MARCH, 1806. Non-Importation of Goods from Great Britain. H. of R. tage to the nation, which will groan under poverty and distress. Restraints and prohibitions between nations have always arisen from two circumstances-the first, to promote their home industry or manufactures. The liberal price of wages, joined with the plenty and cheapness of land, which induces the laborer to quit his employer and become planter or farmer himself, who rewards with the same liberality which induces his laborers to leave their employment for the same reasons as the first: therefore, it is impossible for manufactures to flourish in this country in our present situa-measure not involve us in a war, prohibitions and tion. The case in most other countries is very different, where the price of labor is low, and the rent and the profit consume the wages of the laborer, and the higher order of people oppress the inferior, which I hope never to see in this country. It appears to me a matter of great deliberation how far we ought to adopt the present resolution, by prohibiting the importation of British manufactures. In every country it ever was, and always must be, the interest of the great body of the people to buy whatever they want, of those who sell it cheapest. We cannot procure the same articles so cheap elsewhere; even should the revenge naturally dictate retaliation, and nations seldom fail to do it. The honorable mover of the resolution (Mr. GREGG) asks us, "how it is to be inferred, we cannot abide by and execute this system?" It is to be inferred from retaliation, and observation of nations who have preceded us. When France, in 1667, laid discriminating duties on Holland, the Dutch retaliated by the prohibition of French wines, brandies, and the like: a It may rationally be calculated that some of the Eastern and Middle States will eventually become manufacturing States; some of those States are nearly filled with people, and many indivi-war followed, and the peace of Nimeguen reguduals have large capitals employed in foreign commerce, to the amount in many instances of two and three hundred thousand dollars each. When peace takes place in Europe, and things come down to their natural standard, and they can no longer employ that capital to advantage in commercial speculations, they will withdraw the same from that employment; they must make use of those capitals somewhere; they cannot vest them to any advantage in our public funds, bank stock or other corporations, beyond a certain extent; they therefore, by the aid of water-works and machinery, will naturally employ those capitals in manufactures, and I trust the time is not many years distant. That is not now the case, and can have no bearing on the present question; indeed it is hardly contended that the resolution is brought forward for that purpose; it must therefore be brought forward for some other purpose. The other circumstance, which gives rise to prohibitions between nations, arises from the violence of national animosity, which generally ends in war. This circumstance has brought this resolution into existence; the preamble speaks warlike language, and the whole taken together is a prelude to war with a nation who has two hundred ships-of-the-line, four hundred frigates, besides gun-brigs and other armed vessels, whose revenue is between forty and fifty millions sterling, who can go to war with us without any additional expense to themselves, who will sweep the ocean of American commerce, amounting to nearly one hundred million of dollars. What then will be the situation of your carrying trade? What then will be the situation of your commerce and your country? But the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. CROWNINSHIELD) has told us "if we go to war, we can do Great Britain the most injury." The navigation of their merchant vessels is principally carried on under convoy. Some individuals may fit out a few privateers and capture now and then a vessel, and put some prize money in their private pockets; it cannot be of any advan lated their commercial disputes. About that time the English prohibited the importation of lace manufactured in Flanders; the Government of that country, which was then under the dominion of Spain, immediately retaliated and prohibited all importation of English woollens. Soon after this, the French and English mutually began their heavy duties and prohibitions, and have ever since been in commercial disputes, quarrels, and hostilities; and we, with our eyes open, are now going into the same system. The same honorable gentleman has also said it would attack Great Britain in her vitals, in her manufactories and warehouses. It seems a bad method of compensating injuries done to us, to do another worse injury to ourselves, which I believe will be the case by adopting the present resolution; it will have a natural tendency to retaliation and revenge. It is very problematical whether the carrying trade is advantageous to this nation. Our merchants in that employ transporting foreign produce from Batavia and the West Indies to the United States, and storing the cargoes for some time in warehouses and reshipping the same to Holland, the Hanse Towns, Antwerp in French Flanders, and other ports; and in some instances taking the avails of those cargoes, and proceeding to China, from whence they return with teas; in other instances proceed to England and lay out the avails in British goods; and then making circuitous voyages of two and three years, with those large capitals out of our country, and before they can release those cargoes so as to purchase our domestic produce. My worthy colleague from New York, who has just sat down, (Mr. WILLIAMS,) has observed, "that commerce is essential to this country, and agriculture naturally goes with it;" this proposition, taken abstractedly, I shall not deny; and then asks us, "where is the revenue to support Government?" I will answer that gentleman, by asking him the same question, Where is the revenue to support