attain on that occasion, if the Message on the subject is a document from which we can infer his meaning or object, was to secure within our ports and harbors the ships and vessels of the United States-not to cut off the trade of the country, because that trade every one knew to be beneficial. The cessation of commerce is an inevitable and unfortunate consequence of the measure, which it was thought necessary to adopt, but could not be its object or intention. It is an evil which we should have avoided if we could, consistently with the principal measure. I ask gentlemen to advert to the principle and not to take what was unfortunately the effect for the object of laying an embargo. If this question were at this time put to the House, supposing a way by which we could secure in our ports and harbors our ships and vessels, by which we could secure the continuance of our seamen in the country, and at the same time give to commerce as much liberty as possible, should we not all be extremely happy to agree to it; to have on the one hand all the advantages of the embargo, upon supposition that advantage will result, and all the advantages of trade on the other? There could have been no difference of opinion on the subject. We have gone on, however, from the time of the adoption of the original embargo, and acting apparently on the idea that the effect of this measure was its object. We have, by the first embargo law and the addition to it, rendered secure our ships and vessels in the ports of the United States. The measure of embargo then is in complete operation since the passage of the second law on the subject, and therefore this bill is not necessary, in my conception, to the operation of the embargo act. What then is the leading feature of this bill? That the citizens of the United States shall have no trade, no commerce, no intercourse of any FEBRUARY, 1808. Embargo. H. OF R. But, while making this experiment, what do we gain? We receive no benefit; we distress a part our citizens without doing any public good. It is therefore, because I cannot consent to render more distressed those frontier settlers who are already distressed enough, and whose situation in the best of times is uneasy, that I object to it. description with the subjects of any Power what-portion as the subjects of any foreign Power. ever. I would ask every candid gentleman whether This will be a mutual suffering, and one way this was the object of the embargo act, or whe-of trying which can go farthest in deprivation. ther it is not a new object? Assuredly it is. It is a non-intercourse law, and ought to be called by the name. The question ought to have been fairly and plainly prepounded to the people of the United States, whether they are prepared for a law which will prevent them from trafficking out of their own territorial line. We ought to have all matters of this sort fairly proposed to us, that we may exercise a sound judgment of their propriety. It will be seen that these remarks have no relation to any partiality to the King of Spain on the South, or the King of Great Britain on the North. Our citizens in both situations will probably suffer, and it cannot, therefore, be from partiality to either nation that I object to the fourth section of this bill. It is because none are safe from the universal suffering that I object to the passage of this bill. How far, during a negotiation with a foreign Power, it is proper as a matter of policy to take measures with a view as it is said to bring them to terms, I shall not at the present moment discuss. This is not important to the passage of the bill. I rest my objection to this bill solely on, the ground that it is useless even with a view to carry into effect the general purpose of the embargo law. I complain for other reasons of this mode of legislation. The subject is not presented to us as it ought to be. This bill is calculated to lead farther on those who have given a reluctant assent to the former measure; when in fact and truth it is the introduction of a new principle. I cannot be mistaken in saying that the first bill contemplated one measure and this present bill another. Trusting, therefore, that there can be no difficulty upon the point that this is in truth a non-intercourse bill, giving to the original embargo act the perfect character of a non-intercourse law, converting its operation from what was its original intent to a new object, and having heard no argument in the House to show the policy or necessity of the measure, as I consider Mr. KEY declared that he should vote in favor it a new step, assumed by the United States, and of the bill; and as he had voted against the as it will affect us in a new way, I cannot yield original bill, he believed it incumbent on him my assent to it. I can find no reasons for it. I to assign his reasons for voting for this. It apwill ask this plain question: Will the citizens of pears to me proper, said he, upon correct princiforeign Powers on our frontiers, who are in the ples, although I opposed a measure which neverhabit of trafficking across the line, gain or lose theless was adopted, to give every aid to carry more than our own by this measure? Will it be into effect that measure which a majority has felt more by our own citizens or by the subjects of thought proper to adopt. Failing in my efforts to those territories nearest to ours? Our