JANUARY, 1812. Naval Establishment. H. OF R. rected to lay before this House a statement of the ex-be carried, and the means which are best calculapenditures of public moneys in the navy yard of the ted to effect the object. City of Washington, during the past year, distinguishing the value of the materials used for repairs, the labor bestowed, and the nature of the work performed, the number of officers, overseers, and workmen, together with their pay and duty. Mr. BASSETT hoped the gentleman from Pennsylvania would have no objection to add the navy yard of Philadelphia to the resolution. Mr. SEYBERT declared he would not; and on suggestion of Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS, the resolution was so modified as to embrace all the navy yards, and then agreed to. NAVAL ESTABLISHMENT. Had the advocates for a navy been as successful in enforcing conviction of its necessity or efficacy in the protection of trade, or in defending the rights of the nation, as they were in displaying their ingenuity and talents, I should not have curred with them in the proposed measure. But addressed you on the subject. I would have conwhile I admire the zeal they have manifested, and defended their favorite project, my judgment has the ability and eloquence with which they haye not been convinced, nor have I ceased to lament the discussion in which we are engaged. At a moment when a solemn pledge has been given to the nation of a determination on the part of this House to wage war with England-when the mode of warfare and points of attack have been The House then took up the order of the day, viz: the bill concerning the Navy. The question of agreement to the report of the Committee of the Whole to strike out the section for build-selected with reference to our own strength, and ing new frigates being still under consideration to the weakness of the enemy-when it is acknowledged that to prosecute such a war will require all the resources of the Government-when to devise a system for obtaining money by loans and taxes, the financial talents of the distinguished officer who presides over your Treasury Department have been called into requisition-I say, sir, under such circumstances, it does appear to me unfortunate indeed, that the attention of Congress should be diverted from the objects for which they were assembled at an earlier period than usual, and, what is worse, that instead of providing the ways and means which will be indispensable, we should be hunting up objects for further expenditures. If the ten frigates which it is proposed now to build, could be in readiness for immediate service, the proposition would certainly be less objectionable. But it is admitted that no such expectation is entertained that the expenditure we are called upon to authorize, is not for the war establishment, but for future purposes. What says the report of the committee on this subject? After stating the injuries to which we are liable on the ocean, the committee remark, that "it may be necessary to array the national force on that element where the injury may be suffered, and where alone it can be avenged or redressed. With this view your committee have not considered this subject with regard only to practicable and advisable preparation for the present momentous crisis, which, whatever it may 'be, must be greatly inadequate; but the object of the committee is to recommend a system which Mr. BIBB said, that indisposed as he was, had he obeyed the impulse of his feelings, he should not then have risen from his seat. He did not know indeed that he should be able to present 1 his view of the subject to the House, nor (should he be so fortunate) did he expect it would influence the decision of the question. But as the opponents to the bill had been identified with the enemies of commerce, and as he was one of the number, he could not quietly submit to an inference so totally unsupported-so totally unfounded. The people, said Mr. B., whom I represent are as much interested in commerce, in proportion to their numbers, as those of any section of the Union, and would be as unwilling to abandon it. Are we to be told that because the principal part of the American tonnage belongs to the Northern and Eastern States, they have a greater stake in commerce than the Southern? Unquestionably not. The annual surplus products of the planter and farmer are the foundation of commerce, and their value depends on the demand for them and the facility with which they may be conveyed to market. The ship-owners are concerned only to the extent of their profits arising from transportation and other incidental circumstances. It is, therefore, obvious that if commerce be suspended, the agriculturists, who furnish the articles to be transported abroad, sustain a loss so much greater than that of the ship-owners as the value of those articles is superior to the profits of conveyance to a foreign market. The carrier loses his freightthe farmer and planter their products. On look-shall look to futurity," &e. ing at the amount in value of our domestic exports, it will be perceived that nearly one-fourth is furnished by a part of the Southern States in the article of cotton alone-a proportion