Government, when nearly one half of that revenue is derived from Great Britain and her dependencies? I would ask that gentleman H. OF R. Non-Importation of Goods from Great Britain. where is to be the market for 25,000,000 weight of cotton annually exported, (it is not to be presumed they will not retaliate in every particular;) where is to be the market for your tobacco, potashes, flaxseed, provisions, and other domestic produce, exported from this country to Great Britain, the British East and West Indies, and Newfoundland, to the annual value of between 20 and $30,000,000? Rely on it, if you adopt this measure, you will embarrass all the operations of Government, all the operations of the community, and must have re course to direct taxation on the farmer, who will be unable to pay, for the want of a price for his produce; your merchants become bankrupts and you distress the agriculturists. The same honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania has further observed, "it will be such a shock upon Great Britain, she will not be able to endure it." Let that gentleman reflect on the wealth and maritime power of that country. Ever since my memory, the approaching ruin of Great Britain has been frequently foretold; after all the vain attempts, they yet regulate the commerce of the world. I must confess I have but little faith in undertaking commercial regulations with that nation, and I believe we shall show a very pretty figure in the attempt, and be obliged to recede with disgrace, and I cannot vote for the present resolution. MARCH, 1806. not have been under the necessity of conflicting Mr. SMILIE. I am in favor, Mr. Chairman, of the resolution under consideration; and lest it should be supposed I am an enthusiast in respect to commerce, and deserve to be classed among that desperate order of men called merchants, according to the representation which we have had yesterday from the gentleman from Virginia, 1 beg leave to make a few remarks on the abstract question, whether commerce ought to be consid-united with the Southern States, if they had been ered as beneficial in its relation to the United told that commerce was to receive no protection? States. I have long thought that there is an es- No, sir, it cannot be believed. But I take higher sential difference between what is, in the common ground-the compact itself, referred to by the language of the world, a splendid, and great, and gentleman from Virginia. Let us examine the a happy people. I have been led to think that powers vested in Congress under this compact, and the situation of the people of the United States, decide whether commerce was, or was not intended separated from the rest of the world by an ocean to be protected. If there was nothing specific in of three thousand miles, possessing an immense these powers, the first page would show the inten region of land, having full employment for all her tion of its framers. "We, the people of the Unipeople in the cultivation of the earth-having,ted States, in order to form a more perfect union, from the variety of her climate and the difference' establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, of her soil, the means of supplying herself, not only with all the necessaries of life in abundance, but with many of its comforts, and even some of its luxuries-from these considerations, I have been led to think it had been happier if the American people, when they became an independent nation, had found themselves without commerce, and had still remained so. Thus circumstanced, they would certainly have avoided those dangers which flow from the weakness of an extended trade, and those luxuries which have hitherto proved so fatal to morals, happiness, and liberty. In my opinion, we should have been a happier Having sufficiently established the right of compeople without commerce. Among the considera-merce to protection under under the Constitution, tions which have induced me to believe that this I come now to consider the resolution under conwould have been a happy state, is, that we should sideration. We find our rights invaded by foreign have enjoyed a perfect state of safety. We should nations, and an attack made by one nation on our provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare," &c. If we go on to the tenth page, we shall there find the power given to Congress, "to provide and maintain a navy." Is the protection of commerce contemplated here, or is it not? In other parts of the instrument, we perceive the power to regulate commerce vested in Congress. Will any man pretend to say that the power of establishing a navy can be exercised independent of commerce? Every man of common sense knows that a navy cannot even exist without it. MARCH, 1806. Non-Importation of Goods from Great Britain. H. OF R. carrying trade, which, in my opinion, cannot be tion, have we not a right to say so?-a nation warranted by the law of nations. I shall not con- with whom we have no commercial treaty, and descend to argue this point. I believe it to be a towards whom, therefore, in regard to trade, we lawful trade, let whoever may deny it. I have have a right to act as we please? If a commertaken some pains to make myself acquainted with cial treaty existed between us, it would be our the subject, by reading several treatises upon it; duty to observe it; but, without one, we have an and, notwithstanding the contempt with which a undoubted right to say whether we have or have certain book was yesterday treated by the gentle- not a use for her productions. If, then, this be a man from Virginia, I will venture to predict that, peace measure, why treat it as a war measure? when the mortal part of that gentleman and my- But it is said that it will lead to war. Britain is self shall be in ashes, the author of that work will said to be a great nation, high spirited, and proud, be considered a great man. Nor do I judge in this and therefore we must not take this step for fear exclusively from my own opinion, but