a I B RA RY OF THE U N IV L R S IT Y OF ILLINOIS y( 320.973 D85s ILLINOIS HISTORICAL SURVEY Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign https://archive.org/details/selectpamphletsOOunse / Jt SELECT CONTAINING : AX INVESTIGATION OF THE LAW OF NATIONS....BY W. J. DUANE. DEBATE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES ON AN AMENDMENT OF THE SECOND ARTICLE OF THE CONSTI- TUTION....REPORTED, 1804, BY W. DUANE. THE DECLINE AND FALL OF ENGLISH FINANCE....BY THOS. PAINE. SPEECH IN THE FRENCH CONVENTION.... BY THOS. PAINE. TRIAL OF JUDGE' ADDIS ON. ...llEPOItTEIi) BY THOS. LLOYD. EXPERIENCE THE TEST OF GOVERN¬ MENT; OR, AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PENNSYLVA¬ NIA....BY — A SENATOR OF PENN¬ SYLVANIA. A LETTER FROM ALEXANDER HAMILTON TO JOHN ADAMS, 1800. DUJIJYE’S collection. PHILADELPHIA, ritINTEIWlS:13, / -f / y ) ■ x m * * ' ; h • - . % * , 3»©YMV-' e - < \ 1 THE LAW OF NATIONS, INVESTIGATED y \ IN A POPULAR MANNER, ADDRESSED TO THE FARMERS OF THE UNITED STATES. BY WILLIAM JOHN DUANE, ONE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, IN THE LEGISLATURE OF PENNSYLVANIA. But yet they that have no science, are in better and nobler condition, with their natural prudence ; than men, that by mis-reasoning, or by trusting them that reason wrong, fall upon false and general rules. Hobees, Leviath. c . 5. r .3 & A PHILADELPHIA : PRINTED BY WILLIAM DUANE, NO. 98, MARKET STREET. 1809 . # \ PREFACE. TIIE necessity of investigation into the rights and laws of na¬ tions, at the present time, is universally felt. If nations are to maintain intercourse with each other, there should be known, fixed, and invaria¬ ble rules or laws, by which that intercourse may be regulated. The same uncertainty which is felt so oppressively in the uncertainty of the common law , and the opportunity afforded to men invested with power to abuse that power, and through its uncertainiy, make it the most galling tyranny, would alone be sufficient to convey an idea of the injuries and injustice to which mankind are exposed, from the want of known and uni¬ versally received principles, or laws for the government of nations in their intercourse with each other. If the maxims of Christianity were practised by its preachers or professors, the moral law would supercede the ne¬ cessity of a law of nations ; but unfortunately the greatest violators of national and social order, are those who employ the name, of “ religion and order,” as a mask to cover outrages upon all mankind. The essays, which form this pamphlet, were not contemplated to as¬ sume this form. The discussions which arose out of the injuries ex¬ perienced by the United States, from the jealous envy and the selfish monopoly of Great Britain during the last year, excited naturally a great desire among the thinking people of the United States, to see some discussion of those social maxims which have been heretofore ac¬ cepted by all moral people as laws sacred and inviolable. Those maxims having been overthrown, and the indignation of a free people being ne¬ cessarily excited by seeing the nation, as it were, outlawed from its pa¬ cific intercourse with the civilized world, these essays were undertaken as well to satisfy curiosity, as to prepare the public mind for events, which it was not difficult to foresee must arise out of the annihilation of all the social and moral obligations which have previously formed the ties be¬ tween civilized nations. The discussion was taken up, in the form of a reply to the following Questions. 1. What are the laws of nations, and when, where, and how were they formed ? 2. What are the maritime rights of belligerents, and the consequent duties of neutrals ? 3. What was the conduct of England, and of France, towards neur trals, prior to our revolution ? 4. What was the conduct of France and England towards neutrals, during our revolution ? 5. What has been the conduct of France and England towards the United rtates, since our revolution ? 6. What has been the conduct of the United States towards Franco and England, since the revolution? A number of the most respectable citizens, desired that the essays should be put into the present form ; they appeared originally under the assumed signature of Paulding ; this preface is written, and the publi¬ cation made, without any participation of the author, whose name is affixed to it without his knowlege, and without any expectation of pe¬ cuniary profit from the publication. > 7 THE LAW OF NATIONS INVESTIGATED. TO THE FARMERS OF THE U. STATES. LETTER I. A NUMBER of questions, have been publicly offered, to be answered by a correspondent of the Aurora. To do justice to the subjects embraced by those questions, it would be neces¬ sary to possess the ability, industry, and the volume of an histo¬ rian ; they comprise not merely a history of our own country, but an important part of that of Europe, for several centuries. As a simple correspondent for a daily newspaper, I can barely offer some general remarks upon each question, and in as plain a manner as possible. Perhaps my attempt may induce those, who are more competent, to give full and satisfactory answers. The first question to be discussed, is: What are the lazes of nations , and when , where , and how vjere they formed? In a free country, like ours, it is not surprising that a farmer should conclude from the term lazes , that some competent au¬ thority had compiled and enacted the laws of nations, as they are styled: here, where the voice of the people, by their repre¬ sentatives, creates and gives force to all law, and where nothing is law without that authority, from education and habit we con¬ clude that there can and ought to be no law, unless competently enacted. The history of the world proves, however, that in our ideas as in our condition we are peculiar and alone ; in every country but our own, the law originates in the will of one or a few, and that will is too often the result of arbitrary or ambi¬ tious views without regard to the happiness or interest of the governed. To those, therefore, who are not conversant with European forms, the term lazes of nations naturally conveys the idea, that at some fixed time and place, there had been an assembly ot representatives, from the civilized states organized at the time, who, instructed and anxious to dispel the yet lowering- clouds of feudality and barbarism, had discussed and settled, upon the principles of the laws of nature and universal good and justice....what it should be lawful or unlawful lor one or more nations to do. ...or not to do. ...in their intercourse with the rest. No doubt, mv friends, mnnv nf vrm have believed that this had such an origin. 6 The conclusion, that this was the case, must have resulted from the exercise of your sober reason and reflection. You must have thought, that if no such system had been formed, amongst ancient nations, between whom there was little or no inter¬ course, and nine-tenths of whom were uncivilized; that, if no such system had followed the dismemberment of the Ro¬ man empire, when vandalism and fanaticism struggled for the mastery, over the minds and bodies of men ; you must have supposed, that, if in those times, such a system had not been created, it must undoubtedly have followed the dispersion of Gothic darkness, when the age of chivalry had vanished before the influence of civilization, commerce, and dawning science. You must have thought, that as soon as men be¬ came sensible of the value of society, states also, sensible of being actuated by human passions, felt the necessity of shel¬ tering themselves under the canopy of laws, to obtain protection and punish injury, to secure happiness and avert danger; laws common to all, and against which none could rebel, without incurring punishment from the rest. If any of you have had this picture before your imaginations, how deplorably have you been deceived ; you cannot yet have opened the bloody pages of European history. No, my friends, although there existed, if possible, a greater necessity, for the obedience of states, than that of men, to the laws of nature and justice, no code has been formed, no code exists, of which the authority is not disputed and uncertain. It is true, that there are among nations, as there are among men, immutable, just, and imperishable laws, by which states ought to be governed, and to which their conduct can always be determined by the exercise of our reason ; these laws are the laws of nature itself; but these are not what are termed the laws of nations, they are even in some important points, at variance with the latter. The laws particularly in view at this time, are those called the maritime laws of nations. The origin of those laws is as uncertain as that of the common law of England; like it they bear the marks of feudality and ignorance, and in their inter¬ pretation are susceptible of equal variation and distortion. Like the common law, too, they are scattered through the pages of innumerable volumes, from the pens of monks, law¬ yers, judges, statesmen, and princes. Many of them owe their existence and authority, even to the mandates of petty pirates, or to the corruption and avarice of robbers more eminent. Those who profess to venerate this maritime system, tell us that it can boast of the Rhodians, Romans, Carthagenians, of ancient times, the Pisans, Barcelonese, Arragonese, Genoese, Venetians, &c. of modern times, among the number of its founders. That is, the regulations, ordinances, and decisions of these different people, adopted by each for its own govern¬ ment in maritime affairs, are represented as demanding the 7 reverence and obedience of states subsequently existing. You must remark, respecting these statutes, that many of them were in force, when what is properly called commercial trade, scarcely had an existence, and when men, much less states, had but little regard for the immutable laws of nature and justice ; and that as the instances of their variation, or disagreement from each other, were in proportion to the number of those enacting them, there was no common consent as to their justice or force. This is the foundation of what I may term the artificial ma¬ ritime law of nations. A superstructure lias been raised upon it, consisting of the opinions of writers of different countries, upon questions arising out of national wars and disputes on the ocean. The first work, comprising the statutes above mention¬ ed, and commentaries by the writer, was called II Consolato del Mare , (meaning maritime jurisprudence or law) and pub¬ lished about 800 years ago at Pisa, at that time the reputed mistress of the ocean. Commentaries upon this work, and discussions of maritime questions, subsequently arising, have been added to the stock of artificial law, by writers of every nation of Europe, that had at any time a share in its commerce. It follows then, that there never has existed, that there does not now exist, any system or written law, which from its origin, construction, or authority, can or ought to control the conduct of independent states ; and that the works which I have mention¬ ed, are of no further consequence than precedents, disagreeing according to their origin, and groundless unless established upon the only just basis, the law of nature. It matters not where any decision was made, who was the reporter or commentator, unless the law of nature sanctions the artificial law of men or states, the latter is of no force nor effect, I ought to have mentioned in a more fit place, but presume it will answer as good a purpose here, that, besides the ordi¬ nances I have stated, and the commentaries of various writers, certain stipulations in treaties, or the tacit tolerance of particular- acts, have also been pressed into the service of those, who quote the laws of nations, and have been pronounced a part of that law. But no greater reliance can be placed on these, than upon the ordinances and commentaries ; they vary with every war, and clash almost universally with each other. Notwithstanding this total want of a covenanted or authori¬ zed law, it is certain.... That there are natural laws of nations, founded in justice and in right, the nature and obligations of which reason teaches us to ascertain and observe ; that these laws being immutable and common to all, they ought to command universal reverence and respect, and that whatever nation violates one or all of them, commits a trespass upon the rights of all nations and of ail men, lor which it is to be regretted no responsibility has as vet ever been exacted. 8 What are usually termed the laws of nations, I consider to be artificial laws, the work of men ; and although pretended to be founded upon the laws of nature, they are so various and repugnant as well to each other as often to the law's of nature themselves, that as a system they have no force nor authority of their own. If there are any, that owe their merit to their justice and consonance with right and reason, they deserve all our regard, but until thus tested we ought never to adopt them; for, I repeat, the artificial la tv of nations, from the nature of its origin and formation, is necessarily calculated to produce, and ought to excite doubts in the minds of freemen, of its purity and excellence. Such, farmers of America, are my opinions : weigh, and value diem, according to your sense of their soundness or uncertainty, for it is of much consequence, to the discussion of the remaining questions, that you should well understand that upon which I have now given my sentiments. February 7, 1809. LETTER II. IN the preceding letter I have simply endeavored to ex¬ plain my sentiments respecting what are termed the lazvs of na¬ tions, My conclusions were That the nature and origin of those artificial laws of nations, were not such as to entitle them, as a svstem, to the faith or observance of free states:.... 2. That no law, regulation, or custom, however ancient, howe¬ ver created, or by whatever nations adopted, ought to be obli¬ gatory, unless founded upon the immutable basis of universal rood and moral justice. To be able to determine, with some precision, the next ques¬ tion that is, u zvhat are the maritime rights of belligerents , and the consequent duties of neutrals it may be useful to divide into particular terms or epochs, the time that has passed from the first known subserviency of navigation to the purposes cf trade, and note the practices of nations in each term. The Arabians, inhabiting the borders of the Red Sea, are re¬ presented by various authors, particularly by Robertson, in his history of America, as the first navigators, in barks roughly constructed and propelled by oars along the coast, of which they took care never to lose sight. This people, however, scarcely deserve the character of a commercial state ; the Phoenicians, § or people of Tyre, were probably the first entitled to that dis¬ tinction. I will therefore state the First term of about 1700 years, from the building of Tyre, to the destruction of Rome, in the fifth century of the Chris¬ tian era. Second term of about 800 years, from the destruction of Rome, to the 13th century, when the mariner’s compass was invented. Third term of about 500 years, from the period of the inven¬ tion of the mariner’s compass, to the present time. Within the first term, force alone constituted right , and there were nearly as many sovereigns of the seas then navigated, as there were existing states. With but one exception, all the ma¬ ritime cities or states, which flourished within that term, exer¬ cised warlike dominion, in proportion to their strength or means $ commerce tvas in most instances but a secondary consideration, conquest w T as the first. The Phoenicians, Egyptians, the cities of Greece, and the Carthagenians, each in their turn, claimed the supremacy of the ocean, and evinced their power by acts, meriting the stigma of piracy; and lastly the Romans, upon the overthrow of Carthage, exacted tribute for the use of the seas. The republic of the Rhodians forms a noble exception ; they maintained themselves by a rigid adherence to the sound prin¬ ciples of moral justice as well as of trade ; their commerce flourished, but it was the effect of an honest policy, not of a lust for maritime or inordinate dominion ; and whilst the piratical states uniformly became victims of such lawless sway as they had themselves exercised, the Rhodians long maintained their inde* pendence and their merited opulence. From the general character of the ancient maritime states, therefore, you may conclude that within the first period we can obtain little or no information, calculated to explain the nature and extent of maritime rights, according to just principles. In the early part of the second term, the seas, as well as the continent of Europe, became the theatres of Saracenic or barba¬ rian plunder: all trade and intercourse were for a long time in¬ terrupted or crushed by the numerous squadrons of the marau¬ ders. At length, arose a number of sovereigns of the seas, Ve¬ nice, Genoa, and Pisa, who contended with each other in bloody wars for maritime dominion: each asserted, and maintained by means scarcely less barbarous than those of the Saracens, a right to exclusive jurisdiction and trade. Of these states, Venice ap¬ pears to have been the most audacious; its tyranny was so grievous, that the principal contemporary states, anxious for freedom of trade, found it necessary to form confederacies to obtain it: their hostility, however, was averted by that policy, to whjch England has since been so much indebted for her pow¬ er : Venice maintained a regular system of corruption and es¬ pionage ; her factors were found in every port, connected with rhe state of Venice by the immunities which they received, an^ B 10 / the wealth which they every where displayed; these factor.' were political as well as commercial agents ; they fomented jealousies amongst neighbors in order to w r eaken their pow¬ er and divert attention from herself; they gained the devotion of influential