nishes ample proof. The war with Tripoli has afforded the only active and honorable employment which our Navy has had since the Treaty with France; and in which, the gallant deeds of our little band of heroes, deeds worthy of the American name and character, have commanded

SENATE.

tions; and the recollection thereof will be cherished by the American people, when yonder marble monument, erected in honor of those heroes who fell before Tripoli, shall be mouldered into

dust.

The question recurs, What is the cause of our present embarrassments-what has brought us into our present sad dilemma? For a sad one it is, if it be true that we are reduced to the alternative of a war with both belligerents, or the continuance of the present embargo system. Surely they could not have originated in party newspaper publications, or the electioneering squabbles of the ins and the outs. The effects of these are greatly overrated. Though they produce much excitement and noise here, they make but a small impression on the other side of the water. The public documents on our table-those furnished last session of Congress, and information in possession of the Senate-show that our difficulties arise from our having forsaken the spirit and departed from the policy of '76, and in lieu thereof adopted that retiring policy which recommends the abandonment of our right to navigate the ocean, because our commerce is exposed to danger from the illegal attacks and depredations of the belligerent Powers. The spirit of '76 induced us to face danger to secure that right, and would not the same spirit prompt us to hazard something in its defence?

It is a painful task to me to undertake to point out the impolicy and impropriety of our present system of measures; but I see no other way of avoiding those evils which the gentleman from Virginia has so forcibly described, (to remove which I would most cordially co-operate, or to effect that union in our public councils which he so ardently desires, and which I most devoutly wish for,) than by going into the inquiry, to dis

cover where the error lies.

I will go no further back than to 1806, the date of the memorials of the merchants of New Haven, and the great cities and towns on the seacoast, now introduced by the gentleman from Kentucky, (Mr.POPE.) They complained of aggressions on their commerce by Great Britain, and prayed that the protecting arm of Government might be extended for their relief. The Boston memorial suggested a special mission. They expected, no doubt, that the Envoy would be sent, as hereto fore, to attempt a friendly negotiation of differences; not to hold out a non-importation act for an olive branch, or to be bound by instructions to demand as an ultimatum that the American flag should protect all persons on board our merchant vessels; which the British Government contended could not be granted, because, they said, it would tend to unman their navy, and cripple that important means of defence against a powerful and

the present Administration, and the point had been pressed as far as could be of any avail. The like answer was given to both Administrations-the principle cannot be admitted.

The gentleman from Virginia has read a resolution, declaring that there had been a violation of our neutral rights, and an encroachment upon our national independence, by the capture and condemnation of our vessels under the Orders of the British Government; which resolution passed in February, 1806, by the unanimous vote of the Senate-a vote that does honor to that body, as it exhibits to the nation, and to the world, that whatever may be the collision of party on subjects of minor importance, whenever it is a question in regard to the defence of our own rights, and the interest of a foreign Power, we are an undivided people. Yet, notwithstanding this unanimous expression of the opinion of the Senate, and the appointment of an Envoy, which took place at this time, no measures of defence were adopted. A non-importation act was passed and relied upon for maintaining our claims. This was declared in public debate; and, being made known, could not be concealed. It was wafted to England before our Envoy could reach her shores. So far from being able to use that act for the purpose of enforcing our claims, to prevent its being an insuperable bar to negotiation, our Ministers inform the Secretary of State, in their letter of September 11, 1806, that, in speaking to the British Minister of that act, they mentioned it in these terms: "After a short vindication of the act, in the course of which we did not omit to represent it in con'nexion with the special mission which grew out ' of it, as manifesting the friendly sentiments and views of our Government towards that of His 'Majesty."

Although the mission failed of success, have we not reason to believe, from the documents laid before Congress, that, if the instructions had been as liberal, and the negotiation had been conducted in the spirit and policy of 1776, as was that of 1794, which doubtless was expected by those merchants, it would have had a like favorable termination; an intimation having been previously given, by the British Minister, of a disposition (which, in diplomatic proceedings, is tantamount to a direct offer) to renew the former treatyunder which we had enjoyed ten years' peace, and (to use the expression of the gentleman from Virginia) unexampled prosperity to remain in force two years after the termination of the present war. The overture was not accepted, from an apprehension, perhaps, that our dexterity in managing a negotiation, aided by such measures as the present policy might dictate, would enable us to obtain better terms. That the non-importation act did not aid, but tended to obstruct, a

enemy all powerful on the land, and who may become formidable on the sea; with a Power that has for a long time cast a wishful eye towards the fair fields of America, and has almost kept up continual claim to a large portion of the United States, which was once within her embrace, and which was wrested from her by the war of 1756. Then may we expect to see adopted the ancient Roman policy-the turning out of the old proprietors of the soil to make way for military adventurers. Then might we expect the feudal system in all its ancient rigor.

