sumed, they would bear no price at all. They would not defray expenses. Take the article of tobacco for instance. The United States export upon an average 75,000 hogsheads; of which Great Britain consumes 14,000. The rest are exported to the European Continent. What would be the price of an article, when there is five times as much at market as is wanted for consumption, or for any other use? The merchants examined before the House of Commons unanimously agree, that this article would not defray expenses. They have not only sworn to this fact, but I would ask, if it is not the dictate of common sense, and the common result of every principle of barter? The same remark would apply to cotton and rice, and other American articles; but, perhaps, not in the same degree. As to cotton, I am perfectly convinced from the immense and increasing quantities of that article, raised in the United States, the only way to keep up the price is to keep open all the markets in the world where it is consumed. The gentleman also includes in his estimate exports to the French West India islands. They are now in a state of strict blockade, and of course the whole of this item ought to be expunged. There are probably other material errors; but these of themselves are sufficient to vary the whole aspect and bearing of his calculation. Indeed, sir, I'am of opinion that little or no commerce could be carried on under the conflicting orders and decrees. All these calculations are made upon the assumed principle, that the rules prescribed in these hostile decrees and orders would be invariably adhered to in their practical operations. I entertain a very different opinion. The commerce which might strictly be permitted by the orders and decrees, would be subjected to so many vexations by the ignorance or artifices of the commanders of the hostile armed ships, as to render all the remaining commerce dangerous and unprofitable; and I am perfectly satisfied, after incurring the disgrace of submitting to these arrogant and unwarrantable impositions, we should, covered over with disgrace, be compelled to fight for the miserable pittance of commerce, apparently held out to us by these hostile and conflicting orders and edicts. This miserable and disgraceful commerce affords no allurement to me; and it will disappoint all those who have made these delusive calculations upon it. The gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr.PICKERING,) in a great degree unravelled the mystery, which was before suspended over the calculations of his mercantile friend, by telling us that this friend had at this time several vessels laden with Southern productions, ready to set sail the moment the embargo shall be raised. This circumstance, without any imputation upon the motives of the gentleman, may be fairly conceived to have had some bearing upon his calculations, and is a case in point to prove the correctness of the information derived from the gentleman of Philadelphia, on a former and similar occasion. Before I sit down, Mr. President, permit me to explain some expressions which fell from me in DECEMBER, 1808. debate a few days since, and which seem to have roused into action the indignant feelings of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. PICKERING.) The gentleman might have saved himself these painful feelings, if he had been more attentive to my observations. He supposes that I called his Federal friends in Massachusetts political demagogues. Now, sir, those gentlemen were not particularly alluded to either in words or intentions. I made an observation in very general terms upon the structure of popular Governments. I stated, as an inconvenient circumstance in the operations of such Governments, that when the union and energy of the people were most required to resist foreign aggressions, the pressure of these very aggressions would present temptations to political demagogues, to separate the people from their own Government, and through the people's discontents, to find their way to office and to power. I applied this observation to the present and all future times. I then gave the late and present proceedings, under the pressure of the embargo laws, in evidence to prove the correctness of the remark. I made no particular application of it to any description of gentlemen, nor to any particular part of the United States, nor was it intended to be so applied; it was intended to be general in its application to every part of the Union. The gentleman himself has made the application to his friends; and I readily admit, without reminding him of the old adage, that he is better informed than I am, whether his own application suits his own friends. But, sir, did not particularly allude to those gentlemen. feel the same respect for the gentlemen of Massachusetts that I do for those of any other part of the Union. Nor have I any difficulty in saying, that a difference in political opinions is no ground of personal disrespect; and that I do not now, and never have made it one. On the contrary, I am willing to proclaim it to all the world, that I know many Federal