men in the governments near -which they resided, by presents adapted to the taste or avarice of those whom they meant to seduce to their views ;,...the wealth therefore, that flo-wed from an usurped- monopoly of trade, enabled her to di¬ vide and bid defiance to those states, which by their union might have annihilated her odious tyranny, I at length, arrive at that period in the history of the world, when new and great events called for and promoted the civiliza¬ tion of mankind. The introduction of the mariner s compass ; the discovery of a new route to India, and of America; the invention of the art of printing; and the employment of gun¬ powder ; promised effects proportioned to the greatness of the era. Europe had scarcely recovered from the delirium of chi¬ valry and the crusades, and from wars in support of the cross, characterised by every species of rapine and barbarity; when new and more vast objects for ambition, avarice, and fana¬ ticism presented themselves. In the discovery of new* and immeasurable seas and conti¬ nents, might have been anticipated, the extinction of wars for maritime dominion; that almost boundless cupidity would now be satiated, and force give way to the dictates of justice and sound policy. The reverse, however, has, in every view, been deplorably experienced: the colonial system arose upon a spirit of monopoly in proportion to the magnitude of the objects presented ; the greediness for ships, commerce, and colonies encreased; contests for supremacy in the petty seas known to the ancients, and those between the Italian states for the monopoly of the Levant trade, were abandoned for the more daring purpose of usurping the sovereignty of the Atlantic, the Pacific, and Indian oceans. Avarice here too assumed the cloak of religion, to cover the foulest murder* and robberies, the en¬ slavement and plunder of millions of innocent Indians, in the East and West; while fanaticism rewarded the infuriate zeal of its emissaries, by confirming by Papal Bulls, the sovereign¬ ty of territories wrested from the rightful ow r ners by the perpetration of every crime. Instead of regarding as free the oceans now opened, and adequate to the most enthusi¬ astic anticipations of commercial greatness, the Europeans con¬ sidered the sovereignty of the seas as having acquired new charms, and as calling for the greatest sacrifices for its maintenance. Portugal and Spain, contemporary rivals in foreign discove¬ ries and plunders, were the first to assert a claim to the mono¬ poly of commerce and colonies. Not contented with boundless and inexhaustible regions, never naturally interfering with thv. prosperity of each other, these states engaged in w r 3 trs, ostensibly 11 for the possession of the Canaries, but really from maritime jealousy. Portugal at first maintained the claim to dominion with most success, but was ultimately added to the already exces¬ sive power of her rival, by being reduced to the Spanish yoke under Philip II. Spain, having already attained more colonial power than it possessed genius to manage, and being involved in wars with Holland and England, neglected the colonies acquired from the Portuguese. The Dutch, who had just asserted their in¬ dependence of Spain, immediately took advantage of the state of the Spanish colonies, and possessed themselves of the greater part of them, and of nearly all the consequent trade. To weaken Spain bv detaching from its authority, the Netherlands and these colonies, queen Elizabeth assisted the Dutch; not from any affection for them, but as a part of a system introduced for the first time with success in Elizabeth’s reign....beside jea¬ lousy of the power of Spain, she desired to divide this monopoly the better to possess it. England was at this time the most power¬ ful maritime state, owing to the weakness of the continent, occa¬ sioned by the wars which Elizabeth fomented ; to the invariable misfortunes of the Spaniards in their attempts to invade England ; and to the successful piracies committed by English cruisers in all parts of the world, and upon the commerce of all states. The Dutch, however, had no sooner established their indepen- dence, than they applied themselves with so much success to foreign trade, as they had already done with regard to the Eu¬ ropean carrying trade, that they placed themselves in the first rank of maritime powers. The death of Elizabeth, placed the trident in their hands j they retained it above a century, by their bravery and industry ; and lost it less by their valor, than by the incessant corruption and intrigues of England. France, continually engaged in continental wars, was prevent¬ ed from extending her views to ships, colonies, and commerce, with that success which must necessarily have followed a con- centration, and direction to those objects, of her genius, courage, and commercial situation. Her maritime power, often more brilliant and triumphant, than that of England or Holland, and sometimes superior to that of both united, was employed rather in checking the ambition of those two powers, and in asserting the freedom of the seas, than in efforts to establish a supremacy for itself. The bloody and desolating, wars, therefore, that have been waged for above four centuries, with very little intermission, have terminated in the temporary gratification of the constant object and desire of England, by placing in her hands the trident, and with itthe monopoly of commerce. So steady and determined has been the policy of England, under all reigns, and ministers, so successfully has one object been pursued without regard to the means, that the military flag ©f England, whirl) was,, the latest to float in civilized Europe, is now almost the only one to be seea on the ocean. In my next number, I shall inquire, what were the practices of European states, during the last term, or from the 14th cen¬ tury, in answer to the second question. February 9, 1809. LETTER III. What are the maritime rights of belligerents , and the conSe quent duties of neutrals P” IF the position, stated in my first letter, be correct, as I think it is, that no laws nor customs ought to be respected, un¬ less founded upon the immutable basis of universal justice, is there not something repugnant to the judgment, in the above question ? Consulting common sense, is it consistent with the principles of universal good and justice, that belligerents should have rights or privileges, injurious to neutral states j rights arising out of no faults of the peaceful, but from the folly or madness of belligerents themselves ? States, peaceful and contented, however well organized o situated, necessarily suffer by the suspension of the general peace; yet another and a greater evil awaits them....they are re¬ quired and compelled to abridge their sovereignty! Is this just, is this submission honorable ? Surely, if particular states determine to wage war against each other, they ought to bear all the consequent evils ; neutrals, who have no agency in creat¬ ing or carrying on the war, ought not to be dragged into the vortex of ruin and desolation. Neutrality is not a new condi¬ tion, it is a natural situation, and if any advantages arise out of it, it is the effect of the measures of the belligerents ; themselves, who violate all moral laws and justice by making inhuman war ; if it produces an encrease of trade and wealth to the pacific, if it even possesses itself of the trade that belligerents can no longer carry on, those who lose can only censure their own folly or ambition, and instead of envying the neutral, should rejoice that the neutral affords them a portion of that | trade and intercourse, which as belligerents they abandon or can¬ not carry on. But, according to the artificial laws of nations, a state no sooner chooses to engage in war, than it arrogates a new orga¬ nization, new powers, and new rights. Not content with the freedom, that war gives, of ravaging, pillaging, and destroy¬ ing the property and persons of its enemies, a belligerent assumes the right to violate all moral obligations, and to regu¬ late and determine zvhat shall be the rights and duties of all the states that prefer peace and neutrality . This creation of ar¬ bitrary and jealous power has no foundation in reason or jus¬ tice....it is at variance both with the sovereignty of every free state and the natural law of nations ; it is barbarism restored. Yet, my friends, this is the rule, that the nations of modem Europe have at various times servilely adopted ; this is a mate¬ rial part of that system, which at this day subjects all commer¬ cial states to evils that ought only to be felt by those engaged in wanton and wicked wars. When civilization succeeded barbarism, as mentioned in the preceding letter, there arose a necessity for some rules of conduct in maritime affairs: the only treatise, however, that was published before the discovery of America, was that of the Pisans, called II Consolato del Mare ; its author was unknown, but its princi¬ ples were, by the Italian states, respected, because they did not militate a great deal against the claims of the powerful; the Pisans, at the time, being masters of the sea, gave this book implicit authority. But, it was not until the discovery of America, that Eu¬ ropeans thoroughly felt the want of a competent system to res¬ train the strong and protect the weak....some general laws, that should produce the effects among states, which municipal laws were found capable of securing among men. In the wars, car¬ ried on for maritime dominion, by Portugal, Spain, Holland, France, and England, the commerce of the weak neutral states, t.he Hanse-towns, Sweden, Denmark, and afterwards Russia, was subjected to the most grievous restraints or to wanton pillage ; nay, to such an extent was lawless power extended, that the neu¬ trality even of the powerful states, was but the prelude to exac¬ tions and insults from the belligerents. In almost every state, therefore, reforms in belligerent practices were called for, and tracts were published to define belligerent and neutral rights. The laws of nature were admonitory enough, but they had no weight in the scale opposed to avarice or ambition ; and yet, men, writers in different countries, fancied they could create a reformation by commentaries on national laws and belligerent practices....an idea, the futility of which every subsequent war has demonstrated. It would have been perfectly practicable for the European states, in the 15th century, when there were some years of peace, to have advanced the civilization of states....men were every day becoming more happy and connected, by the progress of science and letters....but nations advanced no further, than avarice or ambition desired : a code of laws ought to have been framed, and could have been adopted, but it did not comport with the views of such tyrants and miscreants as Philip II. of Spain, or Henry VIII. Elizabeth, or Cromwell, and the Stuarts of Eng¬ land, to depart Irom a profitable uncertainty and force, to certainty and justice : they were opnosed to any barrier against monopolies, tod founded their hopes of dominion upon the ruin of weak and neutral states. Hence the imperfection, the uncertainty, the con¬ tradictions, of what are termed the laws of nations, features cha¬ racterising them, that every honest, and especially weak state, is interested in aiding to correct. These conclusions, therefore, follow the consideration of the question.... u what are the rights of belligerents, and the conse¬ quent duties of neutrals That the principles or practices of states are established by no general authority ; 2. JLhat bel¬ ligerent rights, as they are termed, continue to be arbitrary, un¬ certain, and varying in every war; 3. And that, therefore neu¬ tral states ought to resist the exercise of every authority or rule, not founded on the laws of reason and justice. But it has been deceitfully said, that the rights which bellige¬ rents assume may be explained ; and you may wish to know how those rights are explained, the better to understand the general subject, and the particular condition of our country at present. I shall therefore endeavor to give you the necessary explanations. You must, however, never lose sight ol the subversion of all moral principles, in the rule upon which they have laid down as ihe foundation of the system, that is, nations making war have a right to make war ; and out of this they subsequently established another principle more outrageous, thatzAe rights of belligerents arc paramount to the rights of neutrals; or in other words, the rights of robbers and murderers, are superior to the rights of the peaceful and the virtuous. The questions, which arose out of such ethics as these, and the belligerent practices on the ocean, in the wars subsequent to the discovery of America, were :.... 1. To what belligerent ports may neutrals trade ? 2. In what goods may neutrals trade with belligerents ? 3. Shall the persons and property of enemies be free from capture, when on board neutral ships : 4. May neutrals be searched, and how ? J. What shall be the extent of a state’s jurisdiction, on the seas bounding its coasts ? As there exists no code nor general authority, by which to determine those questions ; only the causes that produced them, and the manner in which they have been decided, can be men¬ tioned. A free state, as I remarked heretofore, might refuse the belligerent jurisdiction, implied by those questions : but unresist¬ ed customhas introduced, and reconciled nations to a sort of sub¬ mission or abstinence. The practices of the barbarians in the middle ages, were so repugnant to humanity, tnat it became an object of war of as duration: necessity heir more civilized successors attention, to deprive nany of its atrocities as possible, and to shorten its hence, belligerents were allowed , on the score o nd humanity, to exercise certain privileges and pow¬ ers over neutrals. Tor instance 15 As a town besieged or blockaded, might defy all assailants and protract hostilities, if neutrals were allowed to supply all its wants ; nations have agreed that a neutral cannot lawfully enter and aid such town. The answer to the first question there¬ fore is, that a neutral has a right to trade, in goods not contra¬ band, to any belligerent port, that is not in a state of siege or blockade; and no town or port is to be considered blockaded, that is not so well guarded by a belligerent force, both by land and sea, as to render an attempt, on the part of a neutral to enter, dangerous. This rule, which is founded on motives of humanity, has been adopted by every civilized nation; in works on the laws of nations, in treaties between states, and by tacit con¬ sent, this i ule, as above stated, is zealously maintained and adopted. The motives, which induced nations to admit this rmht to belligerents, also determined the nature of the goods, in which neutrals might lawfully trade....it was considered, that if neu¬ trals were allowed to supply belligerents, with powder, ball, .11 ms, and other articles directly used in war, hostilities would oe more sanguinary and longer continued; therefore another right was allowed to belligerents....each was permitted to prevent neutrals from carrying to its enemies articles used directly or immediately for warlike purposes. In answer to the second question, therefore, neutrals may A ade to belligerent ports, not blockaded, in any articles but those directly used for warlike operations. This rule (also from motives of humanity) has been adopt¬ ed by every civilized nation, and is sanctioned by the same authorities as the former rule. Ndtions have sometimes differ¬ ed in their designation of contraband , but it is almost univer¬ sally, and indeed justly, understood, that no articles are con¬ traband but those employed for the destruction of man ; for if this rule or description may be extended farther, where shall it cease? And if contraband can be construed to mean any¬ thing else, it may be made to embrace the most innocent goods and articles, because they may support or clothe a people at 1 he rule has been adopted, as I mentioned, for another leason, that particular states must be deprived of all trade if contraband were extended even to articles capable of being' converted to warlike uses....Russia, Sweden, or the United States could no longer export to states at war, iron , timber % cordage, hemp , pitch, tar, lead, & c . I beg you, my friends, to bear in mind the causes that pro¬ duced the grant of these rights to belligerents. The answer to this question, which is of much importance, necessarily too long to be inserted in this letter, it shall be answered m mv next. February 11 , 1809 . 