H. OF R.] French Decrees. [JUNE, 1813. misunderstood. In a letter from Lord Welles- | the Federal phalanx, I did not expect to hear so ley to Mr. Pinkney, of 11th February, 1811, he humiliating an acknowledgment of his own dedemanded their absolute and unconditional re- feat. The honorable gentleman from North peal, not as they affected the United States, but Carolina (Mr. GASTON) declines to take this as they regarded all nations; that the commerce ground, and displays his superior address by of the Continent thereby be restored to the same attracting the attention to another view of the situation in which it stood previous to their pro- subject. He attributes the clear light in which mulgation. As they affected others, we never he was compelled to acknowledge that Mr. Fosdid or could justly have the least right to in- ter did place the ultimatum of his Government terfere. to the superior diplomatic skill of the American Secretary. This unwilling testimony to the merit of that gentleman was as unexpected as just, and with the same candor, the honorable gentleman might have added, that he is not more distinguished in this correspondence for superior strength of argument and elegance of style than he is elevated by honesty and integrity above Mr. Foster, or any other corrupted minion of British power. The honorable member sickened with the repetition of these documents, and turned from them with disgust, to take a comprehensive view of the political controversy between the two countries. The gentleman was right; in minute detail there was danger; a rigid examination of them would have presented him with facts and arguments impossible to be answered, and which would surpass even his ingenuity to elude. Many others, like himself, have sickened in the perusal, because they place the Administration upon the high and commanding ground they deserve to occupy. In a short time after, Mr. Foster in his letter to the Secretary of State, on 3d July, 1811, repeats the same demand in almost the same words and to that he still more unequivocally answered the additional stipulation, that the neutral commerce should be restored to its former situation. This latter demand, in reality, was, and it could be nothing less, considered as a requisition of us to enforce the admission of British goods into those ports of the Continent which had been subsequently subjugated by the French arms. Accordingly, the Secretary of State, in reply, expressed his astonishment at a demand so unusual and unexpected, and desired an explicit answer, whether such an extravagant pretension was maintained by the British Government. In his answer to this, Mr. Foster labors to distinguish what he meant from the inference so easily deducible, not only from the former, but that very letter, and finally envelopes himself in those high-sounding epithets he could assume with so much facility when he speaks of the honor and dignity of the British nation. The honorable gentleman from North CaroIf, sir, additional evidence were wanted in solina infers that they did intend to repeal their plain a case, I would refer to the last letter of Orders in Council had they been furnished with the 10th June, 1812, conclusive of the point, and an authentic repeal of the French decrees, besufficient to carry conviction to the most scep- cause they actually did subsequently repeal them tical mind. In this memorable letter, written on that ground. But, sir, how was it possible a few days previous to the declaration of war, for the Administration to have foreseen so comwhich was and must have been known to him plete a revolution in their designs within so would follow in that short space, it is to be pre-short a period, expressly contrary to their desumed he would tender the most favorable terms he was authorized, if his Government had been sincerely desirous of adjusting amicably the subsisting differences. From this letter alone, sufficient to silence forever the cavils of the most incredulous, I will conclude this point by reading a short passage: "I have no hesitation, sir, in saying that Great Britain never did, or could, engage to repeal her orders as affecting America alone, leaving them in force against other States, upon condition that France would except singly and specially America from the operation of her decrees." I will now, sir, proceed to inquire what answer has been given to these facts by the two gentlemen who have stood forward the most conspicuous advocates of the resolutions upon the table. The honorable member from New York has remarked that they are so confused and indistinct that he is unable to understand them. How poor an evasion! how little applicable to expressions not merely as intelligible, but the most forcible of which the language is susceptible! From the gallant manner in which that gentleman presented himself in the van of claration at various times and by so many different persons? We judge of the future actions of men by their professions, and to me the logic is incomprehensible by which we prove a man will perform an act which he declares he will not, merely because, influenced by new reasons, he may subsequently do that very act. It is a useless waste of time to argue further upon this point. That the British Cabinet requires the absolute and unconditional repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees and the restoration of the commerce of the Continent to its former situation, is proved by the declaration of the Prime Minister himself, by