own, I an- prevent the embargo, I shall still give my aid to swer. It may not be levelled at them, but I have carry it completely into effect. From other mohad representations from the frontier settlements tives I shall vote for this bill; I understand it as of New York on the subject, stating that it is calcalculated to give efficiency to the measure in culated to operate on them most deplorably. A every part of the Union. While my constituents great portion of those settlements are at a distance are deprived of a market for their produce, from of from one hundred to one hundred and fifty the prohibition of its exportation, if this bill does -miles from any settlement in the United States, not pass, a large portion of our citizens in immefrom which they can obtain the necessary articles diate proximity to settlements of foreign nations of which they stand in need. In these countries enjoy the benefit of traffic. Our laws should be there is little money. The articles they use are uniform; at present large portions of our country of necessity the result of exchange. Now this have an outlet for commerce, and the embargo bill is a positive hardship, which will bring dis-law operates as a bounty to that part of the comtress on all the settlers on the vast line of our frontier; it operates directly on them, and in what respect can it benefit the country? Allowing that private interest must be sacrificed to public good, it must first be shown how the public good will be promoted by the sacrifice. We ought not say, because it is a sacrifice, that good must result; -that because we oppress a part of the country we do the rest a service. Inconvenience and distress must be the result of the operation of the fourth section of this bill, prohibiting exportation by land. Laying out of view all objection to the original measure, in what point of view are we benefited by this bill? Place it in the best light in which you can view it, you will distress our citizens in the same pro munity at the expense of the remainder. On the score of uniformity, then, I deem it proper to pass the law. On another ground also: at present vessels of a particular description may carry off produce to vessels lying at sea, and thus evade the general measure. Although I was opposed to the original bill, believing that the principle once adopted ought to be carried into effect, I assign this reason for voting for the present bill. Mr. J. CLAY said, the bill before them in its first provisions went merely to secure the general and uniform operation of the embargo law. It is, said he, a fact well known to a number of gentlemen on this floor, that the provisions of that law have been evaded by boats and small craft, and these are the subjects of the first sections of the bill. These boats have gone off to vessels of Great Britain with the produce of the United States. Whether, as the gentleman from New York says, this be a non-intercourse or an embargo it is immaterial; the effect of every embargo must be a non-exportation. With the gentleman from Maryland I believe, whatever may have been my opinion of the original embargo, that as the principle is once adopted, it is the duty of honest men and good citizens to prevent evasions of the general measure from being practised. I say the same in respect to the revenue system, to the excise system when in operation, and of the embargo now, that it is the duty of every honest citizen, whatever his opinion of its operation, to guard it from violation as a national regulation. Another reason in favor of this bill is, that unless its provisions be adopted, there is no possibility of an opportunity for citizens of the United States to bring back an immense portion of property belonging to them and now in the hands of those Powers with whom we are at variance. I mentioned on a former occasion that there is in the island of Santa Cruz, the property of a single house in Philadelphia, a sum of eighty thousand dollars. I have in my possession a petition to the President of the United States, addressed to him under the idea that he had a discretionary power to permit vessels to go out, the prayer of which is that the petitioner may be allowed to despatch a vessel in ballast to Santa Cruz, to bring home property to the amount of eighty thousand dolfars. The situation of that island is peculiar. In December last it was taken by a British force, the commander of which became provisional governor. On the 28th of December, this person Issued a proclamation allowing the exportation of produce for debts due to citizens of this country, with a limitation of the permission to the term of six months. FEBRUARY, 1808. mind. Their observations, said he, go to the effect that this bill contemplates a measure distinct from the original embargo. Are gentlemen disposed to tell us that we do not understand the language? The embargo law is a non-exportation law, and this was proven to be the sense of the House at the time of its passage. Why then should gentlemen now rise and declare that this bill involves a new principle, when it was declared to be a nonexportation law by the rejection of an amendment to allow exportation of American produce in foreign bottoms? I can see no laudable object gentleman can have in telling us that this bill embraces a distinct object. It is to carry into effect the precise object of the embargo. What do gentlemen mean by a difference between the object and effect? When a measure is adopted it is to produce effect; and if the effect be produced before the object is answered, that effect is as necessary to the object as the measure itself. What was the object of the embargo? Not merely to keep our citizens at home; it was to keep our citizens, commerce, and merchandise, at home; in the first instance to prevent their being taken at sea, and thus becoming the cause of immediate rupture, and in the next to keep within ourselves the necessary articles for our consump tion in the case of war. It was essential to preserve our produce for our own use, and keep it from being of use to our enemies. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts mean to say, that we ought to be careful not to make an unfavorable impression on Great Britain, and that the embargo was not intended to operate on foreign Powers but on ourselves? Now I conceive that though the principal object of the embargo was to preserve our citizens and vessels from spoliations and capture, that it was intended to have an effect on other nations, to make them feel, in the only way in which we could, the necessity for our commerce; to bring them to terms of justice by the only way we could, if they ever can be brought to terms. This was the object of the embargo. I have understood that the construction of the original embargo law does not authorize the President to permit any vessel to sail except on pub- But let it be recollected that during the discuslic service. The seventh section of this act em- sion of the original law, the proposition of the genpowers the President of the United States to tleman from North Carolina. (Mr. BLACKLEDGE,) permit the departure of vessels in ballast. Now, if to permit the exportation in foreign vessels, proved gentlemen would consider the seventh section, they that the sense of the House then was that no produce would find that so far from imposing great hard- should be permitted to go out of the United States. ships, for I suppose that the gentleman from Mas- Does this not prove the propriety of passing the sachusetts (Mr. LIVERMORE) who went so largely bill before you, to make perfect the intended operinto the subject of commerce in general, or the gen- ation of the original law? Gentlemen may now tleman from New York, (Mr. GARDENIER,) who take all the goods or produce they wish to send to dwelt on the traffic on the Lakes, will not say that foreign countries by means of sleds through Verthis is an injury, and so far from being a restric-mont or in boats across the Lakes into the British tion, it is a great advantage to the country. For these reasons, also, I hope the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. DANA,) who says he will vote against the bill, though he has used his endeavors to perfect it, will agree to give his assent to it. Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL said it was not his purpose to take up much time of the House on a subject so often discussed; but it seemed as if gentlemen were determined to pursue the same argument, so often urged and so often repelled, for no earthly purpose but to mislead the public provinces. Where then will be the operation of the embargo law, and where the distinction which the gentleman from Massachusetts has taken between a non-exportation and a partial embargo in one part of the Union, while another part is free from it? I can see no consistency in such reasoning and cannot see how gentlemen are serious in making these representations in this House, telling us that money is scarce on the frontier; if it is scarce on one side of the line, is it not on the other? There is no foundation whatever for these FEBRUARY, 1808. arguments. The truth is, that whatever measure is adopted by the Government should press equally hard on all. I have before stated my sentiments on the subject, and now rise that it may be distinctly understood and not go abroad otherwise, that this is a part of the original measure of nonexportation. It does not yet operate as a non-intercourse. Merchandise may be landed, but they who bring it can take none away. Hence it is not a non-intercourse, but is and ought to be a non-law, and in doing so have gone upon the ground exportation measure. Mr. LIVERMORE said, that in the observations which he made, he had alluded to the motives for the original embargo as expressed by the President of the United States, to save our citizens and property within the United States. He knew not the motives which actuated gentlemen in voting for it, nor did he call them in question; by the same rule he could not conceive it proper that they should call in question the motives of its opponents. In answer to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. L. observed, that it was true there was a principle in the bill which he should like to see carried into effect; but, he could not swallow the nostrum merely because there was honey in the cup, but should endeavor to separate the sweet from the bitter. If this act did not pass, it by no means followed that an act might not be produced to answer this object. He would join with the gentleman in anything to qualify or to destroy the embargo. Undoubtedly, in various parts of Europe, there was a great deal of property of citizens of the United States; there was within the grasp of a certain