16 LETTER IV. a jChat are the rights of belligerents , and the consequent du¬ ties of neutrals IN mv last letter, I explained, to what belligerent ports, and in what goods neutrals might trade ; and I shall now endea¬ vor to answer the third question “ Shall the persons and property of enemies be jree jrom cap¬ ture , when on board neutral ships ? As this is a question of the first importance to neutrals, and to Americans in particular, I ask your undivided attention to the inquiry. . „ . In the middle, or barbarian ages, the practice of bellige¬ rents, was to seize the persons and the property of their ene¬ mies, wherever found. There was no distinction made between the property of the state at war, and the property of its inoffen¬ sive subjects ; there was no discrimination made between t c armed and unarmed subjects ; the sanctity of churches and ot neutral territory, were alike despised; and men and propel \> captured were the reward of the most strong and ferocious, the former becoming the slaves of the conqueror, the lattei glut ting the rapacity of his soldiers. . . When the introduction of commerce, and the art ot printing, began to shew their influence in Europe, and to dispel the Gothic darkness in which it had been enveloped ; men and states saw and felt the necessity ot a reformation in warlike pi oceedings, they wished to abolish in war those traits of cruelty and injus¬ tice, above mentioned, which characterised in particular, the 5th’ 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries. States, however, were not sufficiently enlightened, or were too jealous of each other, to seek a reformation in the only practicable and determinate manner; they all professed to de¬ sire a reform, and to deprive wars of as many of their inhuma¬ nities and atrocities as possible ; but none proposed a conference, or a convention of ministers from all states, to fix a code for the guidance of all those, who should thereafter engage ;n war, or p r atio n , therefore, was left, as mentioned in my last letter, to writers in different countries, and at differ¬ ent times. These writers, in the first instance, removed only a part of the injustice of belligerents, but as the world advanc ed in knowlege and civilization, reformation in warlike practices gradually progressed also. The rights of belligerents and neu¬ trals were explained, and nations confirmed the reiormntioi 17 called for by those writers, in their treaties and intercourse with, each other. The greediness of commercial monopoly, however, raised a barrier against such a reformation on the seas, as nations on the continent of Europe had adopted in their land wars. In the latter, the rights of states at war, and of neutrals, were well explained and observed....but on the ocean, the practices of barbarians were adhered to. For instance : In land wars, the conquered could no longer lawfully possess himSelf of the private property of individuals, nor of the per¬ sons of unarmed men: but in maritime wars,'private pro¬ perty continued to be seized, and the persons of unarmed men were exposed to all the rigors usually experienced by prisoners of war taken in arms. In land wars, a belligerent no longer seized the public dr private property of his enemy, if found in a neutral territory; he could not even re-capture that which his enemy had taken and lodged in a neutral state....but on the ocean belligerents con¬ tinued to seize the persons and property of enemies found in neutral ships. This inconsistency so gross and so glaring, was the effect of commercial jealousy. The first book, published after the ex¬ pulsion of the barbarians from Europe, laid down this inconsis¬ tent doctrine....it was the book before referred to, II Consolaio del Mare . This production, of which even the author is not known, written in an age scarcely half civilized, and adopted by a state that at the time maintained by force a monopoly of trade, continues to this day the grand authority of England for perpetrating on the seas the practices of barbarians, which in land wars have been abolished by all civilized states. As there was no code, nor general authority adopted for the government of nations, the laws of nature remained the only criterion for the determination of all questions. According to these laws, all states possessed an inherent right to pursue their own happiness in every way, not infringing the natural rights of others. They, therefore, could have lawfully supplied, even warlike stores, to states in hostility with each other, and they could have lawfully forced their way into blockaded ports : but the influence of civilization producing a desire to diminish the means ol human destruction, and to shorten the duration of wars, independent states voluntarily gave up a portion of their sovereignty, by abstaining from a trade in contraband, or to ports blockaded. Inis reform, therefore, originated in motives of humanity, it was voluntary on the part oi neutrals, and not to the conse ¬ quence ol any rights that belligerents could pretend to derive Irom the circumstance ol their preierring war to peace. The cessation to trade in contraband or to ports blockaded, was an act of grace, for which belligerents should have been thankful; but 18 this favor had scarcely been granted when belligerents asserted it as a right of their own, and began to abuse it to the injury oi neutrals. Custom, and conventional law, or treaties, have since fixed those gratuitous favors as if they were original rights to belligerents and as duties to neutrals. States, therefore, having no obligations but the laws of na¬ ture, and having from their humanity alone abridged their sovereignty, in cases where its exercise would prolong and ensanguine war; it cannot be supposed, that they would stid further surrender their rights, when the exercise of them could not afflict humanity, and when the abandonment of them woulc. ^ready injure their own welfare, their innocent trade. Xhis is the foundation, upon which I principally rest m} answer to the question, “ shall the persons and property ol ene¬ mies be free on board neutral ships?” which answer is....that a belligerent has no right to take unarmed enemies, or the pro¬ perty of an enemy which is not contraband, when found on board a neutral ship. . . . , , , , I must here note a distinction, which it is useful you should un¬ derstand. In land wars, neutral territory protects even soldiers and warlike stores ; but, from the same motives of humanity* dvit governed states in relation to contraband and blockade, it is'a custom or rule, sanctioned by treaties, that neutrals may not convey troops nor arms to belligerent territories, colonies, or conquests. _ , , I maintain, then, that by the natural laws of nations, and the principles ot universal good and justice, a neutral has a right to pursue its own welfare, by conveying the citizens and property ot belligerents from the colonies to the mother country, or from port to port, when such conduct does not violate the laws of huma¬ nity by directly promoting the destruction of men. And, that, as the laws of nature are paramount to all otners, no customs 01 conventions contrary to their dictates, are binding nor should be respected by free states. JHEere I might rest the question, for I ha\e ne.ei seen oi heard an answer to this position ; but, that, every argument 01 pretext, upon which the right of neutrals to protect the persons and property of belligerents is contested, may be exposed to vour scrutiny, I shall proceed to a further inquiry. * The doctrine, laid down in the Consalata del Mare, at a pe¬ riod when Europe was but just emerging from barbarism, and adopted first by the Pisans, afforded a pretext, to their succes¬ sors to aggrandize themselves at the expense of weak neutrals. Whenever it suited the views of belligerents, they either ad¬ hered to. or abandoned, the practice of seizing enemies and ene¬ mies’ property wherever found; justifying their usurpation whenever exercised, upon precedent, not cm right, or the natura. laws of nations. 19 It appears, that, in general, it was the practice in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries, thus to violate neutral rights. In the 17th and 18th centuries, however, when the introduction of the mariner’s compass, printing, and gunpowder....the discovery of America and a new route to India....had totally changed the commerce, manners, views, and interests of European states j the rights of neutrals became at length respected, and were only infringed by nations, which had so much power as to forbid re¬ sistance to its exercise : the latitude for commerce, was con¬ ceived to be extensive enough for all nations; those who at¬ tempted a monopoly of the trade of the world, became odious to the rest of mankind ; and until within the 17th century, the attempt at universal monopoly, was not dared to be avowed, although the British navigation laws were founded on the con¬ templation of such an unsocial usurpation. England, having, by every species of injustice to weak and neutral states, raised itself from insignificance to the first rank of commercial power, found that to maintain its consequence, it was necessary to observe a loose and indecisive language res¬ pecting the laws of nations. T t adopted the long exploded au¬ thority of the Consolato del Mare , and obeyed it whenever it was its interest to do so. Pursuing its usurpation, in the war with France and Spain, in 1745, a number of Prussian vessels, laden with innocent goods, but belonging to belligerents, were seized and carried into British ports. Frederic, the great, immedi¬ ately retaliated, by sequestrating the mortgage claims upon Si¬ lesia, which England held under the treaties of Breslau and Dresden. Before he took this decided step in his own defence, and in support of all neutral states, he had an exposition drawn up of the principles, by which he was actuated. This was the first time, that the rights of neutrals were formally discussed and explained. The Prussian manifesto was presented to the court of London, in 1752, and in 1753 an answer was returned, defending the practice of seizing enemy’s property in neutral ships ;....this answer was drawn up by four lawyers in the pay of the British crown, and was presented by the duke of New¬ castle, the British minister. In the war of 1756, three years after the protest of Frede¬ ric of Prussia, the British again usurped the power of seizing neutral vessels, conveying goods belonging to belligerents: they stopped and sent in for adjudication a number of Danish vessels. Phis produced an able defence of neutral rights by AL Hubner, under the authority of the king of Denmark, i he British ministry attempted to answer M. Hubner, in a pamphlet written by Mr. Charles Jenkinson, afterwards lord Liverpool. Here, then, we have formal and elaborate treatises, written under the sanction of the respective governments ; and must presume that each contained the best possible arguments ir* 20 support of the respective doctrines. Qf the memorial of Prus¬ sia, or the treatise of Hubner, I speak only from the character, given of them in different works of authority and merit, and upon these I form my conclusion of their excellence. It is of more consequence that you should know, what the British ad¬ vance in support of their usurpation, and the substance is there¬ fore now given, from ]Mr. Jenkinson, who is the standard au¬ thority in their admiralty courts. He" maintains, that belligerents have a right to seize the property of enemies, found on board neutral ships ; “ 1. Because numerous authors, of weight and celebrity, who have written upQn the laws of nations, have maintained that right. u 2. Because the general practice of nations, as recorded in history, shews that it was at all times an acknowleged right cf •> * belligerents. “ 3. Because a neutral, in carrying the trade of a state at war, supports its revenue, and indirectly increases the num¬ ber of its seamen....thereby aiding the belligerent in conducting the war....a state of things calculated to induce neutrals to ex¬ cite contentions, in the expectation of profit.” Such are the principal arguments, or grounds, upon which the belligerent claim is set up of regulating the commerce of neutrals. You will see, that they indirectly assert an absolute dominion oyer the ocean; and that the principles it admitted, would go to authorise France as well as England, if France had or should have a more powerful navy, to claim and exercise a dominion over the ocean. I believe I shall be able to expos? the falsity of every one of these principles. February 14, 1809. LETTER V. a What arc the maritime rights of belligerents , and the conse¬ quent duties of neutrals f I PROCEED, my friends, to examine the strength or iustice of the reasons, which the British government has stated, in its defence of their claim to seize the property of their ene¬ mies, found on board neutral ships. The hist reason is ..... « Because numerous authors of weight and celebrity, who have written upon the laws of nations, have maintained that belligerent right.” # , From the arguments stated in my former letters, you w ill, i ?hink, have agreed with me, that, it matters not, hoTv mag\ 21 have written, or what writers have said, unless they assumed as the basis of their reasoning, the moral laws of nature and the principles of universal justice. If therefore, every writer upon the laws ol nations had advocated the right of belligerents to seize an enemy’s property in neutral ships, that right would nei- ther be established nor justified. But, what is the fact, as to the works on the laws of nations? 31r. Jenkinson and his copyists quote as their principal authori¬ ties, the Consolato del Mare , Grctius , Heineccius , Binkershoeck y Gentilis , Loccenius , Voetius , Zuar'ms , Zouch , Montesquieu , and Vattel, If the number of the writers could determine the authority, I question whether the cause of neutrals would not be trium¬ phant ; on their side and opposed to the above are these writers, Hubner , Gallium , Cocceius , Puffendorff\ Totze , Wolfius , Steck, Lampredi , Hennings , Busch , Martens , Schlegel , and Azuni; all these, advocate the neutral rights, or question the justice of its infraction. So much, therefore, for the number of the writers on the laws of nations ; from which it appears that on this ground no claim can be rested. But I do not stop here, I will test the authority of the principal writers, quoted by the advocates o: British usurpation. The doctrine of Grotius , as laid down in his book, was pal- nably borrowed or transcribed from the Consolato del Mare; and _t is more than probable that the majority of the other writers, quoted on the same side, had no other data, than the work of Gro¬ tius. What, then are you to think of a doctrine, that rests its justice and claims, upon a production, like that of the Consolato del Mare , which was a compilation of the ordinances of the petty cities of Italy, formed in the middle centuries ? What claims can such a doctrine have, when its advocates go back to the age of Vandalism and ignorance, for authority to support it ? It has less claim to obedience now than the canon law, or than the bulls of the Popes, for these are of a more recent date, and were passed in more civilized times. But, further, I will endeavor to shew, that the principal wri¬ ters quoted by the English government, Grotius , Vattel , Bin - kershoeck , have supported the cause of neutrals. Grotius copied the Consolato del Mare , in 1624 ; but, in 1629, lie wrote to his brother, announcing that he had just finished a treatise to prove, that the freedom of neutral trade ought not to be impaired in consequence of the existence of wars between particular states; his authority, therefore, ought not to be claimed in opposition to neutral rights. Vattel has these em¬ phatic sentiments.... u Whatever a nation does, in a use of its own rights, anti 'olely with a view to its own good, 'without partiality , without a design to f(i~c?r one power to the prejudice of another; cannot. 22 in general, be considered as contrary to its neutrality, and be¬ comes such, only upon particular occasions, when it cannot take place without injury to one of the parties, who has then a right to oppose it.” This is an absolute avowal of the right of neutrals to cover and convey every kind of property but contraband: the last member of the sentence, as above quoted, appears somewhat enigmatical, but the following words shew the sense of the author:.... 44 For instance,” says Vattel, 44 a besieger has a right to prohibit access to the besieged.” Binkershoeck declares, that a neutral has a right to all trade, when it makes no distinction between the states at war. The authority of these writers, therefore, cannot sustain the British doctrine ; or, if in other parts of their works, they are inconsistent with the above sentiments, they merit no considera¬ tion as authority. There is yet another point of view, in which I can exhibit to you the rotteness of the first foundation, upon which the Britisn writers assert their claim. As it is an undisputed rule, one that I presume every writer quoted by the British, is in favor of, that neutral territory lawfully protects, not only an enemy’s property, but secures property taken from one belligerent from re-capture by another....how can the right to seize an enemy s property on board neutral ships be defended ? That the ship of a nation is a part of its territory, as much as a dwelling house on its territory, cannot be questioned ; because the sea is no nation s property, but a possession in common to them all: and in our own short history there are to be found instances, particulai ly that of Jonathan Robbins, in which the British asserted this rule and our government acquiesced. 1 he inconsistency, therefoie of the. go¬ vernment, and its writers, who can in one case assert the iigh of the flag to secure to the ship every privilege allowed on shore, and in another case deny that right; such inconsistency, I say, is so gross that we cannot, in honor or justice, pay any respect to the cause attempted to be thus supported....it cannot be a good Whether, therefore, the question is determinable by the number, or the consistency, of the writers on the laws of na¬ tions, I presume that it is here shewn, that the doctrine cannot be sustained, on the first ground taken by the Bimsh go\ em¬ inent. . r The next argument is.... 44 Because the general practice ot nations, as recorded in history, shews that it was at ail turns an acknowleged right of belligerents.” Having stated, what was the practice, previous to 1780, I now proceed to that memorable era in maritime histoiy v the alliance of the neutral states of Europe to support their rights by force, if ne¬ cessary. This great event, so propitious to ad just states, and so grateful to enlightened minds, to the honor of America, origin- ated in the suggestion of one of her most distinguished sons', Franklin, who had contributed more than any other man to lay the foundation, of the freedom of his country, obtained by his character and influence at the court of France, not only the alliance of that state, but its agency to induce the northern powers to assert the independence of the seas. Vergennes, through the minister of France in Prussia, first secured the countenance of Sweden and Denmark, and then these powers obtained the concurrence of Russia; and Holland soon after joined the confederacy. This alliance was necessary to the peace, commerce, and neu¬ tral character and freedom of the northern powers, as well as to the success of America ; for England had announced her reso¬ lution to suffer no trade with rebels, and had put her threats against France into execution by the seizure of Russian and other ships, bound to French ports. The northern states, there¬ fore, made known to the belligerents, in February, 1780, that they had determined to support, by armed fleets fitted out for the purpose, u the freedom of trade and navigation,'” and in particular these principles, founded upon the universal laws of nations:.... 