the instructions of the Resident Minister, by all the letters of the latter, and finally by the declaration of the Prince Regent himself. But, sir, I never believed that it was their intention to rescind the Orders in Council if we could have performed the stipulation they required. In the early correspondence upon the subject, they justified them upon the ground of retaliation, and professed their readiness to proceed step by step with the French Government in the repeal of such as affected the commerce JUNE, 1813.] French Decrees. [H. OF R From this ground they | in the decline of life consent to abandon those very rights he himself maintained by his pen and defended by his sword! of the United States. supremacy. I am pleased, sir, that the sentiments and designs of the opposition are thus openly avowed to the world. And, sir, I will take the liberty to inform the gentleman from New York, (Mr. GROSVENOR,) that feeble as the Administration may be, and poorly as he may think of them, while such are the opinions of himself and his friends, they will never drive us from our seats. MONDAY, June 21. Another member, to wit, from New York, JOHN M. BOWERS, appeared, was qualified, and took his seat. French Decrees. The honorable gentlemen on the other side have liberally indulged in invective against the Ruler of the French Empire. I sincerely approve their sentiments, and fervently wish a hatred of kings and royalty may be indelibly impressed upon the heart of every American. I most cordially unite with them in an abhorrence of Emperors, over whatever country they may lord it, and by whatever appellation dis-olution having been called up, tinguished, whether Napoleon the Conqueror, or Alexander the Deliverer. I am equally indifferent to the personal fate of the Emperor of France, or that of his Empire, whether he fall by the dagger of a Parisian conscript, or be pierced by the lance of a wild and warlike Cossack. And, so far as my country be unaffected, I care not whether his Empire be tumbled into ruin, or whether he still have ability to drive back the torrent of Northern barbarians by whom he is surrounded into their native deserts. The order of the day on Mr. WEBSTER's res Mr. ROBERTSON assigned at length the reations wholly unnecessary, he should neverthesons why, although he believed these resoluless be induced to vote for them. The question was then taken on agreeing to the first resolution, as follows: "Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to inform this House, unless the public interest should in his opinion forbid such communicacation, when, by whom, and in what manner the first intelligence was given to this Government of the decree of the Government of France, bearing date on the 28th April, 1811, and purporting to be a definitive repeal of the decrees of Berlin and Milan :" And passed in the affirmative-yeas 187, nays 26. meet the fate they so richly deserved, he felt willing to give a silent vote; but having lost all expectation of a result so desirable, it was proper to render some reasons for voting in the negative. As many gentlemen on the other side have still to speak upon this subject, permit me to point out an object to which they may with equal justice, direct their arrows. The honorable gentlemen may select from the catalogue of vices which have disgraced human nature in The second resolution having been readpublic or private life, and a corresponding one Mr. BUTLER rose, and said, so long as he enwill be found to constitute a part of the charac-tertained a hope that these resolutions would ter of the Prince Regent. This rich and fertile field has been left untouched. The gentlemen have asked why no notice has been taken, not a censure breathed against the wrongs and violence of the Emperor of France. As this surely cannot apply to me, I have the right to retort Sir, said Mr. B., I see no necessity for the inthe inquiry. Why has the conduct of the Re- formation required, and to call on the President gent of England been passed over in silence? for documents that can be of no use, would be That man whose arrogant pretension and long- improper. We may ask for information without continued injustice reduced us to the alternative giving the President the reasons, but we cerof encountering the calamities of war or sub-tainly ought to have good reasons ourselves for mitting to national degradation and dishonor. An honorable gentleman from New York (Mr. SHIPARD) has stigmatized the war as a murderous project, and expressed his hopes and wishes that the money loaned for its support would never be repaid. A venerable member of this House has gone still further-publicly charges the Administration with bribery in procuring the late loans, and declared it the duty of upright men in a future Legislature, to refuse provision for a fulfilment of these usurious contracts. Must not all regret, deplore the frailty of human nature to see that gentleman, influenced by party spirit, tarnish the laurels of his youth, and so doing. It has not been once intimated that any act of the Legislature can be founded on the answer expected, much less that we should now declare war against France. I therefore can discover no profitable use that can be made of any answer in the power of the President to give. It has been said that this inquiry ought to have been made by the friends of the Administration. But as they have neglected their duty, these resolutions were introduced to give the President a fair opportunity, by