Power, which he would not name, a vast amount of property; and he should be willing to contribute his vote to authorize our citizens to bring it home. It is said, he observed, because the embargo is laid, that it is necessary to cause this additional oppression. As to the equality of the law, if the question was in what way we could do the most injury to all, the argument might have weight. There is no justice in the observation that the law should be carried into effect in the same manner as the excise law. That was for drawing a revenue into the Treasury of the United States; it was then a moral duty to make the law equally binding on all. This is a totally different case. First show that it is necessary for the safety of the United States that this should be passed. I have called upon gentlemen to do this. They have not done it; I believe I may say they cannot do it. The prevention of our citizens from trading to Canada, is certainly an injury. Will it bring about this political revolution which seems to be expected? It is but a fly on the axle. It is an egregious mistake to suppose that preventing a few men in New York, Massachusetts, or Vermont, from trading, should force the mighty Powers of the earth to give up what they conceive to be a right. My arguments have not been answered. Mr. SMILIE said, he had expected this morning that this bill would have passed without their going back again to consider the principles and policy of the embargo law. He was sorry to find that this was not the case. Such discontent at the original act existed with some gentlemen, that if they could but prevent its being effectual, they would be well pleased. It appears to me, said Mr. S., from the course of the argument this morning, that we have altogether forgotten the situation of this nation at the time the embargo law passed. The gentlemen from New York and Massachusetts, complain loudly of the hardships of the people of the United States in consequence of the that the United States was in a perfect state of quiet, and had no cause of complaint against any nation. If this had been the case, I should certainly never have voted for the law. What was the situation of the country at that time? In order to do justice to the measure, we must considsr the state of our foreign relations at the time of its adoption. Will gentlemen pretend to tell us that our ships were in a state of safety after the French decree was promulgated, and we knew of the existence of the British decrees? Certainly they will not say this. Was it not then necessary to pass that law for the purpose of calling home our property and placing it in safety? So far gentle. men seem to admit we ought to have gone. I will ask gentlemen, whether if our vessels now go abroad, they will be more safe than they were at that time? I cannot see how it is possible that a ship now going out could escape. Gentlemen totally overlook the operation which we believe this act will have upon the nations with whom we have cause of complaint. At the time of the passage of the embargo law, this Government had but three choices; either to submit to all the injuries received, go to war, or lay an embargo. Now will gentlemen come forward in this House and declare that they are willing to submit to all injuries? If they will do that we shall understand them. If they will not, I ask them, what would they do? Would they go to war? I suppose they had rather not. Would they lay an embargo? No, they tell us. They must then wish to submit, to bow their neck, and let the enemy trample on it. Have they forgot our situation-the capture of our seamen-the outrage on our sovereignty in the attack on the Chesapeake-our vessels carried into foreign ports for condemnation-and would they indeed have crouched with submission? If they would not, I wish them to come forward and tell us what they would have done. We have laid an embargo; we thought it a lighter evil than war, and we hope it will produce its effect. If gentlemen think, however, that we are mistaken, and can propose a measure less oppressive and equally effectual, I will give up this. But if they will take no measures, but tamely bend the neck, I have done with them. Mr. LIVERMORE said it would be recollected that he had endeavored to avoid discussion of the embargo measure; and for gentlemen to call upon its opponents to show reasons without a full discussion, was not proper. He was ready now to go into a discussion; and he avowed his intention to bring forward a resolution for a repeal of the embargo law, in order to produce a discussion, and would then meet the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SMILIE) on the general principle. Mr. SLOAN said, although he should no doubt vote on the same side with his friend from Pennsylvania, he rose to express a different sentiment from his. He calls upon the opponents of the bill, said Mr. S., to come forward and give reasons for their opposition. I cannot conceive what the gentleman would wish, or how many reasons would satisfy him. The opponents of the bill have expressed their objections to it in gross. over and over again, and I have been tired of it, For were they to give their opinions from this day till June, or we repel them, it would not alter our sentiments one way or the other. We understand each other well; they say they do not approve the embargo, while we think it a