1. That it shall be lawful for any ship whatever, to sail freely from one port to another, or along the coasts of the powders at war. 2. That all merchandize and effects, belonging to the subjects of powers at war, and shipped in neutral vessels, shall be en¬ tirely free; excepting contraband goods, (cannon, mortars, musquets, pistols, flints, matches, gunpowder, sulphur, salt¬ petre, pikes, swords, saddles, or other articles positively form¬ ing munitions or implements of war.) 3. That, to ascertain what constitutes the blockade of any place or port, it is to be understood to be in such a predicament, when the assailing power has taken such a station, as to expose to imminent danger, any ship or ships, that should attempt to enter or depart. 4* That no neutral ship shall be stopped without a material and well grounded cause ; and in such cases justice shall be done them, without loss of time ; and, besides indemnifying, each and every time, the party aggrieved by being stopped without sufficient cause ; satisfaction shall also be given to the power, whose flag may be thus insulted. 5. That all decisions incases of capture, shall be determined by the principles here laid down. Such was the decision of the memorable league of 1780, which it was declared should form the ground-work of all sub¬ sequent treaties. The principles having been made known to every court, they were formally adopted by France, Spain, Austria, Naples, Prussia, and even by Portugal the ally of England; so that, including the original contractors, Pussia^ Denmark, Sweden , and Holland ; all the states of Europe, combined in common defence, against the usurpations ol Eng¬ land, whom it was necessary to treat as a common highway-man, bv proclaiming a law of nations and announcing the punishment due to the disregard of all law and justice. When this manifesto was received in England, an answer was returned ; in which, without acknowleging the principles oi the league, it was promised that no offence should thereafter be committed. This promise, however was not kept, for the English conti¬ nued to capture neutral ships. Russia then threatened open a» ai, the vessels were released in consequence, and in less than two years (1782) England herself acknowleged the justice of the above principles, in a more formal manner . Russia having offered its services to Holland^ to act as medi¬ ator between that state and England, the Dutch answeied that 7 10 peace could- be made unless England would consent to coup) m in the treaty the rights and principles, set forth in the declara¬ tion of the armed neutrality. Mr. C. J. Fox, the British prime minister, immediately wrote to the court of Russia:.... u His majesty anticipated the councils of the coui t of Pc.eis- burg, by having offered the Hollanders, the entire liberty of navigation, according to the treaty of 1674, between Gieat Britain and the republic; a treaty, by which the principles o the armed neutrality are established in their widest extent, to all the contracting parties. His majesty therefore, aceepts as the basis of a separate peace with Holland, a free • navigation accoi cl¬ ing to the principles demanded by her imperial majesty, jn hei declaration (of armed neutrality) of February 26, 1780/ Here then is a most explicit and voluntary acknowlegement, by England herself; that the neutral flag secures all property, but contraband :....that contraband means only implements ana munitions used directly in Avar: that neutrals have a right to sai alonr enemy’s coasts, and from port to port: and that a belli¬ gerent has no right to stop a neutral, but upon just ground ol suspicion:....yet, we are sometimes told, that England never has sanctioned these important principles. Upon the strength of these notorious andum\ eisaliv inteiest* ing transactions, Avriters date the commencement of the modern laws of nations from the year 1780, in which they took place. Since that year, twenty-eight treaties have been ratified, con tabling and confirming the principles of the armed neutrality, and to three of these England Avas a party: four have been rati¬ fied since that time, which arc hostile to, or silent respecting those principles; to Iavo of these also England was a party, to one Russia Avas a party, and to one America A\as a partv. t 15 due, however, to these principles and the cause of ad neutral states, as well as to America and Russia, to say, that in rati- lying principles adverse to those of the armed neutrality, al 25 faction only triumphed in each country: the principles and sen¬ timents of both states remained unchanged, as the subsequent policy and conduct of both have gloriously established. If it were true, that nations had sanctioned this assumption^ by their general practice, its justice or force could not be esta-- blished, if the only just authority, that of universal justice, did not sustain it. Precedent or indulgence, among ancient or particular states, cannot bind succeeding states, equally inde¬ pendent and more enlightened. What crime may not be justi¬ fied, by a recurrence to history, if the rapacitv and commercial jealousy of England, for three centuries derive an authority from the bloody record of their consequences ? But nations are not now in a state of apathy or ignorance, they feel and know that, the greater the number of instances which history fur¬ nishes, of belligerent insolence or neutral tameness, it is so much the more necessary now to establish the freedom of the seas ; and the evidence of this, is discernible in the present condition of t\ ngland, outlawed bij all civilized states . But, let me inquire, what-is this general practice P Treaties undoubtedly afford the best, the least suspicious authority ; they are in this instance the best possible history. As I have had occasion to say, heretofore, the seas of Eu¬ rope bore a greater number of pirates than merchantmen, even so late as the 14th century; and on shore the number of bands of robbers, not to mention the individual plunderers, equalled that of the pirates....a state of things consequent to the semi¬ barbarism of the people, and the crusades which threw upon the shores of Europe disbanded corps of soldiers and seamen, after eight or nine fruitless attempts to extirpate infidelity by the sword, in Egypt and Syria. It is not therefore to such times as these, that we can or ought at this day to resort, for l he txue principles or justice or sound policy ; England alone resorts to that polluted source, by her attachment to the Como - lato del Mare . If in those dark times, it was the general prac¬ tice to do as Britain yet does, that fact shews the propriety of reformation: but, even in the 14th and early in the 15th centu¬ ries, there are instances of improvement, as appears by the treaty of 1353, between England herself and the city of Lis¬ bon, and by the treaties of 1406 and 1417, between France and the duke of Burgundy. The generally adopted stipulations of the early treaties were simply these...^.that the contracting parties should protect each othei against tne pirates, and that in the event of a war between one of the parties and a third power, the other, or neutral., psuty should not be partial, or be the friend of one more than of tne other belligerent, in trade or otherwise. Witli the progress of commerce and civilization, a gradual but steady change was operating in favor of the rights of neu- trals, and it is not a little singular, that even the Turks, so , ar K- a3 1604, were among the very first to adopt the laws oi nature and reason, to which, although often sanctioned in her _ * - • i* 1 _ _ - ^ A Konrlnmnn* tnPVP- nature ana reason, to wmtu, '—: . 4 treaties, England is at this day opposed. Abandoning there- fore, former practices, every state m Europe, adopted a new policy and conduct, in particular treaties, in the 17th and 18th centuries; and among these states England herself took the lead, as to the number of her treaties, on the subject of neutra l-isrhts. So far from the present doctrine of England having a sanction in the generality of its adoption, the treaties prove the From 1642 to 1780, but fourteen treaties were ratified, that were hostile to the right of neutrals to protect enemy s property, not contraband; and this number is stated on the.authority o an advocate for the British doctrine:....but from 1642 to 1/SO sixty-three treaties were ratified establishing the ngn: o the neutral flag to cover all property but contraband. From 160* to 1780, sixty-four treaties guaranteed the neutral rights; to thirty- four of which England herself was a party ; and of the whole number, fifty-nine were ratified before the ; defence of the duke of Newcastle, and Mr. C. Jenkmson, that I am now • • -n °With ; "n that term, from 1604 to 1780, there was an equal number of treaties, at least which contained no specific regula¬ tor! • but as they were ratified by the very states which were parties to the o'ther treaties, and as they refer to the genera practice to determine questions arising out of war, these might be Placed in support of neutral rights; putting them, however, aside the general practice in civilized states, as evinced m then- treaties to 5 the year 1780, confirms the right of the neutral to cover enemy’s property, not contraband, and does not sanction the belligerent usurpation, as alleged by Mr. Jenkmson. If any further proof were wanting, besides the absolute rati¬ fication of those treaties, guaranteeing neutral rights, it is to be found in the circumstances and terms of the treaty of L trecht, between England and France, in 1713. The French had some success at se t in the war preceding that peace, but the English -nd the allies, the Germans and Dutch, under the duke of Marlborough and prince Eugene, had such -sampled goo frtvtnne on the continent, that Lewis XIV. was glad to si 6 n disgraceful treaty. Yet, in this period of triumph, and not- Ht, of the neutral Hag:.... . „ Tt sha n be lawful for the subjects of the queen (Anne of Grca( Britain, V imd Ihcnost Christian^ (J^XIV.) towith the the^cargoesffr^'any part to the'rfaces of those who are now, or shall h 2 7 'hereafter at enmity with the queen of Great Britain or tl>e most Christian king . it shall, likewise, be lawful for the subjects aforesaid, to trade with the same liberty and security, in merchandize as aforesaid, to or from the ports of those who are enemies of either party; and not only from the ports of enemies to neutral ports, but from one place belonging to an enemy to another, whether they be under the jurisdiction of one prince or of several. And it is now sti¬ pulated, that free ships shall give freedom to goods , and that every thing shall he free and exempt, which shall be found on board the ships belonging to either party’s subjects, although the whole lading, or any part thereof, should appertain to the enemies of either of their majesties, contraband (including warlike instru¬ ments ancj munitions only) excepted. The subjects of the enemies cf either, shall also be free, excepting soldiers in actual service.” From this view of the conventional, or treaty-hi story of modern Europe, I am emboldened to say, that the second argument, in support of the claim to seize enemy property in neutral ships, is totally defective; and that, on the contrary, the practice cf civilized states confirms the right, which neutrals possess by the laws of nature, to protect all property but contraband....to trade in whatever way they may think proper, consistently with that impartiality, which justice and reason inculcate and direct* February 16, 1809. LETTER VI. ■ u What are the maritime rights of belligerents , and the conse¬ quent duties of neutrals HAVING shewn that a neutral has a right to carry and protect all belligerent property, not contraband, by the laws oi nature, the authority of writers on public law, and by the gene¬ ral practice of nations : I might here rest the question for your decision. There is another pretext, however, for the bellige¬ rent usurpation, which although in some measure anticipated and answered in my fourth letter, it maybe useful to notice here. It is said a neutral has no right to convey enemy’s property: u Because such carriage increases the revenue of the state at war, and indirectly the number of its seamen, thereby enabling it to prolong hostilities: a state of things calculated to induce neutrals to excite contentions amongst states, in the expectation of profit to themselves.” This pretext is said to be founded in the reason of the case, it is such an argument, however, as I think, can be refuted in this plain and neutral language. In barbarous ages, belligerents undertook to reduce their enemies by poison, famine, and by cutting off all intercourse with them: neutrality was not only unknown as a. condition, 28 but as a term; weak states being compelled to take a part in quarrels among powerful neighbors, in which they had no inte» rest, and which usually terminated in their own ruin, whoever became the conqueror. But since the civilization and distribution of mankind, into separate and distinct states, the practice and example of barba¬ rians have been generally succeeded by just conceptions of the rights and duties of states : the laws of nature offering an uner¬ ring guide, nations acknowleged, that in preserving their own happiness, they had no right to abridge the happiness of others. Thus, when wars arose, states remaining in peace, lost none of their rights, they were simply bound to observe an honest im* partiality; and as even Vattel acknowleges, if a state traded in arms, during a peace, it had a right by nature to pursue that trade in w T ar. Particular belligerents, however, intent only upon injuring their enemies, pretended that in wars there arose a new law, that of necessity , superior even to the laws of general justice. You must not furnish arms,” said the belligerent, “ because self-preservation gives me the right to prevent my enemy from acquiring weapons and implements for injuring me.” In trea¬ ties, this law of necessity was adopted and respected. This abridgment of perfect rights, at the instance of belligerents, induced them to demand another concession, thatneutrals should not enter ports blockaded, and this also was admitted. That these were concessions on the part of neutrals, and not actually founded on the rights, alleged to accompany warfare, is manifest from the treaties of ail modern states ; the exception in two instances, and two only, prove that all other rights were retained by neutrals. At this point, indeed, concession justly ceased, for if it had not, where would be, and who could fix the limits of bellige¬ rent claims r If a state at war asserts a right to stop one species of commerce, or one particular trade, because the revenue of the enemy is thereby encreased; and if this usurpation is allow¬ ed ; the necessary consequence, the very next pretext, must be, that all intercourse, whatever may be interrupted, for there is no trade that does not aid the state carrying it on. This consequence, unfortunately, is not imaginary: the effect has succeeded the cause, particularly in the present war. But, although, the laws of nature and treaties have been violated, in almost every war, the rights and the nature of neutrality remain, the same, they are as fixed and as just as ever, andean be aban¬ doned only with disgrace. The true, and the only justification for belligerent interference in neutral concerns, is when the neutral manifestly favors by treaty or otherwise, one of the states at war, more than the ether; for a favor granted during the war to one belligerent, does an injury to the other, and justly exposes the neutral to 29 the treatment of an actual ally in the war. But when imparti¬ ality ceases to be the safeguard of neutrals, there is no limit to the insolence of belligerents, or the injury to the neutral “ A neutral,” says Vattel, the authority so much relied on by England, “ has a right to pursue any trade but contraband, when it carries it on for its own benefit, and without a design to favor one belligerent to the injury of another.” “ A belligerent,” says Barbeyrac, “ has a right to require neutrals to maintain a strict neutrality, and not to serve his enc- mv more than himself.” On this point, indeed, all writers on public law seem to have agreed ; the question then is capable of no perversion, the right of a neutral may at all times be decided by its conduct, and that conduct all the world must be acquainted with. If Ame¬ rica, for instance, engaged in a carrying trade for England, France could have no right to forbid it, unless the like advan¬ tages were denied to the latter. Other points may be answered by the neutral, in this way : “ In wars, our neutral rights are voluntarily, and perhaps wise¬ ly, abridged ; our interests are necessarily thwarted. By the laws of nature we may pursue anv trade, as our relinquishment of a part by treaty, sufficiently proves ; we may do whatever is bene¬ ficial to ourselves and does not injure others. If we submit to all the restraints and vexations of war....the interruption of sup¬ plies ; the loss of good customers ; detention and examination at sea by every petty cruizer; and the losses by detention in belligerent ports by embargo, &c. If we submit to all these, because particular states, with whom we are in amity, choose to engage in hostilities with each other;....surely it is unjust to deprive us of anv advantages that the war may create in our ia\ or....advantages that result from your voluntary engagement in hostilities ; such, too, as while they promote our interest, materially serve your own. We have a right to carry for either or both oi you, such innocent goods, as you may wish us to carry, irom your own inability to do so; and our right cannot be dis¬ puted but when w^e are manifestly partial, a conduct that our interest compels us to avoid. Nor is it any justification for in¬ fringing our rights, that one beJjigerent derives more revenue than the other, from our trade, since it is not the effect of our impartiality, but of the circumstances of the war. As to the pretext, that a carrying trade may create among neutrals the desire for wars, and even induce them to excite contention ; that motive can have little or no influence in any ctate that has an import and export trade of its own. Holland might find an interest in its own neutrality and wars amongst neighboring nations, but its capability to produce them is so trifling as to give no reason to expect any effect, if it were dis¬ posed to pursue so unjust and unusual policy. But this pretext, it is at all times in the power of the belligerents to remove. 