from the of the consequences. Trace this argument-see opinions of men of distinguished talents, from dif- where it leads us. It leads us to this: That, with ferent and distant parts of the Union, who alla powerful nation, we must on no account whatconcur in saying that the writer has conclusively ever quarrel, though she may commit ever so established the principle he contends for. Indeed, many aggressions on our right. No, we must not, I could not have believed, had I not heard it, that let her go whatever length she may, until, on this a Representative of the American people, in the same principle, we shall be called upon to surrenface of the Legislature, would have relinquished der our independence, because we have to deal so precious a principle! But there was a curious with a powerful nation! If we do not make a feature in all the luminous discoveries yesterday stand now against her aggressions, when or where disclosed to us by the gentleman from Virginia, shall we do it? But one alternative will remain in which he strictly observed the rule of the rheto--to bend our necks, to crouch beneath the tyrant, rician-where a point could not be justified, to get to submit without murmur to her insolence and over it as well as he could. On the impressment injustice. of our seamen, he said nothing. He knew that It is surprising to me to see this resolution the American feelings would not bear it. When scouted by gentlemen, when this same measure I think of what is called the carrying trade, I con- has ever been considered as the most proper insider it a small evil compared to this. It has been strument with which to contend with Grea Britcompared to Algerine slavery, but it is worse. ain. If we look back to the times of the stamp What is this impressment? Your citizens are act, we will see that this was then the opinion seized by the hand of violence, and if they refuse of the American people. Voluntarily associating to fight the battles of those who thus lay violent themselves together, they cheerfully and unhesihands upon them, you see them hanging at the tatingly, as the means of obtaining redress, relinyard-arm. In the first place, they are obliged to quished the luxuries, and even the necessaries of expose their persons to murder, in fighting the bat-life drawn from Great Britain. These associatles of a nation to which they owe no allegiance. They are obliged to commit murder, for it is murder to take away the life of a man who has given us no offence, at the same time that they expose their own persons to the commission of murder. This is the true point of light in which I have always considered this horrid and barbarous act, for which, indeed, I cannot find language sufficiently strong to express the indignation I feel. This is the situation of our country. Our commerce depredated upon in every sea, our citizens dragged from their homes, and despoiled of all they hold dear. We are told we are not to mind these things-that the nation who commits the outrages is a powerful nation. But really, as an American, I cannot feel the force of this observation. tions were voluntary, as, from the situation of the colonies, they could not be otherwise. And it is remarkable that Great Britain did not consider this a cause of war, though the people of this country were then her subjects. Coming down to later times, and approaching the period of our national independence, the same measure was resorted to, and considered an effectual expedient to obtain redress of our grievances. In 1776, what was the sense of the people of England on this subject? and how did they feel the effects of the non-importation agreement of the colonists? Let them speak for themselves. "There scarce was ever any affair debated in a British Parliament in which the public thought themselves more deeply interested, or for the result of which they felt a more impatient anxiety than the present, nor was the rest of Europe, especially the commercial part, inattentive to the event. "The second speech from the throne, as well as the first, pointed out the American affairs to the ParliaHouses, by their addresses, showed that they looked ment as the principal object of its deliberations: both upon them in the same important light. The gentleman from Virginia yesterday assumed it as a principle, and the whole of his argument turned on it, that this is a war measure, and that its friends are for going to war. Were I satisfied with the truth of this remark, I should change my mind with regard to the resolution. But is it a war measure? I believe the same duties and obligations exist between nations as be"Petitions were received from the merchants of Lontween individuals in a state of nature. If my don, Bristol, Lancaster, Liverpool, Hull, Glasgow, &c., neighbor treats me with injustice, I have a right and, indeed, from most of the trading and manufacturto decline all intercourse with him, without giving towns and boroughs in the Kingdom. In these ing him a right to knock me down. If we deem petitions, they set forth the great decay of their trade, it our interest not to trade with a particular na- owing to the new laws and regulations made for Ame H. OF R. Non-Importation of Goods from Great Britain. MARCH, 1806. that which is now proposed-that it went to the length of prohibiting all intercourse, while the present resolution is confined to prohibiting imports, and does not apply at all to our exports. rica. The vast quantity of our manufactures, (beides those articles imported from abroad, which were purchased either with our own manufactures, or with the produce of our colonies,) which the American trade formerly took off our hands; by all which, many thou- With regard to the effect of this measure upon sand manufacturers, seamen, and laborers, had been the revenue, I believe it will have such an effect, employed, to the very great and increasing benefit of to a certain degree, but I am far from believing it the nation. That, in return for these exports, the peti-will be to