Council. in order that the continuance of the embargo might make a more effectual impression upon the feelings and immediate interests of the people, and thereby change the character of our elections, not only in our States and Congressional districts, but upon our great national election also. But, notwithstanding all these means, thus devised and thus executed, we have to congratulate ourselves, that the good sense and patriotism of our fellow-citizens have prevailed, and we yet remain sustained by the commanding voice of the nation. That impressions of the character to which I have alluded had been made upon the mind of Mr. Canning, is evident from the correspondence; for Mr. Pinkney, in his letter to the Secretary of State, of the 4th of August, says, that on the 29th ef June, he had a conversation with Mr. Canning, which had rendered it somewhat probable that the object mentioned in Mr. Madison's letter of the 30th April, would be accomplished, if he, Mr. Pinkney, should authorize the expectation which that letter suggests. This letter from Mr. Madison to Mr. Pinkney says, "the President is authorized, in such event, (that is, the rescinding of the British Orders of Council,) to suspend in whole, or in part, the several embargo laws." It is evident, from Mr. Pinkney's letter, that on the 29th of June, Mr. Canning evinced a disposition to accede to the equitable and liberal views of the President, which I have already explained. But between the 29th of June and the 23d of September, some extraordinary cause had produced a very different disposition in Mr. Canning, as appears by his letter of the latter date. Upon this letter I shall make no comment; it is before the people, and they will, no doubt, judge of it as they ought. But, sir, I would inquire, from what cause did this change in the British Government proceed? Not from the convulsions in Spain, as has been stated, for they were well known in England previous to the 29th June; nor from the trifling disturbances in Vermont, (which some gentlemen have endeavored to magnify, but) which were of too insignificant a character to produce any effect upon a Government so well informed and enlightened as Great Britain, and one so accustomed to experience, and suppress similar triffing disorders among their people. The real cause of this change in Mr. Canning must then be sought from some other source; and, in my opinion, it can only be found in the torrent of unfounded information, which the British Government had received (after the 29th of June.) of the tenor and character I have already described. To this cause may justly be attributed the continuance of the embargo at this time, and, of course, the real reasons why it had not produced its desired effect; for had it not been for the improper and delusive impressions made upon the British Government, from the causes I have stated, we have reason to believe that Mr. Canning would have accepted the liberal offer made by our Government; the Orders of Council would have been rescinded, the embargo would of course have been raised, and our country would at this time SENATE. be enjoying the benefits of a lucrative and extensive commerce. Mr. President, I have taken some pains to prove that the President had ample cause for recommending the embargo, and Congress for passing the law; and I have endeavored to show why it has not had its full and desired effect: how far I have succeeded in either, this honorable House will judge. Upon that part of the subject upon which I shall now speak, (it being entirely of a mercantile character,) I shall not pretend to enter into detail; more especially as the honorable gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. SMITH,) who is a practical merchant, has given us a very satisfactory, able, and extensive view of it. I shall, therefore, be concise, confining my observations to the Orders of Council and the French decrees. I shall take as a postulatum, that all the reasons which operated in laying the embargo, operate with equal, if not greater force, against adopting the resolution for the repeal of the law. I will ask whether any change in our foreign relations has taken place that would now render it more safe to navigate the ocean than when the embargo was laid? The contrary is the fact for the Orders of Council, which were then only unofficially known, have since been officially communicated to our Government, with all their numerous and appendant explanations, which have rendered the original orders infinitely more complex. Those Orders of Council, with all their modifications, have been confirmed by act of Parliament; and by that act, power is given to the King in Council, further to modify, alter, or extend their provisions at pleasure; so that now we have not even the certainty of those orders, or of the acts of Parliament, upon which to depend, since the King in Council can, and no doubt will, whenever they see cause, adopt a new system of orders, to operate precisely in the manner, and at the time which they might conceive most convenient to themselves, or