30 The influence of neutrals must promote rather than abridge,• the interests of states, and the cause of humanity....for when the prospects of maritime plunder are frustrated and obscured by an acknowlegement of our neutral rights, the principal caus^ of maritime wars will be removed.” This, I trust, is the language of reason and justice, and I think refutes the pretext, said to be founded in the nature of the From what I have said in this and the preceding letters, these conclusions are, in my opinion, deducible ; from the laws of nature, the authority of writers on public law, and the prac¬ tice of states. 1 . That, as the ocean is as free, and common, to all men, .as the air, no power has a right to exclusive privileges in using it: 2. That, as all writers agree that. all property whatever is sacred and secure when in the dominions of a neutral state , and, as they are equally explicit in declaring the ship of a state a part of its dominion all the rights of the state are possessed by the ship, in whatever sea or port it may be....subject to those restrictions only which are voluntarily imposed by treaty, those pf contraband trade, and intercourse with ports blockaded.^ In my 4th letter I briefly noticed the treaty history of Eng¬ land and her discussions with Prussia and Russia ; it must be useful, however, to state more particularly, the instances and facts, which prove that her opposition to neutral rights is found¬ ed upon her own interested views and policy, and not upon the laws or customs of nations. . From 1642 to 1753, when the first formal discussion oi neu¬ tral rights took place between England and Prussia, that is within little more than a century, England guaranteed anc. .confirmed in thirty-one treaties , the right of the neutral to pro¬ ject all enemy property but contraband. r _ . . . The controversy with Prussia, is particularly remarkable. - The English had seized, in 1747, several Prussian and Han¬ seatic vessels, laden with belligerent goods: Frederic II. de¬ manded restitution, in a formal memorial, wherein that great man defended the rights of the neutral flag: England returned, in 1753, a formal answer, refusing restitution, and asserting the belligerent claim to take the property of enemies, found m neutral ships: Frederic, on this refusal, sequestrated certain mortgage claims England had upon Silesia. This was a con¬ test, of the utmost importance to neutrals, and it terminated m a glorious triumph ; the British being compelled to pay, as they * « Notwithstanding all the discussions by the duke of Newcastle and & i D. Ryder, &c. the king of Prussia having threatened to invade Hanovei, t e whole matter was put to sleep by our government privately restoring the value of the ships and cargoes, protected as it was asserted b; y tie n • “s’ although the property of enemies ot England.’ Preface to so y. - ar .o ■ Admiralty Cases. VqI. I, page 14. Si' did on the 16th January, 1756, for the property seized in the Prussian ships. In 1780,^ another, and a still more important contest took place, the consequences of which are equally propitious to neu¬ trals. All the states of Europe, leagued to defend their rights against England; and in 1782, the ministry of that country formally accepted, as the basis of their treaty with Holland, the principles of the armed neutrality. To enable you, further to answer the question asked, I sub¬ join a list of the principal treaties, ratified during the last two centuries, by the states of Europe. Although, in this enume¬ ration, England takes the first place, as to the number of the instances in which neutral rights were acknowleged ; and, not* withstanding the above mentioned authoritative acts, you will find, that it has been the rule and policy of that country, to observe no laws or treaties, longer than her interests required. Her power was acquired by contempt for all such national and moral restraints and obligations, and can be retained by no other means: the distresses of other states, wars, and intestine com» motions, are the only pillars of her power, and the only gua¬ rantees of her safety. February 18, 1809. TREATIES, Either directly guaranteeing 1 the neutral right, to protect all belligerent proper¬ ty but contraband, or confirming those by which that principle had been esta¬ blished. prior to 1780. Between England and France, seven treaties, in the years 1655, 1667, 1670, 1677, 1713, 1717, 1748. England and Holland, eleven treaties, in 1667, 1668, 1674, 1678,1685^ 1688, 1709, 1713, 1717, 1726, 1748. England and Spain, nine treaties, in 1667, 1670, 1715, 1715. 1721. i.729, 1739, 1750, 1763. England and Russia, one in 1734. England and Sweden, one in 1656. England and Denmark, one in 1670. England and Portugal, two, in 1642, 1654. France and Turkey, four, in 1604, 1689, 1719, 1764. France and Hanse-Towns, two, in 1655, 1716. France and Holland, six, in 1646, 1662, 1678, 1697, 1713, 17J39. France and Spain, one in 1659. France and Sweden, two, in 1666, 1672. France and Denmark, two, in 1662, 1742. Holland and Sweden, three, in 1667, 1675, 1679. * “ To ihc resentment of the empress of Russia, the British government thought proper to submit, and a quantity of sail cloth, sufficient to tit out the whole Spanish tieet from Ferrol to Cadiz, was restored upon renewal of the •Iccrec of condemnation in consequence of an appeal, and the captor absolutely ( ondemned in cost ■ and damages.” .Preface to Marriott's Ca-'cs. Vol. I, page 15. Holland and Denmark, one in 1701. Holland and Spain, one in 1648. Holland and Portugal, one in 1661. Holland and Naples, one in 1752. Holland and Turkey, one in 1612. Denmark and Genoa, two, in 1675, 1756. Denmark and Spain, one in 1742. Denmark and Naples, one in 1748. Germany and Spain, one in 1725. United States of America and France, 1778. SUBSEQUENT TO 1780. Treaty of armed neutrality, signed and agreed to by Russia, Prussia, Swe¬ den, Denmark, Holland, Austria, Naples, Spain, and Portugal, in 1780-1-2. U. States and Holland, in 1782. Sweden, Prussia, France, Morocco, Spain, Algiers, Tripoli, Tunis, Russia and Turkey, Austria, Portugal, Naples, England, France, France and Holland, England, Turkey, Hamburg, Holland and England, Turkey, Spain and England, Turkey, Tripoli, Algiers, Austria and Morocco, Denmark and Genoa, 1783. 1785. 1786. and 1800. 1787. 1795. 1795. 1797. 1799. 1783. 1785. 1787. 1787. 1793. 1797. 1785. 1783, 178*6. 1790. 1789. 1784. 1798. 1783. 1782. 1784. 1786. 1783. 1789. Denmark and Genoa ? x/oy# , r Second armed neutrality, in 1800-1, between Russia, Sweden, and Denmark LETTER VII. flc What are the maritime rights of belligerents , and thd conse¬ quent duties of neutrals HAVING considered the three first points of inquiry, arising out of the above question, I will now endeavor to answer the fourth, which, for the purpose of elucidation, may be thus stated..Are neutrals bound to submit to be searched by bel¬ ligerent cruizers Besides the general importance of this subject, it has parti- cuiar claims to >our attention, from the circumstances, that a resolution is now before congress, for instructing the command¬ ers of our merchantmen to resist a search, and that several newspapers are endeavoring to persuade the public, that to resist is unlawful. I shall endeavor to test the pretended right of search, by the laws of nature, the writers on public law, and the practice of nations. One of the first and strongest injunctions, that men and states receive from nature, is to promote their own happiness and im¬ provement; and with these injunctions are obviously conveyed all the rights necessary for their fulfilment. Commerce, or in¬ tercourse, being the most certain means for promoting the mu¬ tual civilization and wellare of states, no nation has any right whatever, by the laws of nature, to interrupt it j and as states have not only a right, but are bound, to preserve their happi¬ ness, an interruption of their just pursuits justifies resistance. In land wars, it never has been attempted, I believe, to in¬ terrupt the peaceful intercourse of citizens even of states at war ; much less, to prevent a commerce between the people of a na¬ tion at war and their friendly neighbors: on the contrary, wise statesmen have made every effort to confine their wars to the governments themselves, or to their armies, and not to extend their distresses to every class of the people, or to cut off all com ¬ munication. It is certain, that on land, resistance would follow any attempt to interrupt a neutral trade with the people of a state at war.Such being the case, it must be shewn that the laws of nature make any distinction between the rights of an intercourse by land and that by sea, before it can be allowed that belligerents have a right to exercise upon the latter vex¬ ations and restraints, which, if attempted on land, would justify war. The flag of a ship entitling it, upon a free sea, to all the rights and honors of the state it belongs to, an attempt to inter¬ rupt its course cannot be justified by the laws of nature.^ When states engage in war, they have a. right to harrass their enemies, but they are bound to act towards neutrals as if no war existed. So positive are the rights of neutrals, indeed,that they may refuse and resist a belligerent attempt to seize even contra¬ band. The utmost that the law of necessity (of which so much is said and which has been so much abused) allows to a bellige¬ rent, is to delay or interrupt a supply of contraband, it can give no right to rob a neutral; and the contraband, if stopped, should be paid for. Necessity can never exist contrary to justice. If the positions here stated, are as correct as I believe them to be, the laws of nature, instead of justifying, absolutely for- Jurisdiction, exercised in ships, proves it birth of a child on board the ship of a nation, is tory ot the nation to which the ship belong. a part of the territory, hold to bo a birth in tin Tbo tern- bid, any interruption of neutral commerce. The opinions o, public writers are next to be considered. . A As stated in a former letter, those opinions on the laws ot na -ions have no authority unless they are founded upon the law* of nature and universal justice; if, therefore, what is called e right of search were advocated by every writer, its justice woulc not on that account be established: but there is no instance, t ran find, in which it has been attempted to establish a right ot search upon the authority of the laws of nature: all the writers, who discuss the subject, treat it as an effect or necessary consequence oi the privilege granted by neutral states to belligerents, to pi eve trade in contraband. A southern newspaper noticing the resolution before congress, says, that no champion of neutral rights has denied the right of search; but this is manifestly a perversion of argument: every neutral advocate admits an in- uuirv according to conventional law, but not one public wntei of them all concedes what is properly meant, at this day, by the The same print says, that, as the Consolato del Mat e laid down, as the right of a belligerent to seize the property of an enemy in a neutral ship, it implied a right to search: but even If this inference were fairly deducible, which ,s not the case that book must first be shewn to be a proper authority, before obedi¬ ence can be claimed for it. Every modern nation, but England has exploded it, and even the English adhere to Us authority only When it suits their purposes :....for instance, the Consolato de. Mare declares, that when a belligerent seizes the pioperty of d. enemy in a neutral, the neutral must be paid the freight of t . property; but the British refuse to pay the freight, and even condemn the neutral vessel....agam, the Consolato del Man de dares that the property of a neutral, found in an enemy ship, shall be free, but the British from the time of Cromwell to the. present, have violated this rule as well in them P^ ll JF e | ri their treaties, a particular instance of which is to be found iu the treaty of Utrecht. It is evident, therefore, that this boo* is no guide or authority whatever. # Binkerskoeck and Vat tel are also mentioned in the paper a lud- cd to, as authorities to prove, that to resist a search is unlawful ; but the opinions of these writers rest solely upon their jus ness and therefore if they advocate an iniquitous practice, their au thority Passes for no more than the like groundless arguments m mr y newspapers. It is remarkable, however, that neither of 'these writer's pretends to justify the right of search as ed by England, and understood accordingly; Btnkershoecxe :x pressly limits the belligerent rights, to - e X am;naUon of he ship’s passports ; Vattel declares, that « full credit is to be given to the passports and bills of lading produced by the neutral cap¬ tain, unless fraud appear therein, or that good cause exists t , lr _p CC t their validity.” Martens thus defines the duty of the neutral, cc the ship of a neutral nation, should submit to the examination fixed by treaty.” Every other writer, that I have had an opportunity of consulting, places the question on the true foundation, such as I shall presently state, and attaches to a violation of the neutral right, all the losses that follow. As the laws of nature give no right whatever to a nation at war, to interfere with the commerce of neutrals, and as even interference justifies resistance ; what is termed aright of search, can have no other foundation but the consent of the neutrals themselves. There is no doubt, but, in the middle ages, bel¬ ligerents searched vessels, in the full sense of the term ; but this was an act of force ; it was one of those traits of barbarism, which honest and enlightened men must look back upon with hor¬ ror: in these times there were no rights, no laws, power stood in their place ; the seas were infested with pirates; and there was no safety but in a warlike superiority ; but nations cannot consent to have these precedents now held up to justify our imi¬ tation. The necessary consequence of this unlicenced conduct, was to induce succeeding nations to be more jealous of their privi¬ leges than they would otherwise have been. From humanity, neutrals consented, that belligerents might prohibit, the intro ¬ duction of arms and military stores to their enemies, and the entrance of neutrals into blockaded ports ; but when they con¬ ceded these privileges, the right to search for contraband was not granted, it was, on the contrary, expressly withheld. It is not wonderful, that those who have an interest in the subservi¬ ency of neutrals, should pretend that the right to search was implied in the right to seize contraband; but neutrals should not forget, that the right to seize contraband, does not properly or inherently belong to the belligerent, it is a voluntary conces¬ sion of the neutral. As therefore, it was originally a conces¬ sion, it is not to be supposed, that nations would have accom¬ panied it with the abandonment of another right, the exercise of which, would be an indignity to an independent state, and an outiage upon its citizens. No neutral nation ever guaran¬ teed a right to search, by treaty....the usurpation was often sub- mitted to by \yeak states, but never acknowleged as a right; and England in the days ol her greatest pride, under the administra¬ tion of Chatham, declared that the attempt to search a British ship, was a just cause of war.* The earliest evidence of this, that I can find, is in the history ol die reign of queen Elizabeth. Under that princess, the maritime power of England was predominant and irresistible, and the disposition of her government was such, as to give it ample em¬ ployment: her conduct, therefore, deserves the more particular notice. During her war with Spain, in 1589, the French car- See lord Chatham’s declaration in the Appendix. ried on an extensive trade with that country; Elizabeth, sus¬ pecting it to be in a great measure of a contraband nature, or¬ dered her minister, to require of Henry III. of France, to per¬ mit the merchant vessels of his subjects to be searched by her cruizers; the answer is as remarkable as the application.... u I cannot consent,” said Henry, “ because it would introduce prac¬ tices injurious to trade, and afford belligerents a pretext to plun¬ der neutrals.” As remarkable an instance occurred, during the protectorate of Cromwell. This man placed the naval power of his country upon a stronger basis than it had before been, and as well as Eli¬ zabeth, employed it in everyway calculated to suppress a rivalry on the part of any other state ; he held the trident in his hands, yet he asked in vain for permission by treaty , to search the Dutch merchantmen. His object was well understood by the Dutch ; they refused to sanction the privilege by treaty,but ap¬ pear to have tacitly submitted, although the submission was protested against by their admirals....the remark made by the brave admiral de Kuyter, when he heard that his government was averse to warlike opposition to search, was worthy of his character....