Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

in the political opinions of the western people; but which they will see too plainly, to be beguiled from their path of political rectitude; and the division in this case will shew it to be a party question, particularly when it is known that every republican member in both houses of Congress, even those from the western country, approve of the pacific measures that have been adopted.

We are told that no nation, either ancient or modern, had ever suffered such indignities....and we are now emphatically called on to avenge them by the sword without asking for redress. Can this be right? No, sir; the honorable gentle man from New York, (Mr. CLINTON) yesterday proved, by a train of arguments not to be resisted, that it had been the practice and usage of the nations of Europe, to endeavour to settle their differences, first, by negociation, and not to appeal to arms till redress had been denied: and he would now, shew by the law of nations, that the act of the intendant is not to be ascribed to the Spanish government, unless done by their authority or approbation, and that if the act had been done by authority, it would be violative of both the precepts and practice of our own nation to avenge it by the sword, till negociation had been tried in vain. To the first point, he would shew by Vatel, 252, § 73, "That as it is impossible for the best regu"lated state, or for the most vigilant and absolute sovereign, "to model at his pleasure, the actions of his subjects, or to "confine them to an exact obedience, it would be unjust to "impute to the sovereign the faults of his subjects; we ought

[ocr errors]

not then to say we have received an injury from a nation, "because we have received it from one of its members." Again, $74, "But if a nation approves the fact committed "by a citizen, it makes the act its own, and the offence ought "then to be attributed to the nation."

But the honorable gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. WELLS) tells us, that to excuse Spain from the act of the intendant, we ought to prove that the King of Spain did not authorize it....What, are we to prove a negative? He presumed not; but if we have recourse to the evidence in the case, which is all that time and circumstances will admit, we shall have no doubt on this subject.

The Spanish minister tells us, it is not by the authority of Spain. The French minister tells us, it is not by the authority of France. The governor at New Orleans says, it is by no authority; but a misconception of the intendant's orders....And the order to the intendant itself, shews, that it is

to put in operation, a law, interdicting the right of all nations to trade, barter, or commerce with the Spaniards in that province, without mentioning our right of deposit, secured to us by treaty, posterior, and paramount to that law, which must be satisfactory, (being the best, nay, the only evidence to be now expected,) that the act is without authority. Yesterday we were told by the honorable gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. WHITE) that there was a private letter in town from New Orleans," that the act was by the authority of France." Today he presumed that was given up, as his honorable colleague, (Mr. WELLS) tells us that he understands the President has received a letter on this subject, "avowing the authority of Spain to do the act." This he conceived equally incorrect. Can it be believed, sir, that the executive can be in possession of a document of such importance, and while we are acting on the subject, secrete it from us? No, sir, it would be to make him an accessary....it is impossible...it cannot be true.... there is then no evidence that it is the act of Spain, unless we substitute our inclinations for evidence, and thus violate the law of nations, by unjustly ascribing it to her. This, he trusted, would not be done. But, sir, if it had been done by her authority, still he should insist, that it would not only be contrary to the practice and usage of the nations of Europe, to draw the sword of vindictive justice, without a previous attempt at negociation, as was yesterday proved by the honora ble gentleman from New York, (Mr. CLINTON) but highly repugnant to the milder precepts and principles of our own nation. And as he did not wish to cross the Atlantic for authorities, having never been attached to the precepts, or practices of kings or princes, or an admirer of the precedents of the old world, he would leave them on the ground they were placed by the gentleman from New York, (Mr. CLINTON) and confine himself to the history of our own government, and to the principles and practices of our own Washington. Disregarding the maxims of despots, he would recur to the archieves of our own short, though very important political history; and to the salutary principles of our own free government; from whence he would prove that we ought never to appeal to the sword, that scourge of nations....that "ultima ratio regum," but from dire necessity.

He would begin with our own political history, even before we had an independent existence, in order to correct the honorable gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. DAYTON) who yesterday told us, that when we were colonies, no sooner had Great Britain violated our rights, than we appealed to the

i...

sword. Sir, he asked, if America did not then by petition humble herself at the foot of the throne? Did she not address petition upon petition to the British monarch? nay, he asked, if she did not, by her repeated remonstrances, drain the cup of humiliation to its dregs, in her supplications but for justice? nor did we draw the sword until every effort had been tried in vain ; nor then, till compelled to act on the defensive; then too, every thing dear to us, and to posterity, was in issue....then were we called on to resist the treasonable claim of the British parliament, to tax us, in all cases, without our consent, which they were about to enforce by the sword. This was not the partial invasion of a minor right, it was a vital stab at liberty itself. He asked, if by our temperate supplications, our cause was injured, or if our confidence did not increase with our moderation, whereby we were enabled to secure by the sword, what had been denied to our supplications; and whereby our virtuous struggle was crowned with independence?