The gentleman from Virginia has told us that his brother farmers must raise less produce, and turn their surplus labor to improve and beautify their farms. Is there not some danger that even this may serve as a lure to tempt the cupidity of some foreign nation; and if the same timid, retiring policy should prevail, will they not be emboldened to attempt to possess themselves of those very farms and improvements? Nor should we be secure, were we to assume the savage garb and manner of life. Mr. President, if a conflict should be necessary to maintain our right to navigate the ocean, I wish it may happen while some of the revolutionary patriots of '76 are still living, who can reanimate their countrymen with their spirit. Some of the present generation may acquire that spirit by inheritance; but none, I fear, by education.

It has been insinuated more than once, that the opposition to the present system of measures (and to that system no one has been more opposed than myself) proceeds from party feelings and disappointed ambition. That this is unfounded, will appear by a resort to the journals of Congress, our statute books, and to well known public transactions. At the commencement of the struggle for our liberties and independence, from a full conviction of the rectitude of the cause, I engaged on the side of our country, with the ardor natural to a youthful mind. And those who know me best will not accuse me of having declined, through the whole Revolutionary war, any exposure or sacrifice which the call of my country required. In 1794 I voted for all those efficient measures of defence then adopted, and opposed the paper resolution policy then brought forward, the same substantially which for some years has been pursued, and is now urged upon us. In 1797-8 I voted for the naval and military preparations then made. Under the present Administration, I have uniformly voted for all such measures of defence as appeared to me to have efficacy, or to comport with the spirit and policy of '76; though the gentleman from Virginia would seem to imagine I was smarting under the unpopularity of my former votes for armies and navies; measures which are supposed to have gone far in effecting a change in the Administration. I am happy, however, in the reflection, that if those votes lost me my popularity and political power, they contributed to save my country's rights and honor. I shall also be found uniformly to have opposed a timid, humiliating policy, which must ever end in war, or an abandonment of our na

SENATE.

tion's rights and honor. A Senator of the United States is unworthy of that high and responsible station, and to be intrusted with the destinies of his country, if, upon questions of great national importance, involving our rights, honor, and independence, his vote could be governed by his attachment or dislike to a Chief Magistrate, or others in power.

The gentleman from Kentucky, in referring to me, has used the expression "the gentleman in Opposition," meaning, I suppose, to have it understood, that I am an opposer of the present Administration. I do not admit that I am, or ever have been the opposer or the favorite of any Administration. I avow myself to be the opposer only of such measures as in my judgment will not promote the public good. [Mr. POPE rose to explain, and said he meant only to refer to the opposition of Mr. HILLHOUSE to the embargo.] Mr. H.. declared himself satisfied.

The gentleman from Kentucky has also announced (he does not say officially) that the Presidential electioneering races for the present season are over, and calls upon the several riders to dismount their hobbies; not reflecting that I am not one of the jockey club, nor had a card of invitation to the race ground, without which none were admitted. Neither I, nor any member from Connecticut, was invited to attend the famous caucus which was convened for the purpose of manufacturing the great officers of State. We were not emulous of that honor, being content with the mode pointed out by the Constitution of the United States, for choosing President and Vice President.

To preserve our independence, and avoid tame submission, we are gravely told by the gentleman from Virginia, and also in a report pronounced by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. SMITH) to be the most luminous production ever submitted to Congress, (the result probably of the combined wisdom of the whole Administration,) that "there is no other alternative but war with both nations, or a continuance of the present system." The idea of going to war. at the same time, with the two great belligerent Powers, is as novel and surprising to me, as the idea of a permanent embargo for a measure of defence. Suppose the warfare be on the land; in what manner, let me ask, would the three belligerents, each hostile to the other, array their forces for action, and conduct the battle? Would it be in the form of a triangle, each firing alternately, first on one enemy and then on the other? Or suppose the fleets of two of the belligerents, say French and American, meet on the ocean; and after a bloody conflict, for I have no doubt both nations would fight bravely, the American fleet, for I would always incline to our own side, de, cripples and captures that of their enemy; a British fleet then comes up and takes both, though inferior perhaps before the action, to either? The idea is too ridiculous to merit serious attention.

When two nations have a common enemy, they are inclined to cultivate a friendly disposition towards each other. If we were to declare war

friendly adjustment, is manifest from the following note of Lord Holland and Lord Auckland, addressed to our Ministers:

DOWNING STREET, Sept. 4, 1806.