gentlemen for whom I feel great personal respect. I regret also, Mr. President, that some of the observations which fell from me the other day have made so strong impres sions upon the feelings of the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. HILLHOUSE,) for whom I do feel a high personal respect. Upon reviewing some of them, I fear they were calculated to have too strong a bearing upon that gentleman's feel ings; but, sir, it will be recollected, that to hi observations I was principally replying, and there fore that my remarks had apparently a stronge application towards him personally than in fac they were intended to have. It will also be re collected, that most of the remarks of this natur were directed against the repeal of the embarg laws without any substitute, and which, in m judgment, would have been submission to foreig aggressions. Since the gentleman has disclaime all ideas of submission, and has come forward the true spirit of 1776, I am as ready as any ger tleman to do honor to his patriotism. Mr. Pres dent, we have now made a fair comparison opinion and information upon the measures her tofore adopted by the Government. Gentlem I I 1 have been indulged with a full retrospect of these measures; may we not hope that we are better prepared to see what measures are now proper to be adopted to save the nation from surrounding dangers? Sir, if we could prevail upon ourselves to act under the scriptural injuction; if we could first employ ourselves in taking the motes out of our own eyes, instead of being so busy in taking them out of the eyes of our neighbors, is it not reasonable to expect that we should see more clearly the course of conduct most proper to be adopted for the people's interest and the general welfare? If we could seriously turn our eyes in upon our own hearts, and impartially examine our own passions, might we not expect to find there some of the errors which we delusively ascribe to others? Is it not to be feared, that this is the real source of our disunion? And is it not greatly to be regretted, sir, that union cannot be obtained, when it is all that is wanted to insure us complete success against our unjust adversaries? Let us then, sir, with a magnanimity becoming ourselves and our stations, banish all personal animosities; let us act like brethren of family, united in interest, united in honor, united in affection. A knowledge of this circumstance alone might probably secure justice from our adversaries without striking a blow. But, sir, if unfortunately we should be compelled to engage in the bloody scene, how indispensable is it that we should be able to exert the whole energy of an undivided nation! [NOTES. one French influence. What are the means of French influence in this country? None. The idea is absurd. British influence. What are the means of British others: influence in this country? The following, among Language, jurisprudence, law books, literature; tories, and the descendants of tory families; blood connexions, intermarriages; mercantile capital, mercantile partnerships; newspapers, &c. These influences are interwoven into society, and if we mean to preserve our independence, demand the most watchful vigilance of the politician. Extract of a letter from Mr. Monroe to Mr. Madison. "LONDON, May 17, 1806. "After my interview with Mr. Fox, on the 25th ult., I waited a fortnight without hearing from him. This new instance of delay surprised me, because he had shown a sensibility to the former one, and did not seem | aware of the necessity of adding to it. Independent of the general object, the war with Prussia, and the blockades incident to it; the doctrine and practice respecting which it was necessary to arrange, furnished a new motive for a communication with him. On mature reflection, I thought it best to call informally, which I did on the 11th, with a view to enter on these topics in the familiar manner I had heretofore done. Mr. Fox was at the office, but did not receive me. He sent the expression of his regret at not being able to it, being, as he said, just going to attend the Cabinet, who were waiting for him. I called again on the 13th, and experienced the same result, though I had | left word that I should then be there. I was informed by his desire, that a summons from the King, to attend do SENATE. him at the Palace, prevented his receiving me on that day. I met him on the 15th at the drawing-room, but had no opportunity of speaking to him. Sir Francis Vincent, the first under Secretary of State, being acquainted with my desire, promised to arrange with him an interview, and to inform me of it. These are the only circumstances worthy of notice that have oсcurred here since my last till to-day. I mention them that you may be better enabled to judge correctly, in all respects, of the light in which the incident of this day ought to be viewed." Extract of a letter from Mr. Monroe to Mr. Madison. "LONDON, May 20, 1806. "With respect to the delay to which I am exposed, it is utterly out of my power to explain to you the cause. I have no reason to change the opinion which I have