perhaps most injurious to us; for, from the evidences we have had of the disposition of that Government towards our commerce, we have little indulgence to hope. Those Orders of Council are so susceptible of a variety of construction, so dependent on the will of the Admiralty judge, and the more inscrutable, but not less dangerous will of the King and Council, that an American vessel could scarce hope to make a voyage to almost any port with safety. If our vessels take in cargoes of our own produce, and clear for any port on the Continent of Europe, they are taken by British cruisers and carried to England, for the purpose of paying the transit duty, as it is called, but which, in fact, is a tribute exacted from us, for the privilege of trading to places, to which, as an independent nation, we have a right to go: and this, as has been truly said by my friend from Virginia, (Mr. GILES) isexercisinga power over our nativeexports, which by the Constitution has been denied to Congress. This, indeed, if submitted to, will succumb the best interest of our country, and destroy every attribute of our national independence. Again. our vessels returning from a foreign port, are SENATE. it, the s The Embargo. equally liable to be carried into England by British armed ships, there to pay tribute for the privilege of bringing home their cargo, as in the case of the Sophia. She had only a few casks of gin on board, merely as ballast, but she was nevertheless taken into England, and compelled to pay several thousand dollars, and to purchase a permit to return to her own country! Can we, as an independent nation, submit to these intolerable impositions? And yet, sir, raising the embargo without some more energetic measures being adopted, would be to tell the world, we are so humble a people, so fond of commerce, that we will prostrate both our honor and our independence for the purpose of obtaining it. Forbid the spirit and principles of seventy-six! Young, at that day-scarcely in the gristle-not having reached half our present strength-oppressed by the same domineering Power whose ships now | cover the ocean, we indignantly refused to submit to similar impositions, although a pretext then existed for claiming a right to exercise them. We, then, were colonies; we, notwithstanding, resisted-first with mildness, but with firmness; and when they refused to listen to the justice of our cause, we appealed to arms, and trusted to the God of battles. We fought, our cause prevailed, and our rights and independence were acknowledged. Some of us still live who devoted not only the springtide and summer of our days, but often risked our lives to achieve these blessings to our country. They were too dearly bought to be tamely surrendered, nor will my countrymen ever agree to surrender them; yet such would be in fact the case, were we to submit to trade under the restrictions of these degrading Orders of Council. Mr. President, in addition to the operation of the British Orders of Council upon our commerce, we have to add the catalogue of French decrees, some of which have come to our knowledge since laying the embargo; and although those decrees cannot affect our commerce in any considerable degree, proportioned to those of England, yet their provisions are equally hostile to the rights of a free and independent nation. Although they have not said, we shall pay tribute for the privilege of carrying our produce to any foreign country, they have said, that if our vessels are caught carrying our own produce to Eng land, they shall be good prize; and the Milan decree has gone so far as to change the character of an American vessel, if in going to a port not even within the purview of the Orders of Council, such vessel shall have been spoken by an English vessel; thus these two Powers, under the pretext of retaliating decrees against each other, sweep the American commerce upon the ocean, wherever either the one or the other can bring it within the provisions of their respective decrees: and we have seen enough of their effects upon some of our vessels that were upon foreign voyages when the embargo was laid, to know that these decrees of France are like those of England, rigidly executed. We have therefore seen, that even as far as the French decrees can be carried into effect, they tend greatly to injure our commerce, and that DECEMBER, 1808. from both England and France, under the operation of their tyrannic decrees and Orders of Council, we have sustained severe and heavy losses. These orders and decrees still stand in full force, and ready to meet your commerce upon the ocean whenever your embargo shall be raised, especially in the extensive manner contemplated by the resolution upon your table, which evidently intends a total repeal of the law, and without any substitute being offered in its place. I will now, sir, reply to some observations of the gentleman from Connecticut. He has said that our object in continuing the embargo, is to put down commerce; and I have often heard it said, that the Western and Southern members are