which is not furnished by an equal population in any other portion of the country. My object is not to draw invidious distinctions, but to show the extreme importance of commerce to the prosperity of the South, and consequently the interest we have in its protection. Sir, there exists no indisposition to protect commerce-the only difference of opinion is in reference to the extent to which the protecting powers of the Government should 6 It appears then that the appropriation of money which is demanded, will be applied to a system which shall look to futurity, and which if it should be now executed to the extent required by the report, would be "greatly inadequate" to its object. And is this the proper time to expend millions for futurity, when you are about to appeal to the patriotism of the people for the means which are indispensable to immediate purposes? To my mind, the present is the most inauspicious moment which could have been selected for increasing the Naval Establishment. An attempt to build a navy on the eve of war by loans and taxes H. of R. Naval Establishment. JANUARY, 1812. when the people are without a market for their disposed to retaliate. The enemy is invincible surplus products, is an extraordinary and unparal- on the ocean, even if the whole naval force of the leled undertaking. I will not call it "ludicrous." world besides be united against her. Her possesAlthough such a character has been attributed to sions to the north are, under existing circumthe opposition on this occasion, it cannot be stances, of the first importance to her, and they applied to the bill before you. The project of are within our reach. Without then applying my friend from South Carolina (Mr. CHEVES) our exertions where defeat would be inevitable, will certainly escape an imputation of that sort, we have determined to direct the strength of the and yet it may acquire a reputation which will nation against the most vulnerable points, where not be more consoling to his feelings than that success will be certain, and where retaliation will which has fallen to our lot. No, sir, if this bill be most sensibly felt. And it is on this principle shall pass, it will not be considered "ludicrous" the advocates of a navy propose to derive advan-it will not excite the laughter of the people. tage from it. They admit that it cannot protect But unless I am much mistaken their murmurs our commerce in the European or Asiatic seas, but, will be heard, and their discontent will be felt. I say they, it will be competent to annoy the West rely as much on the patriotism of the people as India trade of England if she interrupts ours in any man. I am persuaded they will bear any distant seas, and in that way make it her interest taxes which are necessary for the support of a to let us alone. Well, sir, this is precisely the obwar in defence of their rights, and I am willing | ject of taking Canada, and we will leave the anto vote them; but they will not submit to unne-noyance of her West India trade to the enterprise cessary taxes. of our privateers. They are much better calcu lated for that purpose than ships of war. But, say gentlemen, to rely for the defence of the country on any force other than a naval force, But we are told that the President has recomwould be as unwise as to attempt to protect a corn mended an increase of our Naval Establishment, field by fencing in a distant cotton field. The as a part of the war preparations. A reference cases are not at all analogous; but I should con- to his Message will demonstrate that gentlemen sider the wisdom of a planter, who, with a know- are mistaken in regard to that fact. After deledge of his ability to complete a fence around his tailing the evidence of hostile inflexibility on the cultivated field, would undertake to build one half part of Great Britain, and calling on Congress way for its protection, at least equal to that which to put the country into an armor and attitude deadvises us to expend the public resources on a na- manded by the crisis, he proceeds: "I recommend val force, which it is agreed will be "greatly in-accordingly that adequate provision be made adequate" to its object. If the United States must for filling the ranks, and prolonging enlistments become a great naval Power, the system can be of the regular troops; for an auxiliary force to maintained only in time of peace, and to attempt be engaged for a more limited term; for the acit in time of war when you are unable to throw ceptance of volunteer corps, whose patriotic upon the ocean a force competent to cope with ardor may court a participation in urgent serthe enemy, would be to diminish your own vices; for detachments, as they may be wanted, strength, and to increase theirs. On the subject of other portions of the militia, and for such a of the first paragraph of the report which I have preparation of the great body as will proportion read, permit me to address myself particularly to ' its usefulness to its intrinsic capacities." Surely the gentleman from New York, (Mr. MITCHILL,) if he had placed any reliance on a navy, and had and to remark, that the doctrine which confines believed it ought to constitute a part of the "ar the remedy to