heretofore expressed of Mr. Fox's disposition on the subject, though I have had no late communication with him. His present reserve is unfavorable, but it may be otherwise accounted for, and on principles which are quite natural, and therefore presumable. He may have experienced more difficulties in the Cabinet than he had expected. Many of the members may be indisposed to an arrangement on such terms as can be accepted, and most of them willing to postpone any decision until the result of the proceedings in Congress is known. Under these circumstances he may find it most eligible to avoid any further communication with me on the subject. "It becomes, therefore, very difficult, if not altogether improper, for me to press the business at this time. It seems to be my duty to postpone such pressure to the same epoch, that is, till the final proceedings of Congress are known. I shall doubtless receive with them the instructions of the President on the whole subject, which I beg to assure you I shall use my utmost exertions to carry into effect."] Mr. HILLHOUSE spoke in favor of his motion, and in reply to Mr. GILES. Mr. POPE also spoke against the motion; when, On motion, by Mr. REED, to refer this motion to the committee to whom was referred, on the 11th of November, so much of the Message of the President of the United States, as relates to the several embargo laws, it was determined in the negative-yeas 5, nays 25, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Franklin, Parker, Reed, Robinson. Nars-Messrs. Anderson, Bradley, Condit, Crawford, Gaillard, Giles, Gilman, Goodrich, Gregg, Hillhouse, Howland, Kitchel, Lloyd, Mathewson, Milledge, Moore, Pickering, Pope, Smith of Maryland, Smith of New York, Smith of Tennessee, Sumter, Thruston, Tiffin, Turner, and White. On the question to agree to the original motion, to wit: Resolved, That it is expedient that the act, entitled "An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States," and the several acts supplementary thereto, be repealed, and that a committee be appointed to prepare and report a bill for that purpose: It was determined in the negative-yeas 6, nays 25, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Gilman, Goodrich, Hillhouse, Lloyd Pickering, and White. NAYS-Messrs. Anderson, Bradley, Condit, Craw ford, Franklin, Gaillard, Giles, Gregg, Howland, Kit ! : THURSDAY, December 8. Mr. GILES reported, in part, a bill making further provision for enforcing the embargo; which was read, and passed to the second reading. Ordered, That the Message of the President of the United States, of the first instant, with the communications respecting the public buildings, be referred to Messrs. BRADLEY, GREGG, and FRANKLIN, to consider and report thereon by bill or otherwise. The bill further to amend the judicial system of the United States was read a second time, as in Committee of the Whole; and the President having reported the bill to the House amended, on the question, Shall this bill be engrossed and read a third time as amended? it was determined in the affirmative. Mr. MACLAY presented the memorial of a number of the surviving officers in the Pennsylvania line of the army of the United States, in our Revolutionary struggle, praying for a remuneration DECEMBER, 1808. of losses sustained by the commutation of halfpay, for the reasons mentioned in the memorial; which was read. REPORT ON THE EMBARGO. Mr. GILES, from the committee appointed on the 11th November last. on that part of the Message of the President of the United States, which relates to the embargo laws. made report in part of a communication by the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject; which was read, as follows: COMMITTEE CHAMBER, Nου. 12, 1808. DEAR SIR: Under instructions from the committee appointed to consider the several embargo laws, I have to request the favor of your attendance in the committee chamber of the Senate, at 10 o'clock on Monday morning next, prepared to give such information to the committee as your Department affords, respecting the subjects embraced by the enclosed resolution. Be pleased, sir, to accept assurances of my high consideration and regard, WM. B. GILES. Hon. A. GALLATIN, Secretary Treasury. Resolved, That so much of the Message of the President of the United as relates to the several embargo laws be referred to a select committee, with instructions to examine and report whether any further measures are now necessary to enforce due observance thereof during their continuance; and, also, whether any further modification of it be expedient at this time; and that such committee have leave to report by bill or otherwise. COMMITTEE CHAMBER, Nov. 14, 1808. DEAR SIR: I am instructed by the committee appointed to consider the several embargo laws, &c., to request you to lay before them, with as little delay as possible, such information as your Department affords, upon the following questions: 1. What measures would be most effectual in preventing the violations or evasions of the several em bargo laws, and enforcing a due observance thereof? 