unfriendly to commerce. This I deny, as it respects myself. But as I have often been opposed to the extension of our laws (and sometimes successfully) relative to that branch of commerce called the carrying trade, I suppose I may be one of those whom the gentleman has said were opposed to commerce. I will, Mr. President, give my views of the subject, and state my reasons why I have not been very friendly to that kind of trade. When I first took my seat as a member of this House, I considered it my duty to endeavor to make myself acquainted with the revenue laws (which it is known are pretty complex) by which I should be the better able to discharge my duties upon this floor, in a national point of view; and if any collisions of interest should happen from the operation of those laws, between agriculture and commerce, by discovering this collision, I could more faithfully and ably guard the true interest of my constituents, almost all of whom are, as well as myself, agriculturists. In examining these laws, I will acknowledge the drawback system did not fully meet my approbation. It appeared to me, sir, to put too much at hazard the peace of our country. I will not attempt to enter into a full and minute detail of this trade, but will take a sufficient view of it to make myself understood. This trade, Mr. President, it is known is carried on almost entirely in foreign articles, which are imported into this country, and entered for re-exportation. The duties upon those articles which are re-exported, amount to but a small sum compared with the immense tonnage engaged in that trade: the tonnage thus engaged amounts to one-third of the whole tonnage of the United States; and yet the duties do not amount to more than one-fifteenth. The whole duties received from this drawback system amount to about one million of dollars a year, and the whole revenue of the United States, say about sixteen millions. This sum of one million of dollars, thus derived from this kind of trade, is in my opinion too small to hazard so much for it as we do. This trade creates a collision of interest between our own shipping and the shipping interest of the great naval Powers, even when the trade is freely permitted; for, in proportion to the quantity of foreign produce our vessels engaged in this trade carry, in so great a degree do they interfere with the shipping interest of those great naval States, whose existence, in a considerable degree, particDECEMBER, 1808. The Embargo. SENATE. ularly England, depends upon the support of their we did not stop here; we passed another resolunavies, and the carrying trade is essential to that tion recommending to the President of the Unisupport: first, to supply the means of subsistence ted States, "to demand and insist upon the resto for immense numbers, who could not be otherwise SO ration of the property of our citizens, which had been thus captured and condemned;" and requested the President "to enter into such arrange'ments with the British Government, upon this and all other differences, as might be consistent with the honor and interest of the United States." The negotiation thus recommended, the President has not been able to effect, according to the tenor of the resolution: that is, consistent with the honor and interest of the United States-although he sent a special Minister for that purpose. Great Britain now pretends to sustain this new principle, under the pretext of its being an old established rule, commonly called the rule of fifty-six; and the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. PICKERING,) who formerly voted in favor of the resolutions which I have read, has introduced a book to support this rule of fifty-six, of which I will hereafter take notice. Thus, Mr. President, we see how nearly we have been to a war for the support of this neutral trade, which yields us so very small a revenue. I am therefore of opinion, that the landed interest ought not to be compromitted for the support of this trade. I am willing to support it to a certain extent, but the political views and shipping interest of Great not so far as to hazard the peace of my country. Britain, that she determined to arrest it; accord- I have now given my reasons for not being friendingly her Courts of Admiralty were directed to ly to this drawback system; and representing, as declare "that neutrals should not carry on a trade I do, an agricultural people, I consider it my imin time of war that was not permitted to them perative duty to watch with vigilance over their 'in time of peace, and that they should not be interests, which they have confided to my care, permitted to effect that in a circuitous, which is and which I trust I shall never cease to support inhibited in a direct trade." Thus, sir, from the while I possess the power of speech, and words extension of this trade, were we now brought to preserve their form and meaning. But, Mr. Presthe eve of war with Great Britain for under this ident, I can with confidence say for my fellownew principle, thus interpolated, our ships were citizens, and