“ If we submit,” said he, “ it will doubtless expose us to insults, when we least expect them ; these will be offered de¬ signedly by the English....they will search our vessels at their pleasure ; take possession of them on the slightest pretensions, and afterwards treat us as infamous poltroons.” The event iustified the prediction; the British have treated and always will treat as infamous poltroons, not only the Dutch, but every other people so spiritless as not to resist a violation of their rights.* The French and Dutch were not alone, in refusing to ratify in their treaties a manifest usurpation ; Cromwell, in particular, endeavored, with great zeal, to obtain such an acknowlegement from the petty states of Europe, hut without success. So uniform has been the opinion of nations on the subject, that I know no instance in which search has been acknowleged ; and, as treaties alone give authority for any stoppage at sea, I quote and subjoin the stipulations of all the treaties for two cen¬ turies, that have relation to the present question. From this conventional law, it appears : That belligerents are allowed to stop merchant vessels only. That belligerents are forbidden to approach within cannon shot of neutral vessels. * cc -- In 1653, the English commissioners presented a project, of 27 articles to Holland, the 15th of which proposed that the Dutch ships, both men of war and private merchantmen, besides striking their flags, should suffer themselves to be visited, if required, and perform all due offices of honor and acknowlege¬ ment to England, to whom the dominion and sovereignty of the British seas ot l ight belongedBut this was rejected by the Dutch. Sir Philip M: discourse read before Charts: II. 37 That two or three persons only are allowed to board the neu¬ tral. That the ship’s papers are to be received as sufficient, and tho only evidence, unless fraud manifestly appears. That" the examination cannot lawfully extend beyond the neutrality of the ship, the innocence of the cargo, and its des¬ tination. These are the only stipulations, by treaty, relating to what is now termed the right of search.... if no treaty exists between tv q states, each has a right to resist any stoppage or examination whatever. Let us inquire, what are the circumstances of the pretended right of search, claimed by the English.... They stop men of war, or national ships, as well as merchant¬ men. They fire as often as they think proper to bring ships too; and approach as closely as the condition of the sea will permit. They order the captain, mate, and often a majority of the crew of the neutral, to come on board their cruizers, and they send as many of their ©wn men on board the neutral as are neces¬ sary to break open letters, trunks, and packages. After look¬ ing over the ship’s papers, they go on board the neutral and order the crew to be mustered; if any of them have names, familiar to the ears of Englishmen, they are pressed into the British service ; and the neutral thus plundered and weaken¬ ed, is permitted to pursue the voyage as well as she can. At other times they do not even peruse the ship’s papers, but pronounce them false, send the vessel in for adjudication, and. if it has the good fortune not to be condemned, may be con¬ tent with the loss of time and expenses. This outrageous conduct, so opposite to the rights of nations, and repugnant to the express stipulations of treaties, has been invited and encouraged by acquiescence ; at first, merchant ves¬ sels only were abused, and no resistance being made, (at leas 1 by the American government,) the British extended their pqw- » ers to stopping the Baltimore sloop of war in 1798, and seizing a part of its crew ; this not having been resented, they com* : pleted their insolence by the attack on the Chesapeake. Such abuses as these, call for resistance on the part of every ; state: there is no treaty between the United States and Eng" i land, acknowleging any right to stop American vessels, and as the right has never had any other origin or authority than trea¬ ties, it does not exist, and an attempt to enlorce it must be an usurpation justifying war. The consideration of this part of the subject shall be closed in my next. February 22, 1 POP. 38 LETTER VIII. u W/iai are the maritime rights of belligerents , and the conse¬ quent duties of neutrals I WOULD not have departed from a general view of the question before me, but that the subject is now under consider¬ ation in congress, and attempts are making to prevent the adop¬ tion of a wise and necessary measure. The general nature and origin of what is termed the right of search, I have explained, and shall now notice some remarks, offered in a southern news¬ paper, in support of British usurpations. “ The right of search, (says this print) is established by ancient and modern law, as a right incident to a state of war.’* A want of information on a subject of this nature, would be excusable, but the open assertion of falshood, in support of injustice in a public print of the country, is a shocking evidence of depravity, and of the directinfluence of the oppressing govern¬ ment. What is the real truth, as to what is here asserted; it is that there is no such thing as ancient law on the subject, and as to modern law it has no existence but in treaties, and their cha¬ racter will be found in the quotations subjoined; if by ancient and modern law are meant the opinions of writers, they are expressly opposed to this pretended right of search. “ The famous northern confederacy during our revolutionary war attempted not to resist this right.” The reverse of this is fortunately susceptible of demonstra¬ tion: the 4th section of the 3d article of the armed neutrality is as follows: “ No neutral ship shall be stopped, without a just and well grounded cause ; and, in such cases, justice shall be done them without loss of time: and besides indemnifying, each and every time the party aggrieved are thus stopped without sufficient cause, full satisfaction shall be given to the high contracting- powers, for the indignity offered to their flag.” This determination was carried with effect ; for, the British ; continuing their usurpations, Katherine II. threatened war unless reparation was made, and it was made.* This very stipulation j or principle was afterwards adopted by England in her treaties, particularly with Holland. “ During the present war, between England and France, (continues the abovementioned writer) another confederacy was formed by the same powers that composed the former: the first confederacy w'as not opposed with force by Great Britain, * See note, page 31. the second was, and was broken up, and the modern law nations abandoned. 5 ’ England did not oppose the first confederacy, because she was not able to do so; and although Russia was detached from the second, it is not true that it was therefore broken up, much less that the modern law of nations was abandoned....the whole of this is a fiction ;....lord Grenville, in 1801, in a note to the Danish minister respecting the second league of armed neutra¬ lity, said, “ the British government had flattered itself the principles of the former league had been completely given up V but, in his answer, the Danish minister, thus emphatically ex¬ pressed himself: u With respect to the principles of the northern powers, res¬ pecting the sacred rights of neutrality, they have not been aban¬ doned: Russia, in her belligerent capacity (as anally of England) 6has only suspended their application, and Sweden and Denmark j declare in the lace ol all Europe that their system of protection in favor of innocent commerce, is invariable.”* But, says this southern print.... u Sir Wm.Scott established, ill the case ol the Swedish convoy, the right of search, and the liability of the neutral to seizure for resisting- it.” I From the apparent importance with which the name of sir 'Wm. Scott is brought lorward, a person not conversant with such subjects, might be led to think him some acknowleged au¬ thority, some dignified and impartial person, admitted by all nations to be equally pure and wise; certainly these conclu¬ sions follow' the above grovelling language of a pretended Ame¬ rican ; how much will you be surprised, then, to learn, that this sir Wm. is an English judge of admiralty, obliged to obey the orders ol the British privy council, and to give judgment according to their orders , and not according to the laws of na¬ tions, justice, or treaties....that it is so much the interest of this judge to condemn, as he receives a part of the spoil, and that [lie is a pensioner of the British government, as may be seen by referring to the official lists of pensioners and placemen. The authority cl this man is ol no more importance, than tne order or decree ol the bey ol Tripoli: but, if there be a peculiar sanctity in British courts, I can shew, that as w r ise and good judges as sir William, and in more honest times, decided against the usurpation now claimed by England, and shamefully defended by men in America, pretending to value its honor and rights, i he case 1 allude to is reported in Parkis Insurance i p. 83 and 363. • A Tuscan or neutral vessel, with a neutral cargo, had sailed during the American war lor London: on her voyage, being met by a Spanish cruizer, she resisted a search, but was over- orrm, carried into Spain, and there condemned for that resist- 40 ance. The vessel having been insured in London, an action was brought by the owners upon the policy: the under-writers alleged that, they were not bound to pay, because the Tuscan captain had voluntarily subjected his vessel to confiscation by resisting the search of a belligerent cruizer. Here then was a case in which the English, if at all concern¬ ed, might be supposed willing to determine against the neutral; but as the judges who tried the cause, were not bound, like sir Wm. Scott, to obey the orders of a privy council, and as they had no interest in the spoil, they unanimously determined in favor of the neutral, according to the laws of nature and justice. Their sentiments are so much in point, that they are worthy of quotation at large: Justice Willis... If a ship be neutral, and she be stopped, those who stop her must pay for the detention. But, it is said, j she must stop to be searched**, ,Ifndno authority for this position- j Justice Asiiurst....“ I do not find that a neutral must submit I to be searched. It is rather an act of superior force, always resisted when the party is able; and the right falls within ^this position, that the belligerent attempts to search at his peril. Justice Buller.... u The answer given to the claim of search I is conclusive, that the party does it at his peril: the practice of i the admiralty confirms it/for they give costs in cases of im- i proper detention; which they would not clo, if neutrals were, j at all events, liable to be stopped.” And, in answer to the plea, that, as Spain had a law declar- j ing any vessel resisting search liable to confiscation, the capture J of the Tuscan was lawful, judge Buller said, “ The detention, | in conformity with the ordinance ot a foreign state, is a lisque j that the insurer runs: the ordinances ot particular states form I no part of the laws of nations, and a neutral captain is not cul¬ pable if he infringes them.” Here, then, is positive British authority, if no other will answer those writers, to support the outrages committed against the rights and honor of the United States, and from which it appears that the laws of nations do not require a neutral to sub¬ mit to search ; that belligerents have no right, arising from war, to interrupt a neutral trade ; that it all the states of Eui ope agreed that a belligerent had a right to search, Ameiica might lawfully resist, for the ordinances of particular states are not obligatory upon other states. I will again refer the reader to the appendix, for the declara¬ tion of the celebrated lord Chatham on this subject; which shews that the British government does not admit its own \esq sels to be searched ; so that their practice and the decisions of their cqurts are in evidence against their recent usurpation of power.* t v |J JBjjji j [ u From every view, of this subject, therefore, I conclude, that belligerents have no privileges in relation to neutrals, but such 41 as neutrals voluntarily consent to give, in their treaties :•••• that where no privileges are allowed by treaty, an attempt to exer¬ cise any of them, justifies resistance :....and, that, when belli¬ gerents attempt to encroach upon privileges allowed, neutrals should recall them altogether. February 23, 1809. TREATIES 'Which fix and determine what belligerent cruizers may do, when they meet neutral merchantmen at sea. Treaty of Munster , 1648, between Spain and Holland*. The vessels of the states of Holland, shall not be interrupted in their trade with any port or place whatever, even if such place should belong to a power at war with Spain. But permission is not hereby given to trade, in contraband goods; and in order to prevent such trade and that commerce may not be interrupted, the vessels of Holland when they enter Spanish ports, intend¬ ing to sail from thence to an enemy’s ports, shall shew their passports stating the nature of their cargo, but they must not be searched or visited, far less detained. But when vessels of Holland shall be met at sea, and notintending to break bulk in a Spanish port, they shall not be obliged to give any account of their cargo.” Treaty of Upsal of 1654, and confirmed in the treaties of 1656,1661, and 1700 between England and. Sweden ....“ The ships of either party met at sea, by the men of war or privateers of the other, upon producing their passports, and no just cause of suspicion appearing, no further inquiry shall be made respecting the cargo or crew ; much less shall the ships be interrupted or molested.” Treaties betxveen France and England.... That of 1655 u the ships of either nation may carry commodities of any kind to the enemies of the other, excepting contraband, or to places block¬ aded; and if the commanders of men of war or privateers, shall interrupt the vessels so trading, they shall, besides being corporally punished, pay all damages if they are able;” 1677, and renewed at Ryswick, 1697 : “ vessels of either party met at sea, on producing their passports, shall not be detained; violators shall be corporally punished;” 1713, treaty of Utrecht : 11 It shall be wholly unlawful to search vessels ; men of war and privateers shall not approach within cannon shot, shall send bu" two or three men to examine passport as fixed by treaty, and if no Iraud appears, it must satisfy;” 1748, Aix la Chapelle , between England, France, and Holland, renews this principle.... 1783, Again renewed, Treaties between France and Spain; 1659 to 1/63..Ife vessels of either may trade with enemies of the other, in all goods but military stores and furniture: men of war meeting- merchantmen shall not approach within cannon shot, and shall send but one or two men to examine passports, which being correct shall preclude further inquiry.” Treaties between England and Holland; 1668, 1674, 1678, 1685, 1689, 1700, 1709, 1713, 1784.... u vessels at sea or else¬ where shall not be detained: the passport shall preclude all inquiry or search; and unless there appears manifest fraud, good faith shall always be given to it.” The same principles are established in the following treaties, between:.... England and Denmark, 1690, 1701. England and Turkey, prohibits any examination, 1675. England and Spain, 1713, 1715, 1783. ^ England and Barbary powers, 1662, 1750, lul. England and Russia, 1766. United States and France, 1778, 1800. and Holland, 1782. and Sweden, 1783. Armed neutrality, 1780. Second armed neutrality, 1801.- LETTER IX. a IVhat are the maritime rights of belligerents , and tne conse¬ quent duties of neutrals ? THE last point, for consideration, arising out of the above question, relates to the jurisdiction of a state, upon its sea coast; and as the decision of this point may be more correctly ascertained, by making the inquiry general, I will endeavor to explain....what is the distance to which a nation may justly ex¬ tend its maritime dominions ? § 1. PRETENSIONS OF PARTICULAR STATES. Among the ancients, it docs not appear,, that there weie an} acknowleged or defined limits, beyond which.a particular state, could not exercise authority, without abridging the rights ot others; power seems to have determined the only boundary. The Greeks and Carthagenians, especially, not only interdicted communication with particular ports and coasts, but expelled the vessels of other states from the seas under their warlike control....the latter exercised a supremacy, by means the most unjust and inhuman. 