2. Can any of the inconveniences of the present system be remedied by further modifications; and what modifications would effect that object? Be pleased, sir, to accept assurances of my high consideration and regard, WM. B. GILES, Chairman. Hon. A. GALLATIN, Secretary Treasury. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Νου. 24, 1808. SIR: Indisposition has prevented an earlier answer to your letter of the 14th instant. For better preventing coasting vessels, regularly cleared, from violating the embargo, two measures appear necessary: 1. That the amount of the bond should be increased. 2. That neither capture, distress, nor any other accident, should be admitted as a plea, or given in evidence on trial. By the first regulation, the temptation of going to a foreign port, in hopes that the profit on the sale of the cargo will indemnify for the forfeiture of the penalty, will be done away. By the second, every expectation of escaping the payment of the penalty under fraudulent pretences will be disappointed, and the power of remitting the penalties in the few cases of unavoidable accident which may occur will remain as heretofore, and, as in other cases, with the Treasury. As the object of those two regulations will be to make the bond a sufficient and complete security, they will have a tendency to relieve in a considerable degree the coasting trade from the inconvenience resulting from detentions. The sufficiency of the bond will, in many doubtful cases, remove the necessity of detaining vessels, or, what amounts to the same, of informing the owners, that, unless they reduce the amount of their cargoes, they will be detained. I would also submit the propriety of placing under the control of the President, that power of detention vested in the collectors by the act of the 25th of April last. That subject has been a constant source of complaint and difficulty. It has been the uniform practice, from the establishment of the Government of the United States, to give positive instructions to the collectors respecting the execution of the laws, and which they were bound to obey, unless a different construction should be established by a legal decision. This indeed was essentially necessary, in order to secure an uniform construction and execution of the laws. But the provision now alluded to makes the detention to rest on the opinion of each collector, and this must necessarily produce a great diversity in the manner in which the power should be executed. All has been done that could be done to obviate that evil; and the President being authorized to decide on the detentions when made, the opportunity was taken to inform the collectors of what, in his opinion, should be a proper cause of detention. This, however, could be given only as opinion, and operate as a recommendation, and not as an order. Nor does it appear practicable to establish uniformity and to prevent partiality, and either laxity or too great severity in practice, unless the power of prescribing general rules, in that respect, by which the collectors will be bound to abide, be vested in the President. I am aware that there is another mode of evasion by regular coasting vessels, which will not be prevented by either of the preceding provisions. Either whilst in port, or on their way down our rivers and bays, coasting vessels may receive articles not entered in their manifest, which they put on board other vessels, lying off the coast for that purpose. But it is not perceived that any legal provision can prevent that infraction, nor that any other remedy can be found than the vigilance of the officers. Another general regulation will however be suggested, perhaps useful as a permanent measure, but which would at all events, under existing circumstances, give additional security for the observance of the laws, and afford some relief to our own seamen, to wit: a prohibition to employ any aliens, either as masters or part of the crew of any coasting vessel. It is still more difficult to guard against violations by vessels departing without clearance, in open defiance of the laws. The following provisions, on mature consideration, appear the most efficient that can be devised against infractions, which it is the more necessary to repress, as they may be daily expected to increase, and threaten to prostrate the law and Government itself: 1. To forbid expressly, under pain of forfeiture, (the penalty now being only implied,) the lading of any vessel without the permission of the collector, and without the bond for a coasting voyage being previously givenauthorizing the collectors to refuse permission, unless the object be that of a lawful coasting or fishing voyage. SENATE. to require a bond similar to that given for a coasting voyage. And the collectors should likewise, in such cases, be expressly authorized to take such efficient precautions as will put it out of the power of such vessels to sail without warning. 