for myself, that we are truly friendly taken in immense numbers, and few escaped con- to the true American commerce-meaning that demnation. In consequence, memorials have kind, sir, that is carried on with the produce of been presented to Congress from a principal part our own country. This will bring us into no colof all the great cities in the United States, stating lisions, and will give to the farmer his due porin very strong terms the iniquity and injustice of tion of the profits of his own industry. In this this new principle, introduced by Great Britain kind of commerce, the interest of the farmer is to the almost total annihilation of this carrying assimilated to and rendered reciprocal with that trade. These memorials contain a train of reas- of the merchant. The people that I have the oning upon this subject, in support of this neutral honor to represent, are deeply interested in this right, that I think unanswerable: and so much kind of commerce; we inhabit a fertile country, were those merchants engaged at that time in growing rapidly in population and improvement, supporting it, that they tendered their lives and and producing cotton, hemp, and tobacco, and fortunes to their country. The right to trade every kind of grain in great abundance, besides being unequivocally a long established neutral stock of all kinds: for the surplus of those artiright, the Senate determined to sustain it: accord- cles we can only find a market through the meingly, by an unanimous vote, this body resolved, dium of commerce. These, I repeat, sir, are my that the capture and condemnation under the own sentiments and the sentiments of my constiorders of the British Government, and adjudica- tuents, upon the subject of a free commerce, and tions of their Courts of Admiralty, of American so strongly are we impressed with the importance vessels and their cargoes, on the pretext of their of it, that we consider agriculture and commerce essential to the existence and growth of each being employed in a trade with the enemies of Great Britain prohibited in time of peace, is an other. unprovoked aggression upon the property of the The gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. P.,) citizens of these United States, a violation of as I have before stated, did, in 1806, vote in suptheir neutral rights, and an encroachment upon port of our neutral rights, but he now tells us their national independence." This resolution they are doubtful-and why does he tell us so? is very expressive of the sense of the Senate, but Why, sir, he has found out an old French book, which it seems has convinced him that he was wrong when he formerly voted in favor of supporting our neutral rights against the interpolations of Great Britain. He calls the book a celebrated work on maritime law. One valuable trait in the character of this book, and which seems to have rendered it celebrated in the opinion of the gentleman is, that he thinks its doctrines upon the subject of neutral rights support the doctrine of Great Britain, commonly called the rule of 1756. It appears, says the gentleman, to be generally supposed, that the rule respecting the colonial trade adopted by Great Britain, and usually called the rule of 1756, was peculiar to Great Britain. He also says, it seems that she, meaning Great Britain, has considered the rule of 1756 as the ancient and established principles of maritime law: and this the gentleman attempts to prove for her, and for this purpose introduces Valin's celebrated work, as he calls it, on maritime law. I shall not enter into a detailed examination of the several articles he has read, which however appear to be essentially different from the rule of 1756; but I shall contest the applicability of these regulations altogether; and I trust I can show to the Senate that they cannot, by any possible construction, be admitted as of any authority, as containing established principles of maritime law. I would ask the gentleman how he proves the rule of 1756 to be the ancient and established principles of maritime law. Because, says he, it appears by Valin that Louis XIV issued a regulation in 1704 respecting neutral rights, and which was re-enacted by Louis XV in 1744, similar in its nature to the rule of 1756 of Great Britain. I shall admit, for argument sake, that those rules of 1756 and regulations of 1704 are similar; but, sir, can this similarity give them any claim to be considered as the established principles of maritime law? Certainly not, sir; for maritime law is considered as the law of nations, particularly with respect to those nations which agree to it; but the gentleman has not shown that the maritime nations ever acquiesced in those French regulations any more than they have in the rule of 1756; and, sir, he ought to have shown that they had, in order to give them the force of maritime law. If those nations had given this sanction, and thereby established the principles contended for by the gentleman, then indeed he would have been correct; and had this been the case, some of the British jurists