the amount talked of. I have no doubt tioners had received from the colonies, rice, indigo, to- that we will obtain from other countries what will bacco, naval stores, oil, whale fins, furs, and lately pot-suffice for our wants, without applying to Great ash, with other staple commodities, besides a large bal- Britain. But suppose there should be a greater ance in remittances, by bills of exchange and bullion, obtained by the colonists for articles of their produce, deficiency in our revenue, and suppose we shall not required for British market, and therefore exported not get from other countries all the articles we to other places. want; are we to compare these privations with the sacrifice of our rights as a nation? I, for one, am of the opinion, that if we were not to consume half the luxuries, and many of the conveniences at present imported, we should be as happy as we now are. This would have one excellent effectit would revive that spirit of industry which our large importations, so far as relates to family manufactures, have almost annihilated. I cannot see what is to prevent every family among us manufacturing what is necessary for their own wear. and our wives be deprived of their silk gowns, It is true, we might want the fine clothes we wear, but would this diminish our happiness? Are such privations to be put into competition with the preservation of our rights? I hope there still remains too much of that ancient virtue which once glowed in the American breast to consider this as an evil. I confess I was exceedingly surprised yesterday, to hear my colleague, (Mr. J. CLAY,) coming from one of the first commercial cities in the Union, expressing his despair of the virtue of the American people-expressing the opinion that our people could not hold out six or eight months against "That, from the nature of this trade, consisting of British manufactures exported, and of the import of raw materials from America, many of them used in our manufactures, and all of them tending to lessen our dependence on neighboring States, it must be deemed of the highest importance in the commercial system of this nation, that this commerce, so beneficial to the State, and so necessary for the support of multitudes, then lay under such difficulties and discouragements, that nothing less than its utter ruin was apprehended, without the immediate interposition of Parliament." "At the conclusion of our last volume, we saw the nation involved in the most distressful circumstances that could well be imagined; our manufactures at a stand, commerce almost totally annihilated, provisions extravagantly dear, and a numerous populace unemployed, without the means of procuring a livelihood. Such, and so gloomy, was the prospect that opened at home."-Vol. ix. Ann. Reg. Down to the beginning of the American war, this was uniformly considered as the most powerful instrument in our hands to oblige Britain to do us justice. Since that time, it will be found that the same sentiment has been expressed by the House of Representatives of the United States. By a recurrence to the Journals it will be seen that, on the 21st of April, 1794, this resolution was adopted: "Whereas, The injuries which have been suffered, and may be suffered, by the United States, from violations committed by Great Britain, on their neutral rights and commercial interests, as well as from her failure to execute the seventh article of the Treaty of Peace, render it expedient for the interests of the United States that the commercial intercourse between the two countries should not continue to be carried on in the extent at present allowed: "Resolved, That, from and after the first day of November next, all commercial intercourse between the citizens of the United States and the subjects of the King of Great Britain, or the citizens or subjects of any other nation, so far as the same respects articles of the growth or manufacture of Great Britain or Ireland, shall be prohibited." This resolution was decided by yeas and nays, and I find there were for it 58 yeas, and against it 38 nays. Among those who voted in favor of it, I find my own name, associated with the names of men with whom it has always been my pride and pleasure to act. And among these, I find the name of a Madison, a Baldwin, a Nicholas, a Clark, a Venable, a Blount, and a Macon. It will be seen, too, that this resolution went much further than such a measure. Is it possible that such an idea can be correct? Is it possible that a few years have wrought such a change in the character of a people famed for their virtue, and distinguished for the sacrifices they have made? Is it possible that luxury has made such inroads upon us, that all our ancient virtue is gone? I, for one, cannot but believe, that, if the American people are placed in the same situation, they will not shrink from danger. I shall be reluctantly obliged to believe SO. I think better of them. I have seen them true to themselves in worse times than these, and I never have yet seen them, in any times, flinch from a performance of their duty. Another expression of my colleague also surprised me. He said this measure would, in the opinion of every man, justify retaliation. This is pronouncing it a war measure, unless by retaliation he means commercial retaliation. If he means retaliation by means of fleets and armies, it is a most strange opinion, as there is not a feature in the resolution that points to war. In order to get rid of the effect of the opinion expressed by the Legislature in 1794, the gentleman assigns a most extraordinary reason. He tells you at that time there was such an enthusiasm and attachment to the French nation, that the American people were ready to draw their swords in her favor. I am sure, however, that, by a ret MARCH, 1806. Non-Importation of Goods from Great Britain. H OF R. gland as a party to our transactions with other nations? In our affairs with Spain, we are doing England no injury, and she has no right to interfere with the