the seat of disease in all cases, is at mor," he would have felt himself bound by a war with the acknowledged principles of the ani- sense of duty to say so.. It is true that in another mal economy, and has been proved not to consti- part of the Message, unconnected with the subtute a part of the political system, by the vote not ject of war preparations, the following paragraph only of himself but of the gentleman from South is to be found: "Your attention will of course Carolina (Mr. CHEVES.) Need I tell the gentle- be drawn to such provisions on the subject of man from New York, what he understands much our naval force as may be required for the ser better than I do, that diseases of the head are fre- vices to which it may be best adapted. I subquently cured by applications to the feet? Or ismit to Congress the seasonableness also of an it necessary to remind the gentleman that in vo-authority to augment the stock of such mating for the bill which authorized the raising of terials as are imperishable in their nature, or twenty-five thousand men to take Canada, they admitted the fallacy of this doctrine? Where has England done you the most injury? On the high seas. Where do you propose to retaliate? In Canada. And when gentlemen themselves have advocated this course of proceeding, do they act consistently in telling the House that in juries can only be redressed or avenged on the element where they have been committed? In my humble opinion the course which has been pursued as a rational one, founded in the policy that must always influence the conduct of an injured party may not at once be attainable." What are the services to which our naval force is best adapted, is left to the decision of Congress; but an increase of the existing force is not recommended. As to augmenting the stock of materials, the precise object is not stated, but it was probably ad vised for the purposes of repairs and the like. It has, however, been mentioned, that as the Secre tary of the Navy, an officer. acting under the President, has, in a report now before the House, said much in behalf of ships and frigates, it follows he has spoken the sentiments and wishes of the President. Such a conclusion would not be authorized from the premises under any circumstances, and certainly not in the present case, when it is recollected that the report is simply an answer to queries proposed to the Department by a committee of this House-queries it was the duty of the Secretary to answer according to his knowledge and belief. H. of R. It dice. What, permit me to inquire, have been the effects of this prejudice? It has exempted the nation from a participation in the ruinous wars of Europe, to which, if in possession of a fleet, we should have long since have been a party has reduced the public debt from eighty-three millions of dollars to less than thirty-four, and in so much diminished the public burdens-a debt which had been increased by the profuse expendinitures of former Administrations. The people have rapidly advanced in wealth; they have enjoyed the fruits of their honest industry, and they have been happy. The whole country has presented a scene of contentment and prosperity which is unexampled in the world; and, if such are the glorious consequences of prejudice," I acknowledge its influence, and will not consent to abandon it. That we are now beset with troubles and embarrassments, no man will deny; nor can it be believed that they could have been averted, or would now be removed, by the proposed naval force. Gentlemen have also endeavored to fortify their arguments by stating that Mr. Jefferson the year 1792, while Secretary of State, advocated a naval defence in a celebrated report made to Congress. And here permit me to remark, that so far from that report authorizing the inference which has been drawn, it affords strong evidence that Mr. Jefferson considered a navy neither competent to the protection of commerce, nor to the defence of the country. What was the object of that report, and what were the circumstances which produced it? The House of Representatives called on the Secretary of State to report to Congress the nature and extent of the restrictions which were imposed by foreign England captures our vessels sailing to the nations on the commerce of the United States, Continent, and condemns them under her Orders and the measures which he should think proper in Council. Our other losses have resulted printo be adopted for the improvement of commerce cipally from confiscations under municipal reguand navigation. If the Secretary of State thought lations. Now, I would ask, of what avail would a naval force proper for that purpose, it was his be any naval force which the resources of this duty to recommend it, and he would unquestion country could furnish, in remedying these evils? ably have done so. If, on the contrary, it is not There is not an intelligent merchant in the naenumerated among the measures advised, the in- tion who would accept a convoy to the contiference in relation to his opinion on the subject is nent of Europe; he would prefer the chance of clear and conclusive. The report is of consider- escaping the British cruisers by his own exerable