would no doubt long since have brought them into view, and would have exhibited them as precedents, to sup DECEMBER, 1808. the French Emperor would form as good precedents, and there would be quite as much propriety in bringing forward these decrees of Bonaparte as the established principles of maritime law, as those regulations of Louis XIV and Louis XV, offered by the gentleman in support of the rule of 1756; nay, Mr. President, there would be much more propriety, because almost all the continental Powers have sanctioned these decrees of the French Emperor, and yet, would the gentleman say that they ought ever to be brought into precedent as the established principles of maritime law? I suspect he would not. If, then, he would not, sir, his rules of 1704 and 1744, cannot be considered as precedents, but must be returned to their archives, there to rest for another century. One particular object the gentleman seems to have had in view in introducing these obselete and inapplicable regulations, is to make it appear that Mr. Madison is mistaken in his letter to Mr. Erskine of the 25th of March, in which he speaks of the rule of 1756. Mr. Madison, said the gentleman, says, "it is well known that Great Britain is the only nation that has acted upon or otherwise given a sanction to it," meaning the rule of 1756. Here, Mr. President, I must observe, that the gentleman has not exhibited that portion of candor (in using the quotation) which he has so uniformly declared he possesses; he has taken only a part of a sentence, it would seem, for the purpose of drawing an inference from it, of which the whole taken together is by no means susceptible, but conveys to my mind a very different meaning. Mr. Madison, in his letter of the 25th of March to Mr. Erskine, in speaking of the rule of 1756, says, "and instead of its being an established rule or principle, it is well known that Great Britain is the only nation that has acted upon, or otherwise given a sanction to it." Here, sir, the whole sentence taken together, conveys a very different meaning from the one the gentleman has thought proper to give it. Mr. Madison is evidently speaking of it as not being an established rule or principle; those words the gentleman omitted. Now, sir, to give the rule of 1756 the sanction of an established rule or principle of maritime law as the gentleman is pleased to call the regulations of 1704 and 1744, and the rule of 1756, it was absolutely essential that they should have been acquiesced in and formally sanctioned by all the maritime Powers; otherwise they must be considered as mere rules, and cannot, by any possible construction, be entitled to be considered as an established rule or privciple; and this, sir, is the distinction evidently taken port and establish the British rule of 1756.- by Mr. Madison between a mere rule acted upon They seem, however, to have left it for the gen- by Great Britain only, and an established rule or tleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. PICKERING,) and their not having done so, is a sufficient proof to my mind that these regulations of Louis XIV and Louis XV, were considered in no other point of view by the other maritime Powers, and by the jurists who have written upon this subject, than the decrees of Bonaparte are now considered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. P.;) and eighty or a hundred years hence, these decrees of principle sanctioned by the maritime nations. I will, Mr. President, examine this doctrine a little further: the gentleman has said (as I have before stated) that Great Britain has considered the rule of 1756 as the ancient and established principle of maritime law, and this he seems desirous himself to think, if we may judge from the means to which he has had recourse to prove and support it. I find, sir, on examining the memorials of the merchants of many of the great towns in the United States, which were presented to Congress in 1806, that they differ very greatly with the gentleman with respect to the antiquity of the rule of 1756. In the memorial from the respectable town of Salem, in the State which the gentleman represents, it is expressly stated "that even the advocates of Great Britain have not 'pretended to ascertain the existence of the pre'tended rule previous to the year 1756. To this 'period they refer for its first establishment; they 'pretend not to quote any foreign adjudications 'in point, but rest satisfied that their own courts were competent to establish the law, and to give 'it binding efficacy on all nations." The memorialists however conceive, and rightly, that it is not within the authority of any nation to legislate for the rest; and that to establish the rule of 1756 as a principle of maritime law, it must, as I have before shown, be acquiesced in by the maritime nations. This has not been the casefor we find that the first attempt which was made to carry this rule into effect was against the Dutch; who, so far from acquiescing in it, protested against it in terms of the warmest reprobation; and the first