benefit. What reason can the gentleman have for wishing their reasons? I have but one wish, and that is to have the question. Mr. LYON conceived the original embargo to have been one of the most destructive measures ever adopted, for which no good reason could be shown. Can you, said he, ever convince the nation of the propriety of adopting it? You have been ten or twelve weeks about this embargo, and has not every step you have taken in regard to it been convincing to the people that you did not know what you were about? It shows that you did not understand it, that you are so long in making it perfect. The people are looking at youthey inquire what you are about. FEBRUARY, 1808. is scarce on one side of the line and not on the other? It is owing to the embargo, sir; the people on one side of the line are embargoed, and on the other not. I perceive that some gentlemen who voted against the embargo intend to vote for this. If I wanted to obtain popularity I would vote that all should be embargoed because my district is; but I vote against gentlemen for their own sake, and for the sake of the nation. I wish to stop where we are; I will not vote for this as I think it a thing unnatural and improper. Every addition you make to it renders it more abominable-worse and worse. I cannot vote for it. I think this is a proper time to discuss the embargo; the doors are open now; but it is a subject that will not bear discussion. I will risk my reputation as a politician against any of those who supported the measure. The nation is not in a state of quiet, nor ever has been since the commerce of the nation was attacked in the face of the nation by Republican France; she commenced what has led to all this. I avow, and can prove it, that she commenced the injury, and we bore it patiently. Anexperiment is now made by her antagonist to see what we will bear. All the nations of the earth are trying what we can bear. I would take a course of argument to prove this; but I shall get on the embargo again, which it seems it is not in order to discuss. We are told of our seamen, our poor seamen! A few days ago we had before us a bill to employ a part of them; after all our tears and weeping over these seamen, what has become of this bill? Forgotten. This is the most inconsistent conduct I ever met with; and here I declare I am tired and ashamed of it. One of the grounds on which this measure was supported, was, that it was a measure adopted under the Administration of WASHINGTON. Gentlemen have had all the time since the passage of the bill to find a better reason. Have they found Mr. QUINCY made observations, calling into it while patching up what I call an abominable question the decision of the Speaker on the point measure? The embargo is not a measure to be of order. He did not rise to enter into a discusapproved by the nation. It is one of those anti-sion of the bill. [Mr. Q. was repeatedly called to republican measures which stops the operations of agriculture and arrests the common course of business [The SPEAKER declared the gentleman to be out of order. He was clearly of opinion, after a bill had passed both branches of the Legislature and received the signature of the President, and become a law, that it could not be made a subject of discussion.] Mr. L. conceived this to be an arbitrary decision [Mr. L. was here called to order by several gentlemen.] Although he was cut down by a decision that he could not discuss the embargo, on reading the title of the present bill, he found it was supplementary, &c.; but, said he, you come to the embargo at the end of the title, so that notwithstanding the Speaker's decision, it is in order to speak of the embargo. What is this bill to effect? It appears as though it was determined to keep the embargo on next year. Before this bill can reach the northeastern frontier, ice and snow will have taken leave; so that if this provision against sleds means anything, it contemplates the existence of the embargo during the next winter-to prevent sleds from running next year. The gentleman from Tennessee asks why money order by several members.] The object of his observations was to deny in toto the correctness of the Speaker's decision. Mr. DANA did not rise to enter into the discussion, for though he considered it perfectly in order now to discuss the subject of the original embargo, he deemed it more proper, on the whole, to reserve the discussion till the subject was brought before them on its own merits exclusively. If, therefore, he did not make any reply to the observations of gentlemen in favor of the measure, he begged it might be distinctly understood, that he was not restrained from so doing by the idea that it was not perfectly in order to discuss the object of the bill to which this was amendatory. The question on the passage of the bill was then taken, and resolved in the affirmative-yeas 97, nays 22, as follows: YEAS-Willis Alston, jr., Ezekiel Bacon, David Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, John Blake, jr., Thomas Blount, John Boyle, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William Butler, Joseph Calhoun, George W. Campbell, John Campbell, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Howell Cobb, Richard Cutts, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, Daniel M. Durell, J. W. Eppes, William Findley, James Fisk, Francis Gardner, Peter |