exercise of our rights as an inde rospect of the opinions which at that time pre-Have we got to this, that we are to consider Envailed in the city, where that gentleman as well as myself resided, he will perceive the incorrectness of his remark. I never yet met with any man who thought we would be justified in interfering in the contest of France with the despots of Eu-pendent nation. rope. The enthusiasm felt for France I well remember. We considered her as contending for the rights of human nature, and our wishes were ardent for her success. Another circumstance heightened these feelings: we recollected the services she had rendered us in times of distress. But, with regard to entering into the war in her favor, I never knew a man, who I could say was in his senses, for it. This, therefore, could have no effect in carrying the resolution I have just read. The gentleman from Virginia has told us, that, in adopting this measure, we shall be goaded by commercial interest into a contest with Britain on the seas. For one, I hope we shall have no war. I view this measure as a peaceable measure, and entertain great hopes that it will have the effect we wish. When we consider the situation of Britain, we may be confident that she will not wish to increase the number of her enemies, and it will surely be good policy in her to avoid taking that ground which will have this effect. The gentleman asks will it be politic to strengthen the hands of France, to invigorate the power that threatens the subjugation of the world? How this topic has been brought into view, I cannot tell. I have no predilection to France. I have no attachment to any country but the one in which I live. I am willing to do justice to all nations, and to require it from all. But suppose Bonaparte should succeed in the conquest of Europe? It will be a long time before it can be effected; and if effected, it will be found that a fleet is not the work of a day. It will be found to be the work of years, and years of peace too, before he can possess sufficient ships and seamen to destroy the British navy. And what are the dreadful terrors of the French Government? There appears at the head of her affairs a man who transcends in talents and ambition the other potentates of Europe. But is there anything permanent in this? Much; everything may depend on his brittle life. On his fall, she may become as feeble as she ever was before. The nation we ought to fear, according to the gentleman from Virginia, is not that which has the actual command of the sea. No, the gentleman is not afraid of her, but of the nation which may have the command of it hereafter. I should regret to see any nation of Europe blotted out of existence. I hope that Bonaparte will never conquer England, or England conquer France. But I cannot attach much importance to distant, while I am menaced by present dangers. But the gentleman from Virginia tells us that the situation of England is different from what it was in 1793. Agreed; but that change is in our favor. Great Britain has at present her hands so full, that she will not wish to increase her enemies. The events of the present contest are extremely uncertain. If the Emperor of France shall prove successful, and make a peace on the continent, to the exclusion of Great Britain, he will undoubtedly shut out British manufactures from every part of Europe. The present, therefore, is the most favorable time for pursuing our measures. The gentleman has also portrayed the great The gentleman also inquires, what will Eng-danger to the Constitution from war. I agree land say of our conduct to Spain? He laments with him. I too deprecate war. I consider it one that his lips on this subject are closed. I too la- of the worst evils that can befall mankind. But ment that mine are closed. I wish to God that as I have already shown that this is not a war, every word said while our doors were closed, and but a peace measure, his remarks do not apply. that every measure entered into, were known to I know that war is attended by numerous evils, every man, woman, and child, in America. I shall that it not only exhausts our blood and treasure, not on this occasion say more, but to express the but that it has a still more fatal effect on our manhope that the day is not distant when the gentle- ners. Still am I not willing to prostrate the digman's statements will be rectified by a complete nity, the interest, and the honor of my country, disclosure. even if war should be the consequence. Thegentleman has also sounded an alarm among us because this is not a measure of the Cabinet. That gentleman, however, knows full well that any member on this floor, without even consulting any of his fellow members, much less the Cabinet, has a right to bring forward any resolution he pleases. But he said at the same time there was no Cabinet. How then could he expect us to consult the Cabinet, when no such thing exists? My friend, who offered this resolution, showed it to me before he presented it. I concurred in it, and I now advocate it, because I think it right, and the gentleman will not deny that every gentleman on this floor has equal rights. The same gentleman has avowed his hostility to a certain nation, and he is willing to go to war with her, because he considers her feeble, and because she has been guilty of aggressions on our rights. Mighty aggression! Which is nothing more than what happened the other day at Detroit, where certain British officers seized a man, with the view of carrying him over the line. 1 hope such trivial things, the offspring of accident or personal resentment, will never be considered by us cause of war. I hope the American people will never go to war when they can avoid it without a sacrifice of honor or justice. For my part I cannot see what this measure has to do with our affairs with Spain. Have we not a right to The gentleman has also told us that France in manage those affairs independent of England? | 1793 was doing what England now does, that she |