1 he Romans too, as soon as they became masters of the shores of the Mediterranean, refused admittance to the vessels of other states, within the straits ot Gibraltar, 43 Such perversions and abuses of the gifts of nature, were, however, insignificant, when compared with the claims of mo¬ dern states. Until the 15th century, there were, comparatively, but a few" petty seas to traverse and control; subsequent dis¬ coveries opened to the view of Europe, boundless oceans, invit¬ ing employment, and affording inexhaustible means for enterprize and emolument. But, no sooner had the Portuguese discover¬ ed the new route to India, than they asserted an exclusive right to navigate the seas, bounding their discoveries: aware of its brittle tenure, they obtained a confirmation of their claim from the popes: and so potent was this authority, that even the Eng¬ lish consented, in several treaties, to abridge their unquestionable right to navigation in those seas. The Spaniards, following the example of their neighbors, claimed dominion over the whole Indian ocean, and the popes were so liberal as to guarantee this usurpation also. The states of Europe, however, w T ho began to understand their interests, refused to acknowlege the pretension : Philip II. having com¬ plained to queen Elizabeth, that her subjects were in the habit of visiting seas and territories belonging to Spain, that princess answered u that she could not acknowlege the right he pretended to exercise, and that he might with as much justice and effect forbid the use of the air as that of the sea.” Here ended the pretensions of Spain. The Dutch, as soon as they supplanted the Portuguese in India, forgetting their situation in Europe, pursued the policy ©f their predecessors. Spain acquiesced, and consented in 1648, to restrain its commerce in the Indies; but England disregarded the claim, pushed its enterprizes with success, and ultimately superceded the Dutch and every other European nation in the eastern oceans. This is the more remarkable, as w hilst the Bri¬ tish were quarreling with the Dutch in Europe about the British seas, the latter were using the British arguments to exclude their rivals from India. 1 he attempts of the Portuguese, Spaniards, i an d Dutch, to usurp the navigation of the ocean were equally fruitless ; and particularly owing to the enterprizes of the British. This conduct of England, however, was the effect of her com¬ mercial ambition and her avarice, not of any desire to give free¬ dom to the seas. 1 his is evident from the pertinacity, with which she asserted a dominion over the four seas surrounding the British islands, comprehending in this pretension, w r ith her characteristic contempt of public and moral obligations, the waters on the opposite coasts of France, Spain, and Norway. As she had not paid extraordinary respect to the bulls of the popes, the claim to the British seas was founded upon the right of prescription.... that is, because she had used them or asserted the claim, time out of mind, the seas were said to be ol right her property. Until within the last century, this claim created incessant warfare, be¬ tween England, branee, and Holland : but. at the close of every war, however disastrous, the French, especially, refused to ae- knowlege her pretension; and in the treaty of Breda, Louis XIV. would not consent even to call the neighboring seas, by the accustomed term, the British sea or channel....the words used were St. George’s channel. If the claim has not latterly been upheld, with the former vigor, it has not been abandoned: lor in the case of the Swedish convoy, tried in 1799, sir Wm. Scott, alleged that the resistance to search derived additional crimina¬ lity, from the circumstance of its having been made in the Bri¬ tish channel the laxity, is perhaps, to be accounted ior in the pretensions to universal dominion on the seas, which, though not openly avowed, is absolutely carried into effect. Besides these instances, in which dominion over certain seas has been asserted, the claims of the Venetians to the Adriatic, of the Genoese to the Ligurian, and the Poles and Danes to the Baltic, seas, evince the injustice of particular states, and the ne¬ cessity of some settled laws of nations, that cannot be abandon¬ ed and abused at the discretion of every piratical and ambitious government. It is to be remarked, however, that, with the exception ot England, all nations have at this day abandoned claims to juris¬ diction beyond what common liberality and prudence justify. § 2. OPINIONS OF WRITERS ON THE SUBJECT. Inconsistent, as the above mentioned claims were, with the laws of nature and the rights of nations, they all had their ad¬ vocates ; even the pretensions of Spain and Portugal, were as strenuously sustained by the pen as by the sword. Selden , Puffendorjf. \ Heineccius , Wolfius , and other able men, supported pretensions at this day exploded: their positions seem to hate been founded upon prescription, treaties, and force. But the advocates of maritime freedom are much more nu¬ merous, and at least of as distinguished abilities. Grotius , Bin - kershoeck , Galliam , Valin y Vattel , Hubner , and Azuni , have placed the question almost beyond the reach of controversy. As Grotius and Vattel are in general the favorite authorities of the English, the sentiments of these writers respecting the claim to the British seas, are of the more consequence. . The former declares, that u if any nation attempts to exercise a superior control upon the open sea, it violates the laws of nature and na¬ tions ; and all states are bound to rise up and resist the tyranny, since their welfare is concerned.” \ attel says, u the righi of fishing and navigating in the open sea, being common to all men, the nation that abridges it, injures all states, and justifies war:” again, if a nation finds that from time immemorial, it has possessed the exclusive navigation of a particular sea, it ha.; * If this argument was even colorable, wliat is the character of the a. on the United States frigate Chesapeake ? 45 not, therefore, a right to deprive others of a use of it.” Some of the English writers join in these sentiments ; particularly Hume , in his history of England, and very lately, Dr . Arthur Browne , professor of civil law in the college of Dublin : speaking of the claim of England, this gentleman says, “ the claim of England to the dominion of the neighboring seas, was as extra¬ vagant as it was haughty; it could have no foundation but in treaties ; and if it rested merely on use, was supported solely by power.” The pretension to a dominion of the ocean, founded upon naval superiority, is thus justly and forcibly answered by Galliani: u what would the advocates of this doctrine think of a sove¬ reign, who having two hundred thousand men in his pay, should, for that reason, suppose himself master of those prin¬ ces, who had only thirty or forty thousand men in their service ? Would it not be confounding the ideas of right with those of power, and seem to establish a theory always unjust, often ar¬ rogant, and sometimes, in spite of its success, vain and ruin¬ ous.” . Several writers have attempted to sustain the right of domi¬ nion, and even of property, in the ocean, by supposing it sus¬ ceptible of the same control and division as the land. This has been answered in these terms : Property inland originated in the necessities of man; before lands were parcelled out for cultivation, they did not furnish adequate sustenance, since tne distribution, they have not only furnished abundance but superfluity, creating the calls for bar¬ ter and exchange. Dominion on land originated in the neces¬ sities of society, men, for their safety, giving a control to go¬ vernment over their lives and fortunes. On the other hand, the seas cannot become the property oi particular states, nor can they be divided: all nations have a common property, since the ocean is the only medium of inter course between some civilized nations, since it furnishes all the objects that all men can wish to attain by its use, and since its use by each nation tends to the happiness of all the rest. I3o- minion cannot be exercised by one or by a number of states, jince it implies not only lawful possession, but ability to exer¬ cise it, which, in the true sense of the term, is not practicable. 7 According to the opinions of writers on the laws of nations. Uierefore, a predominant or exclusive control over the open sea. .annot he justified by the laws oi nature, by a superiority of power, nor by custom. I hese opinions relate to the open sea, but there are particu- ar seas or gulfs, over which all writers agree, a dominion nun )e exercised : a sea, all the shores of which are under the domi- I uon of a particular nation, and the entrance into, which that lation can oppose or prevent, is considered its property : in like manner, if two or more states possess the shores of a particulai 46 sea, and can prevent the entrance of ships belonging to other states, they may do so, if they think proper; but one of the states bordering on the sea, has no right to oppose an intercourse that one or more of the neighboring states may choose to en¬ tourage. The above general sentiments of writers relative to the ocean, are confirmed in all modern treaties ; there does not exist one, in which a claim to a greater extent of dominion is allowed, than safety demands. What this extent is, is therefore to be consi¬ dered. Writers and treaties, of the 17th century, stated the distance to which nations might extend a jurisdiction on their coasts, some at 100, others at 60, and a few at 10 miles; in the 18th century, the rule became almost universal, that the juris¬ diction of a state, of right, extended three miles from the shore, that being the distance of cannon shot, and this principle is now adopted by all writers and in all treaties. The right of a state to this extent at least, is evidently just, since without interfering with the rights of others, the state is thereby enabled to main¬ tain its fisheries and coasting trade ; to guard against smuggling t and to maintain its sovereignty and neutrality, during wars be¬ tween neighboring states. § 3. CONSEQUENT RIGHTS OF NEUTRALS. The above principles being now generally respected, the rights of the neutral state are readily ascertainable, upon the ground of sovereignty:....# a belligerent attacks an enemy within can¬ non shot of the neutral shore, the sovereignty of the neutral is violated, and reparation is demandable:....# a belligerent takes nn enemy’s ship within cannon shot of the neutral shore, it is not lawful prize, and the neutral is bound to demand reparation ; a ship taken from a belligerent cannot be re-captured within the neutral jurisdiction; a belligerent ship, sailing from a neutral port and from within neutral jurisdiction, cannot lawfully be followed by an enemy’s ship, until after a lapse of 24 hours. These are considered by writers, and acknowleged by all states but England, privileges necessarily belonging to a neutral; and indeed are so essential to its character, that none of them can be abridged or abandoned without manifest injury and dishonor. February 25, 1809. LETTER X. I HAVE endeavored to present to you, my friends, as distinct a view as possible, of the real character of what have been termed the laws of nations , ar.d to explain the ongin a force of what are called belligerent rights. That I have give; 47 ft correct analysis of the former, must, I think be ob$erv ec? T when you reflect, that the freedom and privileges, which these laws are said to guarantee to neutrals, have ever been violated and abused, and that they have now no longer any existence whatever. Concessions on the part of neutrals, were repre¬ sented by belligerents as their inherent rights, and these rights have been gradually extended, until a neutral flag no longer ap¬ pears upon the ocean. In any ordinary circumstances, the knowlege, that the viola¬ tion of neutral rights has reached the utmost bounds of enormi¬ ty, would be sufficient to fix the attention and call forth the energies of every neutral state : it would be unnecessary to inquire, how the crisis has been produced, and what state has been most forward in usurpation. But in the present state of American affairs, it must not only be useful to make such inqui¬ ry, but it is rendered necessary by the clamors of a faction v ithin our country. Our rights have been, in the whole course of the present war, the sport of the belligerents ; and, now that we must assert them, if we hope to maintain a character among nations, it becomes us to determine, whether we are bound to extend our vengeance to both belligerents, and if not, against which of them we have the greatest cause for complaint. A factious print, devoted to England, (the New York Even¬ ing Post) asks these questions : Sha11 we have war with France, the first aggressor, and* with regard to us, the weakest enemy r” “Shall we declare wat* with England? Or shall a useless embargo be continued r” I nese questions imply, that the original aggressor is answer- able for all the injury that may follow, and that, as England merely retaliated, we have no cause of complaint against her; now, although I deny the justice of retaliation on the property and rights of a neutral, for the injury done by a belligerent, I am v\ filing to assume this rule of the Evening Post, as correct \ the question therefore reaches this point; as stated by “ a Farmer,” whose inquiries I am answering.... 1 * what has been the conductor France, &c. ? It is my intention, to endeavor to shew, that England has been the constant and principal violator of neutral rights at all times ; that it has ever been her policy to destroy he commerce of other states; and that in the present war, she was the original, and has been infinitely the vilest aggressor. As the conduct of the English to Holland, exhibits, perhaps, n as a strong a light as is necessary, the perfidious and jealous haracter of their government, and as it is confined to circum * tances antecedent to our revolution, I will, in this letter, give is concise a sketch of it, as the subject requires. In consider- ng this subject, you must bear in mind, my friends, that, the xcuses, which England at this day makes for her conduct, did • ot exist in relation to the Dutch....they were a people as inca- pable as unwilling to threaten or disturb the interests of Europe, or to subjugate others; they excited apprehension by their ener¬ gy and industry, but these were as terrific to England as the arms of France, and hence their fate. CONDUCT OF ENGLAND TO THE DUTCH. The Dutch, being compelled by the nature of their country, to turn all their attention to commercial pursuits, laid the foun¬ dation of their future trade, before the English had a vessel at sea, or even a commercial character. T hey hired their vessels to Charlemagne, and other princes of the continent; and were so fortunate as carriers, even at this period, that they turned a poi- tion of their attention to other commercial pursuits. About the year 800, they began to engage in the herring fisheries on the coast of Scotland, and encrtased in wealth and consequence by overcoming obstacles that to any other people would, perhaps, have appeared insurmountable: at this time the English had acquired some marine force, and among its earliest efforts were an attempt to subject the Dutch fishermen to tribute ; and they insisted upon an exclusive right to navigate the seas surrounding ; Britain. The Dutch, refusing to pay the tribute, were repeat¬ edly driven from the fisheries, and particularly in 1297 ; they j remonstrated at first, and even consented not even to approach t within eight miles of the coast, but the English persisted in k their claim, and even added another, requiring the Dutch to salute all British vessels met at sea. The Dutch at length re¬ sorted to vessels of war for their defence. In these circumstances originated the wars, that, for above two centuries, were carried on, almost without intermission, between these states. The conduct of England originated in that insolent and domineering spirit, that has constantly marked her character ; it had not at first even the excuse of rivalry, for the British were unable to engage in the trade, from which they wished to drive every other state : until the 13th century, their marine had a piratical and not a commercial character, and even so late as 1415, they were so destitute of shipping as to be> obliged to transport troops to the continent in Dutch vessels J In their early wars with the continental states, they paid nc respect whatever to neutrals, and particularly in 1337, seized every Dutch vessel they met proceeding to France, regardless of the nature of the cargo. Under all these disadvantages however, the Dutch succeeded in forming a marine, and, unti the reign of Elizabeth, maintained a naval superiority; extend ing their trade to India, and there establishing, in imitation o Spain and Portugal, those monopolies, which, although the; served the present interests, tended to depress the character o Holland, and expose it still more to the hatred of England. In 1576, the English, for the first time, turned their atten tion almost exclusively to commerce; and commenced a nev 49 node of attack upon the Dutch. Elizabeth determined to re- nain in peace with them, but to keep them involved in war on he continent: she obtained a double purpose bv aiding the Dutch against Spain ; the latter was weakened, and the former mrchased the faithless friendship of England only by surren- lering the important trading towns of Flushing and Brille, and :he fort of Rammekins. The Dutch marine consequently be- \ :ame depressed, and the English gained the ascendancy, which vas followed by several successful efforts to destroy their India rade, their fisheries, and their carrying trade. With the reign >f Elizabeth, the spirit of persecution did not cease, though the hility was checked: and the Dutch, for a time, regained in a ;reat degree, the influence they had lost in the 16th century. In 1616, they purchased the towns Elizabeth had acquired; >ut, although, James I. consented' to the sale, from avarice, le conceived a fatal enmity to Barneveldt, who had recovered hese towns for his country. This minister had, besides, re¬ used to acknowlege the supremacy of England on the seas, and esisted the claim of tribute for the fisheries. So formidable a nan it was necessary to remove, and so successfully were in- rigue and corruption employed, that his own countrymen be¬ anie the instruments of his destruction; he perished on the caffold, after a long life of faithful service to his country, the r ictim of James’s private enmity, and of England’s commercial ealousy. No sooner had the Dutch basely sacrificed this great nan and minister, than James renewed his pretensions upon the eas and fisheries, and wrote to them, u that if they persisted n denying his rights, he would not only drive them off' the