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

susceptible of so many amendments, in the opinion of so many gentlemen, the House will indulge me, while I offer the reasons which will govern my vote.

      This bill for which we were convened, has, during the time we have been here, received as yet but a small portion of our attention; and it is so important that upon its passage, and the principles it shall embrace, may depend the destinies of our country. It deserves our immediate and most serious attention. I hope it may be coolly and dispassionately examined, and treated according to its real importance. Its principles have been carefully and scrupulously investigated by the committee who reported it, or a bill similar in its provisions, of which committee I had the honor to be a member.

      The language is plain; public ships are not interdicted. There is but one question to be decided in disposing of this bill, and that is respecting public ships; for I believe all will agree to renew the non-intercourse act as respects France. The question is, what regulation shall we make respecting public ships, and one of three courses is to be pursued? Shall we exclude both, admit both, or discriminate?

      There are many who would be willing to exclude the armed ships of every foreign power from our harbors and waters. And considering what we have suffered by admitting them, it may be well questioned whether it would not be the best policy of this nation to interdict them by a permanent law. Yet many gentlemen object to this, as being inexpedient at this period. It is said, and it is the principal argument urged against it, that it might embarrass our impending negotiations with Great Britain to interdict her public ships by this act. As I feel as much disposed for an amicable adjustment of our differences with that nation as any member of this House, and would be as unwilling to embarrass the negotiation, I would not insist on this interdiction.

      It is also said that England has made reparation, or agreed to make reparation, for the aggression which caused the interdiction of her public ships, and that as the cause no longer exists the interdiction should cease. Be it so; and may we never have fresh cause to renew it!

      But, say gentlemen, we must not now recede from the ground we have taken with respect to France, we must discriminate. Let us for a moment view the ground we have taken – not only as relates to France, but England also.

      We are not at war with either of the belligerents. Our Ministers at their respective Courts are endeavoring to negotiate, and by negotiation to obtain redress for the injuries of which we complain, and whatever precautionary measures we might adopt would not be deemed a violation of our neutral character, so long as those measures were equally applicable to both the belligerents. We could not be deemed to have taken part with either to the prejudice of the other, while no other was benefited by our measures. While British public ships were interdicted, and our embargo existed, an offer was made to both the belligerents to resume our trade – the same equal terms were tendered to both. The nation refusing is left without a cause of complaint against us, for resuming our trade with the nation accepting the offer.

      Before either nation does accept, America changes her position. The embargo is abandoned, and a general interdiction of the public ships of England and France, and a non-intercourse with these nations and their dependencies, is substituted. By this non-intercourse act, the particular interdiction is merged in a general regulation. This was to exist until the end of the next session of Congress only. This was virtually saying, that the proclamation interdicting British public vessels from our waters for a particular aggression shall be revoked; and a general municipal regulation, over which the President shall have no control, shall be substituted in its stead. It was then, in order to preserve our neutral character, necessary that this rule should embrace both the belligerents. It may be said, and has indeed been frequently said, that the reason of extending this restriction to France, was her having burnt our vessels and imprisoned our seamen. But never, at least in the history of diplomacy, have cause and effect been more distant and unconnected. France, on the high seas, burns our vessels, and in her own territories imprisons our seamen. We, at the distance of three thousand miles, interdict our ports and waters to her public ships, which do not or dare not come within five hundred leagues of the line of our interdicted territory, and this is to retaliate for the aggression. Can this interdiction be defended on this ground? It cannot. There must have existed some other reason. It was to preserve our relations with the belligerents in that state that should be consistent with our professions of neutrality.

      Had the interdiction been confined to British vessels by this law, what would Great Britain have said to this discrimination? In vain might we have told her that we meant to preserve our neutral character, and not to take a part with her enemies in the war against her. Our acts would have been directly opposed to our professions. With this discriminating, permanent, municipal law, could we expect Great Britain to treat with us as a neutral? If we did, we should be disappointed. If, then, it be inexpedient to make this discrimination against Great Britain, how is it less so, when directed against France? We are to admit British and exclude the French. And, are we to endeavor to negotiate, as neutrals, with France, upon this ground, with any reasonable prospect of success? It is desirable that the commercial intercourse between this country and France should be restored. Peace and free trade is the interest and the object of America. While we throw wide open the door of negotiation to England, why should we shut it against France? While we facilitate negotiations with the British, why should we embarrass and prevent the same with the French? I wish to leave the Executive and treaty-making powers of our Government free and unshackled, to enter on negotiation with both these Governments, under every advantage of success which we can give. On what ground can this discrimination be defended? You adopt this measure. Our Minister at Paris is requested to explain it. Is there any advocate for this discrimination in this House, who can conceive the grounds upon which our Minister or our Government are to justify this measure with our relations of neutrality? It cannot be defended. I am not for yielding to either nation, but, let our conduct be consistent, impartial, and defensible. If then, we are to be involved in a war with either, the resources of the country and the hearts of our citizens will support the Government, and we need not be afraid of the world. But those men, or that Administration that will, upon a mere useless, punctilious point of etiquette, commit the peace and happiness of this country to the ravages of war, will meet the indignation, and feel the vengeance of the intelligent citizens of the country. This temerity would meet its merited punishment. The people of America can see, and will judge for themselves; they can readily discern the difference between shadow and substance; they are neither to be deceived or trifled with, especially on subjects of such immense moment to their liberties and happiness.

      Mr. Burwell said he deemed it in some degree his duty to make some remarks on the bill before the House. He intended to vote against both the amendments proposed to the bill. I think (said Mr. B.) that if my colleague who moved the first amendment, (Mr. Sheffey,) had taken that view of this subject which might have been presented to his mind, he would not have found such error in the course proposed to be pursued. He seems to have taken another ground, when by the clearest demonstration it might have been shown that the system proposed is one of impartiality to the belligerent powers of Europe. It will be recollected by gentlemen of this House, that at the time the exclusion of French armed ships took place, it was upon the express ground that the British Government objected to come to an accommodation with us, because we excluded her vessels and nominally admitted those of her enemy. On that ground I venture to say that the exclusion took place; because, at the time that it took place, it was considered a measure absolutely favoring Great Britain, yet not injuring France by a nominal prohibition of the entrance of her vessels. It was stated that there was not perhaps in the course of a year a single French public armed vessel in the harbors of the United States. Have we any French frigates now in our seas? None. Is there any probability that there will be any? No, sir; for France having now lost her West India Islands, if her vessels are freely admitted, it is probable that there would not, in the course of five years, be a single French vessel within our waters. As the exclusion would be perfectly nominal, I would not adopt any thing to prevent a settlement of our differences with France. I am not now sanguine in my belief that we shall settle our differences with her; for every one acquainted with that Government knows, I fear, that it is not to be diverted from its object by any arrangement we may make. But I would do away every possible justification that could be urged by France for not meeting our overtures for peace. This conduct would produce at home more union among our citizens; and, when our rights are attacked without