length, and I will not read it to the House. tions and enterprise. And if England with her It is sufficient for my argument to remark that it thousand ships has failed to break down the condetails the restrictions and vexations to which the tinental system, it cannot be imagined that a few commerce of the United States was subjected by American frigates would frighten Napoleon out foreign nations; enforces the necessity of secur- of his purposes. Indeed it is difficult to conceive ing the carriage of our commodities to market in how ships can afford protection to property after our own vessels, and points out the appropriate it is landed within his dominions. On the high means for effecting that object. Without repeat- seas the navy of England, unrivalled as it is, has ing the particular modes of retaliation which he not been able to protect her commerce from the proposed, it is only necessary to say that a naval depredations of French privateers, nor will it force constituted no part of his system, and is from ours if we shall be engaged in war with not even mentioned. Now, sir, if any further her. Did not the gentleman from South Caroevidence be required as to the opinion of Mr. lina, (Mr. CHEVES,) whose distinguished talents Jefferson in relation to the policy of a naval es- have been exerted in behalf of the present bill, tablishment, it may be found in the history of declare to the House that England is weakest on the eight years during which he presided over the ocean; that she could not protect her comthe national concerns. It should be remembered merce; and shall the United States expect to acthat during a considerable part of that term there complish an object by a few ships which hunwas regularly an annual surplus of revenue, and dreds have been found incompetent to attain ? his duty demanded that he should recommend Unquestionably if the navy of England is incomfrom time to time the objects on which the wel-petent to the protection of her commerce; if, fare of the nation required its expenditure. In after having expended millions and hundreds of the whole course of those prosperous years, when millions on her naval establishment she is still loans and taxes were never heard of, did he ever weakest on the ocean, we are furnished with an advise an increase of the Navy, this "most ap- insuperable argument against the proposed measpropriate, adequate, and cheap defence?" No, ure. Reference has been made to the events of sir, never. He did recommend the building of 1798, and gentlemen, aware that the people of gunboats for the protection of our ports and har- the United States condemned the project of a bors; and the experience of other nations has navy at that time, say it may have been wrong proved that they are better calculated for that then and right now. I can readily perceive how object than any naval force whatsoever. But the reverse of this proposition might be true, but we are told that the views which some of us the case as stated cannot be correct. Whether entertain on this subject, are the result of preju. I we look at the resources of the country, or the H. OF R. Naval Establishment. JANUARY, 1812. force would not long be resisted. It is scarcely necessary for me to remark that corruption is the only instrument which can ever be successfully wielded against the liberties of this people. If, then, wars produce corruption, and owing to the local situation and circumstances of this country, a navy is an instrument better calculated to create wars than an army, I think it follows conclusively that it is more dangerous to the public liberty. That both are inimical to peace, was at least believed by the framers of the Constitution. It is provided that no State shall, without the consent of Congress, "keep troops or ships of war in time of peace." Why, if a naval force be "perfectly innoxious to the public liberty," was this restriction imposed on the States? In no other view than that which I have stated, could such a restriction have been necessary, or would it have secured the assent of the States. state of the world, reasons may be urged for a naval establishment then, which are totally inapplicable to present times and circumstances. The object was to oppose the depredations of French cruisers; and considering the small naval force of France compared with that of England, the force then proposed was probably adequate to effect it. But at present our resources and means cannot furnish any naval force but which it it is admitted will be inadequate; and really if I were an advocate for the proposed system, I would frankly acknowledge that the opposition of the Republicans in 1798 was wrong, and that the then ruling party were right. We are told, however, that in 1798 the people also condemned armies and loans and taxes, and that to be consistent we should vote against them now. Sir, the opposition to armies, loans, and taxes at that time, resulted from a conviction on the public mind, not that they must be improper under any, Another argument has been urged in favor of circumstances, but that they were then unneces- the bill, which, if well founded, would be consary. It was a system of patronage and expense clusive, It is, that