2. In order to prevent those fraudulent sales of vessels by which ostensible owners of no responsibility are substituted for those from whom penalties might be recovered, it is necessary to provide that those owners of vessels whose names appear on the register or license should continue to be reputed as such, and liable to the penalties, in case of infraction of the laws, until the register or license shall have been actually surrendered, and new papers shall have been regularly granted by the collector to the purchaser. And, in every such case of purchase, a sufficient bond that the embargo shall not be infringed, to be previously required. 3. The power to seize unusual deposites, now vested in the collectors of districts adjacent to the territories of foreign nations, should, as was contemplated in the bill passed by the House of Representatives, be extended to all the districts. That this is an arbitrary power, which nothing but the unremitted efforts in some places to evade the law can possibly justify, cannot be denied; and it should, like that of detention, be placed under the control of the President, and be executed only in conformity with such general rules as he would prescribe. 4. Exclusively of the assistance which may be derived from gunboats and from the armed vessels of the United States, it would be advisable to authorize the President to add ten or twelve cutters to the establishment. Fast-sailing vessels, of easy draught of water, and requiring only from fifteen to thirty men each, are mostly wanted, and would, for the object contemplated, be as useful as the largest frigates. 5. It is with regret that the necessity of authorizing, on the application of the collector, an immediate call for the local, physical force of the country, must also be stated. But such partial acts of violence as have taken place in some of the seaports cannot be prevented by the circuitous manner in which the public force must now be brought out in support of the laws. And no doubt exists that the mass of the citizens, whether they approve or disapprove of the embargo, would, in every port, instantaneously suppress any such outrage, provided they can be called upon to act in a legal manner. Some other provisions appear also necessary, for the purpose of carrying the laws more completely into effect along our land frontier: 1. The exportation of specie by land should be expressly prohibited. 2. The power of detaining deposites should be so expressed as to leave no doubt of the authority to detain wagons and other carriages laden and actually on their way to a foreign territory. Although I cannot perceive any reason for the distinction, it has been supposed, in one of the districts, that the law which authorized the detention of flour, beef, or potash, deposited in a warehouse, did not extend to the case of their being deposited in a wagon, although evidently on its way to Canada. 3. The offence now punishable by law is that of exportation. This is not consummated till after the property has actually been carried beyond the lines, where, being in a foreign jurisdiction, it cannot be seized; The great number of vessels now laden, and in a state so that forfeiture, which is the most efficient penalty, of readiness to depart, shows the necessity of this pro- can never apply to exportations by land; and no bond vision. If there be cases in which the indulgence of being required, as in the case of vessels, the only remconverting vessels into warehouses ought to be granted, edy is the uncertain one of recovering penalties against there will be no hardship, where the intention is fair, apparent offenders, who either abscond or have no But it must also be observed, that every degree of opposition to the laws which falls short of treason, is now, with but few exceptions, an offence undefined and unprovided for by the laws of the United States; whence it follows, that such offences remain unpunished, when the State authorities do not interfere. The necessity of defining those offences by law as misdemeanors, and of providing an adequate punishment, appears obvious. I will beg leave here to add, that it does not appear necessary to continue any longer the indulgence granted to the British merchants to import, for the use of the Indians, articles of which the importation is generally prohibited by law; as that privilege is liable to great abuse, and affords just ground of dissatisfaction to American citizens. Whether it be advisable to continue the permission given to those Indian traders to export furs and peltries, is a question to be decided by political considerations. The last branch of the subject to which I wish, at present, to call the attention of the committee, relates to interruptions and certain injurious proceedings attempted under color of law: 1. Vexatious suits are brought against collectors, which not only perplex faithful officers, but have the effect of intimidating others, and prevent an energetic performance of their duties. The only provisions which have occurred to me on that subject, are, to enable the collectors who may be sued, always to remove the cause before a court of the United States; to make a certificate, issued by the proper authority, that there was reasonable cause of detention; protect them against damages in cases of detentions, in the same manner as is now provided in case of seizures; and to provide for the safe-keeping, and restoring, when proper, and on security being given, the vessels and property which may be detained. 