his answer, to remove the suspicions under which many of the people are laboring. measure. [JUNE, 1813 Sir, if that unfortunate class of the commu- | of any measure proposed to the House, or of the nity had believed the most solemn assertions of tendency of the arguments in support of that the President, or even their own senses, in relation to his conduct for forty years past, they would not now be laboring under these painful suspicions. As no part of his conduct has laid the foundation for, or given any support to these suspicions, nothing that he can do, nothing that he can place on paper, will remove them. Should the President give the most satisfactory answer, it would only leave his character on the same high ground on which it now stands, and therefore would contribute nothing to his reputation. I have another reason for voting against the adoption of these resolutions. The same inquiry was made by the last Congress, and received the answer of the President. And will you now repeat the same question in the most inquisitive language? Will you treat the President of the United States in a manner that would be resented by almost every man in private life? Strange marks of distrust and suspicion are to be seen on the very face of these resolutions; the time and manner in which they make their appearance also go to support the same opinions. I consider the introduction of these resolutions an attack upon the Executive of this nation; and when you have made them your own, if I am not mistaken, the world will consider it as made by this House. As to the motives of the honorable gentleman from New Hampshire, who introduced all these resolutions, I shall say nothing; I shall treat with equal charity all the arguments offered in their favor. It is sufficient for me to be fully satisfied that they can produce no other consequences than those that are to be deeply lamented. According to all the arguments advanced by gentlemen on the other side of the House, it would appear that either the Government of France, or that of the United States, is responsible for all the blood and treasure that may be wasted in our war with Great Britain. They might as well say, in plain English, that the President and the majority in Congress have been the sole cause of the war. It is only a circuitous course taken to enforce the charge with more effect. Through you all the people of the United States may be told this, and much sophistry urged to support it. I shall not say that the motives were bad; but that the effect must be so, is certain. Sir, the five resolutions you have had under consideration about a week appear all to be nearly related in form and spirit, and as you have adopted the first, the others will follow of course; but if they pass it must be by the votes of those who are moved by motives that shall not influence me; I will not vote for resolutions that I disapprove, merely to gratify those whom I am persuaded cannot be conciliated. The fear of being accused of having an intention to suppress useful information, will not move me. Conscious of the rectitude of my own intentions, I shall give no vote through fear of accusations founded in falsehood. We have been told that the time spent in this debate has not been lost: if it has not been worse than lost, it will hereafter give me pleasure to acknowledge my own error. Sir, I have been in the habit of viewing every man responsible for his own conduct; and this in legislation as elsewhere. And although it is the lot of man to err, it is not to be expected that honest wise men will always be unable to foresee the natural tendency of their own conduct in the plainest cases. If my conduct is such as can produce no other consequences but those that are bad-and this so plain that every person of sane mind must discern it-to what will you ascribe my improper behaviour? To the want of good motives, or the want of discernment? One or the other must be the cause. I have been taught to ascribe no improper motive to any member of this House. I shall be one of the last to transgress your rules; but they will prevent no one from inquiring after the effects But, sir, no friend to our country will doubt, no man of sane mind can refuse his assent to the belief, that such arguments will tend directly to increase party spirit, inflame the public mind, create distrust in the Government, prepare the people for civil commotion, with all its concomitant evils, strengthen the hands of our enemies, and weaken the arms of our own Government. These are some of the natural consequences of such arguments as have been advanced in favor of your resolutions, so far as they gain credit. In the course of this debate, you have been told of the forbearance and benevolence of the British in their conduct towards our country, since the commencement of the present war. Sir, if you will turn your thoughts and eyes upon those lonely chimneys of private houses, so recently burned that the bricks are scarcely cold, and take into view the slaughtered, defenceless women and children, together with the plundering of private property, both by themselves and spies, on the Atlantic and Western frontier, these facts will afford but little evidence of their humanity, justice, or even honorable warfare. Mr. Speaker, I have paid particular attention to the correspondence of that Government with our own for several years past; and feel fully persuaded that that Government has assumed to itself principles and rights which, if suffered to