the Constitution imperiously evidently without a legitimate object, and there- enjoins on Congress the providing of a navy. fore justly condemned. There was no foreign Congress shall have power to provide and mainenemy on which the Army could possibly oper- tain a navy." Such are the words of the Conate, and it was obvious that it could not have been stitution; and in order to show that so far from intended to defend the country against a foreign being imperative they only delegate a discretionfoe. How is the case now? The public senti- ary power which may or may not be exercised, ment has called for war with England, and an as Congress shall judge proper. I will call the atarmy, therefore, is necessary to our defence, and tention of the House to other powers granted in to attack the neighboring possessions of the ene- similar terms. Congress shall have power to my. But the opposition to a naval establish- borrow money, to raise and support armies, to ment was founded not on the time nor circum-grant letters of marque and reprisal." Now, if stances, because if war with France was proper, a naval force, being adequate to inflict a deep wound upon her, was not without an object, as was the Army; on the contrary, the arguments against a navy were drawn from the nature of the thing itself, as when established being a permanent evil, incompatible with the peace and welfare of the country. And I concur perfectly in the opinion that the liberties of this country are more likely to be endangered by navies than armies, although there is no ground to apprehend a direct subversion from either. We are exempted from such an apprehension by the extent of territory over which our population is scattered; the habits, feelings, and pursuits of the people; the nature of our institutions, and the various circumstances which distinguish the United States from the rest of the world. When the British possessions to the North shall have been taken, it is scarcely possible that ambition can find a pretext for raising a considérable army. If it be apparent, as it will be, that there is no proper object against which an army can act, the people will frown on every attempt to raise one, as they did in 1798. Build a navy, and there will always be plausible pretexts for increasing it. Your navy, as all navies have done from their original institution, will produce wars, and wars will furnish arguments for increasing your navy. That such will be the course of events, the history of every naval Power that has existed fully demonstrates. The West India islands are at your doors, and afford temptations which with a naval there be an imperative obligation to provide a navy independent of all circumstances whatso ever, we are equally bound to exercise the other powers. The grant in each case is certainly the same, and therefore necessarily entitled to the same construction. If, however, the construction for which some have contended were correct, I would ask the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. CHEVES,) what becomes of his favorite project of manning a navy by withholding commissions of marque and reprisal. The gentleman, when told that a fleet could not be manned with out impressment, replied that on the eve of war we had nothing to do but to refuse commissions to privateers until a competent number of seamen for the naval service was procured. But if the authority to provide a navy were imperative that to issue letters of marque and reprisal would be equally so, and consequently they could not be withheld.. We are told, however, sir, that a navy is indispensable to the protection of commerce, and that it is the bounden duty of Congress to protect commerce, cost what it may, I deny the cor rectness of either proposition. Commerce is the act of buying and selling, and has gain for its object.Prosecute it at an expense greater than its profits, and the object is totally lost. An individual engaged in any species of trade will abandon it whenever it becomes a losing business, and a wise Government, in extending its protecting powers, will be influenced by the same principle. If Congress undertakes to protect a portion of JANUARY, 1812. ment. the community, in a branch of commerce, at an great mass of agriculturists in any country beannual expense greater than its profits would pay, coming corrupt; while, on the contrary, States it can only be done by taking money from the that have been peculiarly commercial, have been pockets of others, in violation of the Constitu- peculiarly corrupt. For an example, I refer gentional injunction to promote the general welfare. tlemen to Holland, from whom they have drawn Sir, the object of Government is to promote the arguments in support of their system of naval security and happiness of the people. In attain- power. The idea, Mr. Speaker, which I wish to ing that object, there are certain indispensable convey, is, that notwithstanding the intimate duties which must be performed, or allegiance connexion which subsists between agriculture and ceases. The person and property of the citizen commerce, the interest of the latter may be prowhile within the country are, as a matter of moted at the expense of the former State; that