Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 (4 of 16 vol.). United States. Congress

into the United States.

      The bill was amended so as to take effect "from and after the passage thereof."

      The proposition offered by Mr. D. R. Williams, when the bill was before under consideration, was withdrawn.

      Mr. Cook renewed the proposition, viz: to confine the duties to be increased, to goods imported from Great Britain and France, and the colonies of either; and spoke an hour and a half in support of his motion, and in opposition to the non-intercourse system. He was in favor of discriminating duties, because he was opposed to the non-intercourse, which he considered the best means of depressing our navigating interest and advancing that of Britain; because the produce of the United States would be carried to some place of depot in the vicinity, and thence be carried to Europe in British bottoms, while a large proportion of American shipping would be inactive. He thought that, under the arming system, we could trade with at least as much honor and with much more profit than under the non-intercourse system. He contended that the non-intercourse system was precisely calculated to destroy that moral principle which had heretofore so strictly enforced our revenue laws; that the system of restriction was partial, operating so equally on the people of the South, that no individuals particularly suffered from it, while in the North and East individuals were ruined by it, and thus a general distress produced; that it would be the most discouraging act to the mercantile interest, ever passed by the Government, for it would throw the trade in all the produce kept in the country by the embargo into foreign hands at the expense of the American merchant; that the system could not be enforced with so extensive a frontier and seacoast as we possess; that it was a measure calculated to produce irritation on foreign nations, without having the least coercive effect; that it was a political suicide, without the consolation of company in it. Mr. C. was, with his constituents, in favor of further negotiation, and a firm assertion of our rights, which, if refused to be acknowledged, he would maintain. It was high time to abandon visionary schemes and impracticable projects, and to pass good, plain, common sense laws. He believed that this discrimination of duties and arming our merchant vessels would be such a law. He spoke more than an hour and a half.

      Mr. C.'s motion was negatived by a very large majority. The committee then rose, and reported the bill.

      The amendments made in Committee of the Whole were severally agreed to by the House; and, on the question that the bill be engrossed for a third reading, Mr. Livermore called for the yeas and nays. There were for it 85, against it 27.

Non-Intercourse

      The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill for interdicting commercial intercourse.

      Mr. Milnor's motion for striking out the first section being under consideration —

      Mr. Nicholas rose and addressed the Chair as follows:

      Mr. Chairman: I shall not conceal or disguise my opinion; it has been and continues to be, that when the embargo shall cease, war will be the only proper and honorable course for this country to pursue, if reparation shall not have been made for the injuries we have received. Under this conviction, I proposed a resolution limiting the duration of the embargo, and authorizing, at the same time, the issuing of letters of marque and reprisal. I trust, sir, I shall be pardoned for expressing the deep regret and affliction I feel for the failure of a measure so important in my judgment, to the best interests of my country. I voted for the embargo as a precautionary and as a coercive measure. In its first character, its wisdom must be admitted by all. Its effects as a coercive measure would, I believe, have been equally certain, if the misconduct of some of our own people, and the revolution in Spain, had not impeded its action. Unless we were determined to persevere in our claims for redress, and to assert our rights, the embargo, even as a measure of precaution, was unnecessary. It gave no protection to our property abroad, it gave it no security on its way home, it only preserved it after its return. When the injuries of which we complain were inflicted, our choice was between submission and resistance. We determined to resist, and commenced our resistance by laying an embargo, with the hope that it might of itself induce the belligerents to do us justice; and if this expectation were disappointed, that we might prepare for war, by preserving in our own possession our essential resources – men and money. If resistance was not our determination, I do not hesitate to say, that the embargo was unwise and unnecessary. If we intended ultimately to abandon our rights without another effort, we should have suffered less both in reputation and in property, by immediate submission, than by now receding from the ground we have taken. I do not believe that a single supporter of the embargo looked to it as the last resort of this country. For myself, I disclaim the impression, and declare that I was ready to abandon it for war, when its primary objects should be attained, and its coercive power fairly tested. I have stated that I considered the return of our citizens, the security of our property, and the employment of time in preparation for war, as the great and more certain effects of the embargo. All these advantages we have derived from it. I believe it is time to change our measures, and to place our future reliance upon Providence, and upon the energies and valor of our citizens. Upon this point, however, I think with a minority. There has been a vote of this House against immediate war. Under these circumstances what ought I to do? I must either vote against every expedient which falls short of what I deem the most proper course, or assent to that which accords most with what I think right. If it were my individual concern, I should certainly rely upon my own judgment: but when every thing dear to my country is at stake, I cannot justify to myself a pertinacious adherence to a proposition already rejected by a great majority, which would hazard the loss of a measure, the best, in my opinion, that can be obtained. After having offered what I thought the best, and seen it rejected, I think with the gentleman from South Carolina, that I am at liberty, and that it is my duty, to unite with others in support of attainable measures which appear to me to be conducive to the interest of the country. The bill upon your table appears to me to be such a measure. It maintains our attitude towards the belligerents better than any measure which I have heard proposed, and if it be not the most effectual resistance, at least, it is not submission. It continues our solemn protest against their violations of our rights; it takes new, and in some respects, stronger grounds against them. It excludes from our waters, ports, and harbors, all their vessels, public and private; it excludes from our country all their products and manufactures; and forbids our citizens to debase and degrade their country by a commercial intercourse which would stain and pollute them with the payment of an ignominious tribute to a foreign nation. It reserves the great question to be decided by the next Congress, which will be informed of the wishes of the American people; who can best determine how far they will submit to have their rights trampled on, at the will and pleasure of foreign nations. By keeping the question open for their discussion, I have the utmost confidence that our rights, honor, and independence, will be maintained. The gentleman from Pennsylvania asked yesterday, why not repeal the embargo laws, and provide for the enforcement of this system by a new law? In addition to the reasons I have stated, I will mention another, which has great weight. We are told that one of the States of this Union is about to pass a law, imposing penalties on persons employed in the execution of those laws within that State. I will never consent, under these circumstances, to adopt any measure which might wear the aspect of yielding to a threat like this. No man laments more sincerely than I do, that the Legislature of any State should take such a step, but I think it of the utmost importance that the Government of the United States should maintain its authority, and that it should be ascertained whether its measures may at any time be embarrassed by the Legislatures of one or more States, or its laws annulled by their authority. Such could not, I believe, have been the impression either of the people or of the States when the General Government was formed; and if this conduct be persevered in or submitted to, it will, in effect, supersede the Government, and must speedily terminate in its dissolution. I hope and trust that the wisdom and patriotism of the Legislature of Massachusetts will not permit such a law to be enacted. Otherwise, I do not doubt that the people at the Spring elections, will choose men solicitous to heal, by every means within their power, the wounds inflicted on the constitution. It is a painful duty to notice this subject. I have ever been devoted to the Union of the States. I would cherish and support it at every hazard, and would sacrifice to its preservation every thing but the rights and liberties of one section, in compliance to the wishes of another. On such conditions it would be vassalage, not union. To yield in the present instance, would be yielding the Government to a minority. It is