grow into national law, would leave us in no better circumstances than colonies to that power. The question was then taken to agree to the second resolution, as originally proposed, and passed in the affirmative-yeas 137, nays 29. The question was then taken to agree to the third resolution, as originally proposed, and was passed in the affirmative-yeas 134, nays 30. The question was then taken to agree to the fourth resolution, as originally proposed, and JUNE, 1813.] Remonstrance of Massachusetts. [H. OF R. also passed in the affirmative-yeas 125, nays | remonstrance which adverts to the war in Remonstrance of Massachusetts. Mr. PICKERING presented the Memorial or Remonstrance of the Legislature of Massachusetts against the war; which he read in his place. After the reading of the remonstrance was concluded Mr. PICKERING moved to refer the memorial to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. Mr. ROBERTSON objected to the reference. He had heard a part of this remonstrance read with great concern, and it should never be referred to any Committee of the House with his consent. He could not consent that that part of the remonstrance which brought into view any thing relating to the sovereignty of Louisiana, should be made a question before this House or any committee of the House. He called upon intelligent members on all sides of the House to frown upon any thing which should place that State in a night different from any other. The State of Louisiana had been admitted into the Union by laws solemnly passed; she had been guilty of no act which could have a tendency to deprive Massachusetts of any right, or any weight in the Union. That State had still her constitutional weight in the Dation; she had all the officers belonging to her, and was deprived of no right to which any other State was entitled. If she had not that influence in the nation which she wished, she certainly would not look for its diminution in the abridgment of any constitutional right. She has experienced none. She may look to the diminution of her influence, if she has experienced any, to any other cause quite as rationally as to the introduction of Louisiana into the Union. Long before that event, the Eastern States had lost a considerable portion of that influence which they had previously possessed in the Union. The operation of the provisions of the constitution had produced that effect. As it regarded that portion of the which we are engaged, to the manner in which it has been conducted, to the refusal of arins, &c.,-these portions of the remonstrance might give rise to some act, and might or might not be a proper subject of inquiry by the House of Representatives. But what act could grow out of that part complaining of the introduction of Louisiana into the Union? Would this House be so lost to the rights of Louisiana, rights equal to those of any other State; would it be So lost to the rights of that State as to take into consideration the petulant and unfounded complaints against the participation of that State in the Union? Was not every State in the Union interested in guarding against the sovereign rights of States in the Union? Mr. slightest approach to the investigation of the R. said he could not, consistently with his duty to the respectable State he represented, sit silent whilst observations which he would term at least indelicate towards it, were proposed to be seriously taken into consideration by the House; to have withheld his protest on this occasion, would have manifested a want of respect to his constituents and to himself, a want of feeling, which he hoped never to be guilty of. His only object being to express his sentiments on so much of the memorial as relates to Louisiana, he moved to except from the general reference of this memorial so much of it as relates to the admission of Louisiana into the Union. Mr. PICKERING waived his motion for reference to a Committee of the Whole; he had no objection that for the present the memorial should lie on the table. He would at this time make a remark or two only, in reply to what had fallen from the gentleman from Louisiana. I was, said Mr. P., a member of the Senate, when the treaty ceding Louisiana to us, was ratified. My colleague, John Quincy Adams, voted for its ratification. I beg leave to say, there was not a man then in the Senate who supposed another State might be admitted beyond the original boundary of the Union. In proof of which, I recollect that Mr. Adams argued that the constitution might be so amended as to admit the introduction of such States; and, a very few days after the ratification of the treaty just mentioned, he laid upon the table of the Senate a proposition so to amend the constitution. Mr. BIGELOW said that this petition contained important matter; that it was decent and respectful in its terms, and entitled to attention. He hoped, therefore, as many had complained that they had not heard it read, that it would be printed for general information. He hoped that a spirit of conciliation would prevail on all sides; that the reasons urged by the Legislature of Massachusetts might be fairly and candidly considered. If those reasons had weight, let the grievances complained of be redressed. If not, let the people of that State be convinced of their error by the answer to be H. OF R.] remonstrance. returned to them. Mr. B. moved to print the | printing this paper, whether the sovereignty of a State ought in any way to be questioned. He hoped it would