such right, entitled to protection from foreign and do- has generally been the case, and that it will probmestic violence, cost what it may. But how far ably continue to be so in all countries where comprotection shall be afforded without your juris-mercial influence is extensive. The magnanimity dictional limits, is altogether a subject of policy. which has been displayed by the planting and National independence is a perfect right, and farming interests of this country, in affording promust be maintained at every hazard. Foreign tection to the commercial, ought not to be overcommerce is an imperfect right, which cannot be looked. Does not your statute book furnish conexercised without the consent of parties inde- clusive evidence that commerce has been fostered pendent of each other; and the extent to which at the expense of agriculture? The great body protection should be afforded always has been, of the people derive, comparatively, scarcely any and, from the nature of the rights, always must benefit from your system of drawbacks, discrimibe, a matter of calculation. One nation may or nating duties, &c., and although it is probably the may not trade with another, and there is no in-source of our present troubles, it has not been fringement of its rights; but an attack on a per- abandoned. The jealousy of England in relation fect right is a violation of the laws of nature and to the extensive carrying trade of the United of nations, and demands the most prompt resist- States which has grown out of that system, was ance. But supposing you were authorized to com- fully manifested in the late treaty negotiated by pel France or any other nation to buy your pro- Mr. Monroe; and it is not improbable that a relinducts, it requires no arguments to prove that such quishment of the system at that time might have an effect could not result from a naval establish- produced an adjustment of our differences. But, sir, this is not enough; the people must be taxed to build a navy. Twelve seventy-fours and twenty frigates are wanted, and, as we are told, will be competent to protect commerce, and defend a seacoast of two thousand miles. They are at the same moment to protect your trade at least as far as the Gulf Stream; defend the mouths of the Mississippi, Boston, New York, and all the intermediate ports and harbors. If, indeed, those objects could be secured by the proposed force, it must possess attributes which have never belonged to any similar establishment. It is said that England, with all her ships of war, "is weakest on the ocean ;" and yet, from the same quarter, we learn the incalculable advantages which are to be derived from a few frigates and seventy-fours. The truth is, that conquest and oppression were the objects for which navies have been instituted, and to such they have always been applied. The same motives which gave rise to standing armies on the Continent of Europe, produced the British navy; and they have both been used for the same purposes. But, say gentlemen, this is an argument drawn from abuse, and may be urged against the use of any and every power. I admit that this remark is in general correct, but it does not follow that all powers are equally liable to abuse, nor that there are none which if used will certainly be abused. For example-the Constitution deprives the States of the power to keep ships of war in time of peace, while in the exercise of other important powers they are not restrained. Why this particular restriction? The peculiar liberty of this power, if used, to be abused. I repeat, then, that navies are calculated to produce Permit me to notice, however, a new system of political economy, which has been introduced in the course of the present discussion. We have heard that the merchant pays the revenue which supports the Government; that commerce is the annual capital of the country, amounting to six hundred millions of dollars; and we are asked, "will you abandon that capital ?" I had always been taught to believe that the revenue was drawn from the purses of the consumers, and that the act of buying and selling was distinguishable from the article bought or sold. The fact is, that the merchant only advances the revenue or gives bond to pay it, but the amount is added to the cost of his goods; and he is eventually reimbursed by the consumer with a profit. The people of the United States therefore, who consume the goods, pay the revenue, and not the merchant. The capital of commerce is the annual surplus products of the country, which have never amounted to fifty millions of dollars. Still I am not disposed to abandon commerce, because, as I have before remarked, it is indispensable, in a great degree, to the prosperity of agriculture. They are, indeed, as has been said by the gentleman from New York (Mr. MITCHILL,)" twin sisters," and yet they are very unlike in character. Agriculture, the elder sister, is contented, frank, and unsuspicious-always making sacrifices, never receiving any in return. Commerce, the younger sister, is cunning, avaricious, and rapacious-never satisfied unless her gains are commensurate with her desires. Such are their characters as furnished by history. There is no instance of the |