2. Attempts have in several instances been made to wrest from the collectors by writs of replevin, issued by State courts or officers, property detained or seized by said collectors, or which in any other manner is in their possession, in conformity with some law of the United States. It is evident that such attempts, if submitted to, would defeat, not only the embargo, but also the revenue laws of the United States; that, whenever property is, by virtue of a law of the United States, in possession of a collector, marshal, or any other of their officers, no process, in rem, which will take the property away, whether of replevin, attachment, or any other, can be legally issued by a State authority; and that the sheriff or other person executing the same must be considered as a mere trespasser, and be resisted accordingly. But there is no other way at present to resist such illegal process but actual force. And it appears necessary that another remedy should be afforded, by providing a summary mode of superseding any such process through the interference of the courts and judges of the United States, and by making it penal for any sheriff or other person to execute the same, or in any manner to attempt to take property, which, by virtue of any law of the United States, is in the collector's possession. 3. In some instances where vessels and cargoes libelled for infractions of the embargo have been restored to the owners on their giving security for the appraised value, the valuations have been so low as to reduce the DECEMBER, 1808. forfeiture to an inconsiderable sum, thereby defeating altogether the law. It is suggested that this might be prevented by a provision authorizing and directing the district judges to set aside, on motion of the district attorney, such valuations, whenever, in their opinion, falling short of the true value. On the subject of mandamus, I will only observe, that, in the only instance which has taken place, the court, supposing they had jurisdiction, could not, from the manner in which the question was brought before them, have decided otherwise than they did; but that it is desirable that the question of jurisdiction, as it relates either to the courts in whom the power ought to be vested, or to the cases to which it should extend, should be precisely defined by law. I have not, in this communication, taken into con sideration the technical defects of the existing embargo laws, because prosecutions do not fall within my immediate cognizance, and I do not feel competent to the task of pointing out the necessary alterations. Measures have however been taken to procure on that subject, and from the proper sources, information which will hereafter be laid before the committee. To the remaining inquiry of the committee, whether the inconveniences of the present system may not in some degree be removed, I can only answer, generally, that a law which lays such extensive restrictions as the embargo, cannot be carried into effect without imposing serious inconveniences, even on the domestic inter course of the United States; and that these must neces sarily be increased in proportion to the opposition and efforts to evade or violate the law. It has already been stated, that provisions, which will render the bond given by coasting vessels a complete security against violations by them, will diminish the necessity and extent of more arbitrary restrictions. An authority to permit, on proper security being given, such vessels, when they arrive in port, to keep their cargoes on board, would afford some relief. And I think that the credit on duties accruing on the importation of certain articles which was allowed by the act of the 10th March last, should be extended to all importations of the same articles, made after the passing of the act; those made in vessels which sailed under special permission only excepted. With respect to this last class of importations, as they were permitted by special indulgence, and as it is understood that it has been impossible in many cases to prevent its being abused, and as in almost all, the parties having a species of exclusive privilege, have made sufficiently profitable voyages, the propriety, particularly in the existing situation of the revenue, of allowing them also the adyantage of an extended credit on duties, is not perceived. I have the honor to be, with great respect, sir, your obedient servant, ALBERT GALLATIN. Hon. W. B. GILES, Chairman, &c. Ordered, That the report be printed for the use of the Senate. FRIDAY, December 9. Mr. BRADLEY, from the committee to whom was referred the Message of the President of the United States, of the 1st instant, with the communication respecting the public buildings, reported a bill making a further appropriation towards completing the two wings of the Capitol at the City of Washington, and for other purposes; and the bill was read twice. |