GENTLEMEN: We have received a copy (sent by you at our request) of the act of Congress to prohibit, from and after the fifteenth of November, the import into

the territories of the United States of a very large de

scription of goods, wares, and merchandise, from any port or place situated in Great Britain or Ireland.

On a full consideration of that act, we think it our

duty to express our earnest hope and expectation that some means may be found to suspend the execution of a measure so opposite in its temper and tendency to the disposition and views with which our pending negotiation has been commenced and is carrying on.

The measure, unless suspended, will take effect, if not before our discussions can be closed, at least before it is possible that their result can be known in the United States, and would obviously lead to the necessity of proposing to Parliament similar steps on the part of this country, by which mutual irritation would be excited, and fresh impediments created in the way of such a final adjustment as we trust is mutually desired.

We rely on you for taking such immediate steps in this business as may best contribute to a happy termination of our treaty, and to a cordial and permanent friendship between His Majesty's subjects and the citizens of the United States.

We have the honor to be your faithful, humble

servants,

VASSAL HOLLAND, AUCKLAND.

Our Ministers did recommend a suspension of the act, and it was accordingly suspended.

The effects usually produced by a policy which attempts to coerce, by threats addressed to an independent Power, were exemplified in the correspondence of our Minister at the Court of Madrid, appointed soon after the commencement of the present Administration. After protracted diplomatic discussions, in which our Minister labored to convince the Spanish Government of the justice of our claim, and the propriety of their acceding to it, and this appeal to their reason had proved ineffectual, a last attempt was made, in a pompous, gasconading note, in which (as well as I remember, from having heard the correspondence once read) our Minister informed the Government of Spain that the United States were a great, powerful, and high-spirited nation, who would not submit to injury or insult, and concluded by telling the Spanish Minister that there were only two modes of settling controversies between nations-arbitration or war. The Spanish Minister returned for answer, that the King his master had commanded him to inform the American Minister he should not choose arbitration.

Thus has the matter rested, and our claims are still unsatisfied.

When it was discovered that the United States had abandoned the spirit and policy of 1776, and placed their dependence on acts of Congress, paper resolutions, and diplomatic remonstrances, as their system of defence, what was the consequence? Repeated violations of our neutral rights, and the capture and condemnation of our vessels.

NOVEMBER, 1808.

Long and elaborate reasonings have been gone into to establish our rights, and induce a change in the conduct of those Powers, and to cause them to respect our rights, but all to no purpose. Evils have been accumulating upon us to that degree, that we are now told, that, to save our independence and honor, and secure our rights, we must agree to a continued embargo-" a permanent suspension of commerce"-that is, to preserve our rights, we must abandon them altogether. Logic, this, which I do not understand! If there be wisdom or policy in the measure, it is beyond my comprehension. Had this been the spirit and policy of 1776, should we ever have achieved our independence? should we now occupy these seats, under the Constitution of the United States? Our rights are attacked on the ocean; we are called upon to abandon them. If our shores should be invaded, would not this retiring policy invite us to flee to the mountains?

On my mind, there rests not the smallest doubt, that if our public councils had been undeviatingly guided by the spirit and policy of 1776, we should neither have had war, nor been under the necessity, in obedience to our own laws, of abandoning the ocean, and submitting to the loss of a commerce second only in importance to that of any nation on the face of the globe: whereby we are called upon to make a sacrifice of property greater than the whole expense of all the armaments and other defensive measures adopted under both the former Administrations for the protection of our commerce and the vindication of our national honor. In point of real economy, then, we are losers to a vast amount. And to what extent these privations and sufferings are to be carried, and how long to be continued, cannot be foreseen.

Gentlemen who oppose the repeal of the embargo tell us that Great Britain has obtained the complete dominion of the sea; that she is proud, haughty, avaricious; and that her object is to obtain the commerce and carrying trade of the world. After having secured the quiet possession thereof, will she peaceably suffer us to become her rival? Will she not tell us, you voluntarily abandoned, and shall not again assume, them? And would it not be attended with more danger, expense, and difficulty, to regain them, than to hold fast the possession?

In vain should we address her from that retirement recommended by the gentleman from Virginia, as dignified; a retirement in which would be dissipated the resources and wealth of the nation. In vain, I say, should we address her with arguments the most forcible to prove our right to navigate the ocean. In vain should we ask her consent, though we were to employ the persuasive eloquence of that gentleman, to permit us to resume our extended and profitable commerce. We should come forth from our dignified retirement under great disadvantages to commence a new conflict for our right to navigate the ocean. The enemy with whom we shall have to contend may have made peace with her rival, and we be left alone to maintain the conflict.

Or perhaps we may have to contend with an