lie on the table and not be printed. Mr. WRIGHT hoped the remonstrance would not be printed. He hoped nobody wanted a copy of it; sure he was that he did not. As to referring it to a committee, he should be happy to see it referred to the Attorney General of Massachusetts, to whom he thought its libellous character entitled it to be sent. A conversation took place between Messrs. ROBERTS, MCKEE, and BIGELOW, on the former practice of the House in printing papers expressive of the sense of the Legislatures of States in relation to the measures of the General Gov ernment. Mr. MONTGOMERY considered it important that the House should meet this paper, and expose its fallacy, which they could not be enabled to do as well from its bare reading as if it were printed and before them. He wished an opportunity for himself of examining it at leisure, and reading it over and over again. He wished at the same time that the House should meet its reasoning and confute it, as he believed they might readily do. Mr. MACON regretted that any objection had been made to printing this paper. If we have been in error, said he, no man can object to being convinced of it. It is certainly impossible for any man to understand distinctly so long a paper from merely hearing it read. Suppose this representation had been a very able argument to show that our measures are correct, should we object to its publication? I apprehend not. Massachusetts has done what other States have done before her. She has thought proper to animadvert on our proceedings; and she is entitled to precisely the same respect as every other State, and every other State to the same respect as her. We come here as equals, and I hope as brothers. All truth asks is fair play. If truth be on our side, as I verily believe it is, we are impregnable. The cause of truth will prevail in the end. Mr. WRIGHT asked, as a question of mere order, whether any paper was admissible in this House, charging the Government, in terms, with a violation of the constitution. The SPEAKER replied, that was a matter entirely for the decision of the House. Mr. INGERSOLL said he should vote for printing this memorial entire, notwithstanding what appeared to him to be an excitement of just and honorable feeling in the gentleman from Louisiana against the part he wished to except. He should vote for printing it, because he was of opinion that it was high time to meet this memorial and all such papers on the floor of this House with reason and argument, instead of fervor and passion, which had generally been applied on similar occasions. Mr. ROBERTS said he was still unfriendly to the printing of this memorial, if it were only for the perfect novelty of thus questioning the sovereignty of a State. He was of opinion that a question ought to be settled, preliminary to The question was taken on the remonstrance lying on the table, and carried without a division. The question recurred on the motion to print the paper, and first on the amendment thereto proposed by Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. Fisk of Vermont spoke in favor of printing. He considered the remonstrance of an extraordinary character, and, if not intended to effect some extraordinary purpose where it originated, the course now proposed to be taken would give it that effect. If the statements contained in that paper could not be met, it was high time that the party at whom they were levelled was out of power. If it should be refused a hearing, the impression would prevail that it was unanswerable. A spirit of dissatisfaction had reigned in the quarter whence this memorial came, though it had not before been presented to this House. This spirit of opposition would be the evil genius of the country, unless it was quieted by a decisive reply. This paper contained statements, which, with all the deference he was disposed to pay to the Legislature of Massachusetts, were erroneous and unfounded. These statements were before the people. Their good sense would doubtless refute them; but he also wished to see them refuted in this House. Mr. CALHOUN said if his vote for printing this memorial could be conceived as in any way countenancing the doctrines it contained, he certainly should not vote for it. He certainly never would countenance what might be considered a declaration of war by one State against another. When he gave a vote to publish this paper, he should do it because gentlemen had said they had not an opportunity of hearing it distinctly when it was read. the subject of the remonstrance, he was ready to meet it. Congress had declared war from necessity alone, and that they would always be willing and able to vindicate its justice and necessity, he had not the least doubt. As to Mr. FARROW said he had not heard the whole of the remonstrance read, but he had heard more than enough of it. He regretted the consumption of time about this affair, and opposed its printing. Every member who wished had an opportunity to read it at the Clerk's tablehe would assure those who were desirous of reading it, they would never find him in their way. Mr. BIBB said he should vote against printing as unnecessary; because, when the subject should be taken up again, if no other gentleman did, he should move a reference of the memorial to a select committee, with the view of obtaining a detailed report on it. He considered the memorial, though addressed to this House, as an appeal to the people of Massachusetts, and of the United States, from the deci |