attempt made to carry it into effect against the United States was in 1801, which was a decree of the Vice Admiralty Court at Nassau, which condemned the cargo of an American vessel going from the United States to a port in the Spanish colonies, with a cargo consisting of articles the growth of Old Spain. Our Minister at the Court of Great Britain remonIstrated against this violation of the rights of neutrals, and the subject was referred by the British Government to the consideration of the Advocate General, whose report upon that subject I will read. He says "the sentence of the Vice Admiralty Court was founded in error; that it was now (1801) distinctly understood, and had been repeatedly so decided by the High Court of Appeals, that the produce of the colonies of the enemy may be imported by a neutral into his own country, and may be re-exported from thence even to the mother country of such colony; and in like manner the produce and manufactures of the mother country may in this circuitous route legally find their way to the colonies; that a direct trade not being recognised as legal, and the decision of what was, or was not, a direct trade, was a question of some difficulty, but that the High Court of Admiralty had expressly decided, and the Advocate General saw no reason to ex pect the Court of Appeals would vary the rule, that landing the goods and paying the duties in the neutral country, breaks the continuity of the voyage, and is such an importation as legalizes the trade, although the goods be reshipped in the SENATE. Secretary of State, to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, with the information "that it was His Majesty's pleasure that the doctrine laid 'down in the Advocate General's report should be ' immediately made known to the several judges of the Vice Admiralty Courts, setting forth to them what is held to be the law upon the subject by the superior tribunals, for their future gui'dance." Thus our neutral rights were admitted by Great Britain, and the obsolete doctrine of the pretended rule of 1756, after a lapse of nearly half a century, with only one attempt to revive its iniquitous principle, was resisted with success; and this doctrine, by the formal decision of the Advocate General of Great Britain, and sanctioned by the King, was abandoned. That this doctrine, which had been thus fairly given up, should have been since revived, tends only to prove that whenever Great Britain conceives her interest shall require it. she will exercise her power and forget right. But, sir, it is to me most extraordinary, that after this pretended ancient principle of maritime law first set up by Great Britain in 1756 should have been thus formally relinquished by Great Britain herself, that there should be a solitary citizen of the United States, and still more that a member of this House should attempt to support so hostile a principle to the commerce of his own country; and in order to sustain so unrighteous a doctrine, to offer as a precedent the mere arbitrary regulations of an absolute monarch, and even those unsupported by the acknowledgment of any one single maritime Power. I now approach, Mr. President, a more serious part of this subject, and I am extremely sorry it has been brought into the debate; but as it has, we must endeavor to meet it. We have been told that the embargo law is peculiarly oppressive and disagreeable to our brethren of the Eastern States, and that whenever the people dislike a law, they will in some way or other get clear of it. We have also been told, that if this law is not repealed, it will in all probability produce disunion. This, Mr. President, is a very serious state of things if the gentlemen are correct; but, sir, in the warmth of argument, our feelings sometimes gain an ascendency over our reason, and I hope this is the case with those gentlemen. I will not draw any comparison between the sufferings of our fellow-citizens of the East, and those of any other section of the Union-we all experience them. But, sir, I have too much confidence in the patriotism of the people of those States, to believe that they will have recourse to any illegal or violent measures to effect the removal of the law; and less do I believe that they will risk that high character which they so well acquired same vessel, and on account of the same neutral in contending for the rights of self-government, by proprietors, and forwarded for sale to the mother using coercive means to destroy that fair fabric, country. This report of the Advocate General which the united exertions of the whole people, the was accepted by the British Government, imme- lives of our heroes, the wisdom of our statesmen, diately transmitted by Lord Hawkesbury to Mr. King, our Minister at the Court of Great Britain, and by His Majesty's express command. communicated by the Duke of Portland, the principal and the firmness and magnanimity of the great Washington have reared for this happy country. And now for what would our fellow-citizens thus commit their characters, and their best interests, |