Again....No sooner had Great Britain acknowleged us independent, whereby we had taken rank among the nations of the earth, than she violated the compact that gave us our political existence, even while we lay in swadling clothes, in the cradle, in the infancy of our government, Did she not take away our negroes? Did she not keep possession of our western posts? Did not lord Dorchester excite the Indians, with the tomahawk and scalping knife, to massacre our peacea ble frontier inhabitants, of all ages, sexes, and conditions? Did she not capture our vessels and impress our seamen? What then, I ask, was the conduct of the nation? Who then presided in her councils? Was it not Washington? Did he peal to arms? No, sir, he sent a minister to sue for redress, as has been done upon the present occasion. Were not the

ap

aggressions then much greater than the present? and will it be said that Washington was not a faithful guardian of the national interest....of the national honor; and were not the injuries redressed by the treaty of 1794, to the satisfaction of the councils of the nation?

Again.... Did not Spain commit spoliations on our commerce, and imprison our seamen? Did not Washington then preside? Did he appeal to arms? No, sir, he sent a minister to sue for redress, as has been done upon the present occasion; and were not the injuries redressed by the treaty of 1795 ?

Again.... Did not France capture our vessels and imprison our seamen? Did not Washington then preside? Did he appeal to arms? No, sir, he sent ministers to sue for redress....

Were not these ministers rejected? and thus insult added to injury; did he then appeal to arms? No, sir.... Mr. Adams then came into the administration....Did he appeal to arms? No, sir, he sent a new set of ministers who were received, and who made the memorable treaty which was ratified by Mr. Adams in February, 1801.

Again.... Did not Spain capture our vessels and imprison our seamen? Did she not permit the French to fit out privateers in her ports, to cruise against our commerce? Did she not permit French consuls to condemn our vessels in her ports? Then Mr. Adams, who presided in our councils, sent a minister to negociate, and these aggressions are now in a happy train of adjustment; and there is little doubt will be settled on just and moral principles.

Thus, sir, you see what has been the practice and usage of the United States, since they have been an independent nation; and that too, under the imposing auspices of a Washington. He would now shew, that so tenacious had been the government, to cultivate the arts of peace, that she had guarded it in her constitution, and ingrafted the principles in her treaties. By the constitution, the power of declaring war is vested in Congress; and not in the President; least the caprice of an individual might commit the peace of the nation.

66

By the treaty with Prussia, made under the auspices of the immortal Franklin, in 1785, the great principle was first established, that in case of a war, neither captures nor repri sals shall be made. It is stipulated in the 23d article," that "in case of a war between the two nations that all merchant "vessels employed in exchanging the products of different "places, and thereby rendering the necessaries, conveniences, "and comforts of human life more easy to be obtained, and more general, shall be allowed to pass free and unmolested: "and neither of the contracting powers shall grant or issue any "commission to any private armed vessel to take or destroy "such trading vessels, or interrupt such commerce." the treaty with Great Britain, in 1794, it is stipulated, "no reprisals shall be made for spoliations till an attested statement of the damages is presented, and justice demand"ed and refused, or unreasonably delayed." By the treaty with the Creek nation of Indians, article 8, and by the treaty with the Delaware nation of Indians, article 4, it is expressly stipulated" that their nation shall not avenge the wrongs com→ "mitted by the citizens of the contracting parties, but that "the offenders shall have an impartial trial, and the peace of

[ocr errors]

By

"that

"the natives be preserved." So far is our peace secured by the stipulations in treaties; and he would next shew that it had been established as a principle, to preserve the peace of the nation, and to regulate its equanimity; that where we had a treaty with one nation, we are bound to treat all nations in like manner, although we have no treaty to that purpose. See the letter of general Washington, dated 5th September, 1793, to G. Hammond, Esq. in the 2d vol. laws of the United States, 493. "We are bound by our treaties with three of "the belligerent nations, by all means in our power, to pro"tect and defend their vessels and effects, in our ports, or waters, or on the seas near our shores, and to recover and "restore the same to the right owners when taken from them. "If all the means in our power-are used, and fail in their "effect, we are not bound by our treaties with those nations "to make compensation."

;

"Though we have no similar treaty with Great Britain, 66 yet we should use towards that nation the same rule, which "under this article, was to govern us with the other nations ❝ and even to extend it to captures made on the high seas, and "brought into our ports, if done by vessels that had been "armed within them." Thus, sir, had it been shewn what had been the practice and usage of foreign nations....and thus had he shewn what had been the practice and usage of our own nation, in the cases that had occurred during our short history....and that all nations are entitled to equal justice; and all these cases have occurred under the venerated Washington....cxcept the memorable French federal treaty under Mr. Adams, in February, 1801. And yet we were yesterday told by the honorable Mr. WHITE, "That Washington would have borne no such insults".... No, sir: that he believed, not without seeking redress; but whether in a peaceable legitimate manner, as has been pursued upon the present occasion, or by the sword, as is now proposed; from what has been already shewn, there can be no question....but the same gentleman, (Mr. WHITE) after charging France with this violation of our rights, in the fervor of his mind, exclaimed.... "if this be peace....God give us war"....which God forbid, as every good man in the nation must deprecate war. Washington, however renowned in war, was certainly the friend of peace, and very much contributed to the establishment of our national character, "to prefer the pacific olive, to the bloody

❤ Federal-it is presumed, because every republican senator voted against it.

« ZurückWeiter »