sea, >ut deprive them of their republic also a threat, that, how- ver willing, James was unable to put into execution. In 1651, however, Cromwell really became formidable to their welfare. To destroy their carrying trade, and at the same time o raise the navy of England, he framed the celebrated naviga- ion act....the most perfect system of monopoly yet devised. ‘till jealous of their India trade and fisheries, and unwilling to esort to force in the first instance, to deprive the Dutch of oth, he proposed a union of England and Holland , alleging- s motives for it the necessity of defending religion, and the ertainty that they could, if united, secure the commerce of he whole world to themselves. The Dutch, however, rejected he proposal, and so mortified Cromwell, that he sent them irord.... w that he would permit no flag but that of England to ppear on the ocean, the sovereignty of which had been ac- uired, and would be retained, by the sword.” Accordingly, /ithout any declaration of war, all the Dutch vessels met with fere immediately captured ; and, in his instructions to his admi- al Blake, Cromwell told him, u to drive the frogs back to their \arshes.” Several naval actions followed, as desperately fought s any ever witnessed; in one battle the Dutch triumphed, four G y, ere drawn battles, and the two last were in favor of the Englisn^ who dictated the terms of the peace, which followed m 165 Yet it was in these adverse circumstances, that the Dutch re¬ fused to grant any right to search their ships. # In 1661, Charles II. pursued the policy and projects o Cromwell: he fitted out a powerful naval force, and in the mo¬ ment of peace seized the Cape de Verd islands, the. utc fleets on the coast of Guinea, and all the merchantmen m Eng¬ lish ports or found at sea. Holland protested against tnts breach, of all laws and treaties, and denying the purity ot English courts, proposed to refer the subject to the determination oi any neutral power; but the proposal was rejected and war e dared. Charles alleged in excuse for his conduct, the denial cf his rights to the sovereignty of the seas, and in parliament his ministers declared that Holland must be destroyed, it Eng¬ land hoped to secure the trade to India. The Dutch having ablv maintained their rights at sea, and having even laid se\ era towns on the English coast under contribution, Charles con¬ sented to conclude a peace, in 1672. As soon as the Dutc were lulled into a belief of security, Charles sent another fleet to sea, before a declaration of war, to destroy the Smyrna trade, and secret emissaries to set fire to the magazines, arsenal, and India house at Vlie, in Holland: both projects, however, fail¬ ed, and war was declared. To render the ruin of Holland certain, Lewis XIV. was prevailed upon to join England, in these circumstances, the Dutch were reduced to extremities, and by the intrigues of the prince of Orange, Charles s nephew, thev were induced to sacrifice the De Witts, as they had before sacrificed Barneveldt; they then obtained an ignominious peace with England, but at the instance of the prince of Orange, tne war was continued with France. Sir Wm. Temple English minister at the Hague, and sir John Dalrymple, both acknou- We that England interfered to prevent a peace between fiance and Holland, in order that the English might profit by the weak¬ ness of both: in 1678, however, peace took place, and the Dutch became little better than colonists of the English. W hen the prince of Orange became king of England, in 1689 , they ioined in a war against France, which continued until 169/, and in all the subsequent wars until that of 1780, so fatal an influence was retained by the British as to involve them m debt m A particular instance of hostility and jealousy was remarked in one of these wars : the British refused to permit the Dutch to furnish more than one-third of the marine torce, and obliged them to furnish two-thirds of the land force. By these and other such schemes, the navy of England was raised upon the ruins of that of the Dutch, whose interests were constantly sacri¬ ficed in their treaties with other powers. So steadily was this poli¬ cy pursued, that from being potent rivals, the Dutch became a: abject as the Portuguese....their possessions in India were plun¬ dered and seized, and their already crippled trade in Europe be¬ came a prey not only to every power, with which England en¬ gaged in war, but to the Algerines, who were engaged to de¬ spoil the wrecks of a commerce once so flourishing and great. Under all these misfortunes, the Dutch national character re¬ tained some portion of its ancient faculty for industry; and a few years of peace gave new life to their enterprize; but, like other nations of the present time, they vainly hoped by an honest neu¬ trality in the war of 1755, to recover a portion at least of their former consequence. At this time, a treaty (that of 1668) was in force between England and Holland, the 8th and 9th articles of which, in particular, stipulated, that English ships should not ap¬ proach w ithin cannon shot of Dutch vessels, should send but two or three men on board u to see their passes,” and should not de¬ tain the vessel unless laden with contraband. The war had scarcely commenced, however, when the English detained all the Dutch merchantmen, they found engaged in a carrying trade of in¬ nocent goods ; and they condemned them under what has ever since been called the rule of ’56....an outrage, that had scarcely a parallel or precedent, in enormity, among civilized states. From this blow the Dutch never after recovered, and it may well^be questioned, whether they suffered more from the hostility of the English in war, than from their perfidy in peace. The same causes which excited the enmity of England against the Dutch, created an hostility to every other maritime power; our own maritime industry", our extent and rapidity of com¬ mercial intercourse, our facilities and cheapness of trade, pro¬ voked those outrages and insults, against which we had no suc¬ cessful means of relief, but in checking our prosperity, and if this should fail, we can hope for no redress but in war. March 7, 1809. LETTER XI. ALTHOUGH the remarks which I offered in my last let¬ ter, respecting the conduct of Britain to the Dutch, afford but a faint idea of the policy of its government, I would not resort to a further inquiry, if the peculiar state of our foreign relations, and the clamor of the advocates of England, did not invite it. It is a most instructive investigation ; we see in it at every step, the very same jealousy, envy, rapacity, and corruption ; we see the same efforts made to destroy the best men, the fathers of our liberties; the glory of our country; the same insolence, the same perfidy. In the present letter, therefore., several instances will be noted, of the maritime tyranny and oppression, towards other states, particularly France, which have terminated in almost realising the threat of Cromwell, that no flag but that of Eng¬ land, should appear on the ocean. The wars between England and France, originated in the Norman conquest, in 1066, and in the claims of the former, to the sovereignty of the seas surrounding its islands....Possessing an important part of France, and favored by the turbulent dukes who held fiefs under its throne, the ambition of the Norman- English was excited to become masters of the whole nation. To attain this purpose, fourteen wars were carried on against France, before the real object was avowed. In 1327, Edward III. assumed the title of king of France. At this time little or no commerce was carried on, either by the English or French ; the Dutch and the people of the Hanse-towns, were the carriers of such trade as these states could furnish. One of the first acts of Edward, was to forbid all trade or communication whatever with France, with the avowed object of reducing it by famine ; and such vessels, as were taken on their voyage to France, were ordered to be destroyed.....Some idea may be formed of the weakness of France at th : s period, from the circumstance, that the English possessed above a third part of its then territory, including ihe ports of Calais, Cherbourg, Brest, Bordeaux, and Bayonne. In the interval, from 1327 to 1569, the French recovered se¬ veral of their seaports, and even a maritime ascendancy; while the character of the English became decidedly commercial. The connection formed between England and Spain, in 1554, created a lust of wealth, that stimulated the former to engage in wars for its gratification. The colonies and ships of Spain, were plundered in time of peace, in the reign of Elizabeth, and all trade and intercourse whatever, forbidden with that country: in the port of Lisbon, 60 vessels belonging to the Hanse-towns, were seized and condemned, and the vessels of all other neutral states, met on their way to Spain, were treated in the same man¬ ner. With the increase of commerce, the animosity of England against France, acquired additional strength : Elizabeth stirred up a continental and a civil war, to check the maritime progress of that country, and in consideration of the assistance she gave to one of the factions in France, obtained the ports of Havre and Dieppe. In 1604, Henry IV. sent the duke of Sully to England, to compliment James I. on his accession to the throne. The ves¬ sel carrying Sully, was met at sea by an English cruizer, which demanded the salute....this was no sooner refused by the French, than a broadside was fired into their vessel. Sully then order¬ ed the flag to be struck, and, when the English captain came on board, complained of the outrage., ..his answer was, that he had instructions to compel every foreign vessel he met, to give the honors due the sovereign of the seas. In 1625, during the war with Spain, Charles I. ordered all the French vessels carrying Spanish goods to be seized. In 1640, the French, being at war with Spain, retaliated, and in answer to the remonstrances of England, pleaded in excuse, the precedent of 1625. In 1655, Cromwell dispatched a fleet, in time of peace, to attack the Spanish colonies and intercept the galleons: the Spa¬ nish minister, becoming acquainted with the circumstance, asked an explanation, and Cromwell replied that his object was to abolish the inquisition and compel Spain to abandon her mono¬ poly....the absurdity of this excuse was only equalled by the ini¬ quity of the act itself. The colonies and the ships of Spain were surprised and taken, and the plunder carried in triumph through London. In 1689, the English attacked the colonies and commerce of France, in time of peace, and for the second time introduced the plan for starving that country: so little respect was enter¬ tained for the opinion of the world, or the laws of nations, that the execution of this scheme was formally stipulated and agreed upon in a treaty with Holland ; the second article declares : “ It is agreed, between his majesty the king of Great Bri¬ tain and the lords of the states general, that if during the pre¬ sent war, the subjects of any king or state, shall undertake to traffic, or have any commerce with the subjects of France; or, if their vessels, laden with any wares or merchandize whatever, are met in their passage to France, they shall be attacked and taken by the men of war and privateers of the contracting par- I ties, and condemned as lawful prizes.” In 1701, the English and Dutch entered into a partition treaty against Spain. In this they bound themselves not to make peace with Spain, until security should be given that France should not receive any of the Spanish colonies, or even carry on any commerce whatever with them. The 16th article of the same treaty says: “ it shall be lawful for the king of Great Britain and the lords of the states gene¬ ral, in order that the commerce of their subjects may be extend¬ ed, to seize all the lands and cities they can, in the Spanish colonies, and whatever they may take shall be their own.” In 1718, the English attacked and destroyed in time of peace, the French fisheries on the coast of Canada, and plundered the defenceless towns of the Spaniards in South America. In 1720, jealous of the Ostend East India company, the English intercepted and plundered their ships....and in the same year they sailed into the Baltic, and behaved so insolently, that Russia and Austria entered into an alliance, for the protection pf their trade. \ ■ j 54 In 1 "21, the Spanish colonies and galleons were again attack- ed, during peace. In 1726-7, the Spanish government complained of the enor¬ mous abuses and outrages committed by British smugglers, on the coasts of South America: and it asked permission to search all British vessels found on those coasts : the ministry promised redress, but refused to permit a search'^....an attempt was made •j-Q restrain the abuses complained of, but it cieated such a clamoi in England, that the ministry were driven into a war to sustain the piracies and smuggling. Some of the pirates themselves, that had been punished by the Spaniards, were permitted, eveit before the house of commons, to excite the enmity of the na¬ tion in order to give a color to their depredations. A writer (examination of the opposition to the treaty of Pardo J noticing this subject, says.... u If all the depredations committed by our peonle in the American seas, were known : the nation would be astonished at having given birth to such a number of villains, who have grossly violated the most sacred laws of nations.” The trade of the Ostend company being in a prosperous- condition, notwithstanding the opposition it experienced on the ocean and in India, the British ministry involved Austria in a disastrous war. Peace was granted, but on a condition, which proved the object of the war.... Austria was compelled to sign- the treaty of Vienna of 1731, which stipulated, that “ the com¬ merce between the Austrian Netherlands and the East Indies, should cease forever.” The efforts of the French, to open an India trade, were wholly frustrated, for above half a century. It was not until 1720,’ that they obtained a settlement at Pondicherry, which they, with difficulty, preserved in the war of 1744. Their suc¬ cess, however, became very great, alter the peace of 1748, and hastened the ruin, which their envious neighbors were concert - As soon as the peace of Aix la Chapelle was concluded, in. 1748, the French abandoned their marine, and entered into com¬ mercial speculations with unprecedented activity \ their tiade flourished, and in 1755, no less than 25 Indiamen sailed from T’Orient.The English, on the contrary, began to prepare for a new war, as soon as that of 1748 had closed ; their fleets were putin complete repair and readiness for sea, and every other ar¬ rangement made for vigorous measures.The object of such preparation was unknown, until the close of 1755, when the .French colonies, fisheries, and merchantmen weie suddenly at¬ tacked, in a moment of peace and confidence. No declaration of war appeared until 1756, but the English fleets had sailed in April, May, and August, 1755. The consequences were ne¬ cessarily most fatal to the brench, above oOO merchantmen vveij. * See lord Cl^tham’s speech in the appendix: 55 seized, and between 7 and 8000 persons, chiefly seamen, wzrp cast into English prisons. This perfidious conduct is the more remarkable, as besides the ordinary obligations of justice and custom, the existing trea¬ ties required that a declaration of war should precede hostility, and that the property and persons of either party should not be molested in the harbors of the other, but an opportunity afford¬ ed to leave the country in case of war. The French, with a magnanimity that has always placed them in the consideration of mankind, above their jealous neighbors, scrupulously adhered to the stipulations of treaties, and to good faith; they sent to England the vessels and seamen of that nation, although found in their ports, even after they had learned their own disasters and the detention of their own seamen. The French demanded peace in 1761, and restitution of their property plundered before the war, but the British had the in¬ decency to answer, that the claim for property seized before the war, was unwarranted by the laws and practice of nations, and that war commenced on the first aggression, and not when a de¬ claration appeared. The object of the war, and of this refusal was made known by lord Chatham, who did not hesitate to de¬ clare in the house of lords, that u France should not obtain u peace, unless she signed the destruction of her marine; that :t it was enough, if the coasting trade was allowed her; and, that England should reserve to itself the sovereignty of the ocean.” And, if further proof were necessary, it was given in the house of commons, during the war of our revolution....Mr. Adam said u the success of the last war was the effect of a bold mea¬ sure adopted by the former administration, who, before war ivas declared against France, seized all her merchant ships, and 3 y taking her seamen rendered it impossible for her to equip , tier fleets .....a stroke lrom which that nation did not recover, luring the continuance of hostilities.” Smollct , vol. Ill, p. 442, i speaking °f ^ ie refusal to restore the plundered property, says, ■ : ^ e ministry made no secret of their issuing the orders for cap- > ure before the war. i In the war of our revolution, if the English did not fully pur- r iue ^heir usual policy, it was because their resources were drain- . id, and the continental powers, instead of leaguing with hei\ ..hewed a due sense of her shameless disregard of all rights. i British plundered neutrals, and seized, contrary to the practice of nations, all the french fisheries they could surprize. . Dn these points, the conduct of France again afforded an hono- [i able contrast: instead of retaliating, the French ministry sent n pecial orders to their cruizers, directing u from humanity, and . n consideration of those who have no other means of subsist¬ ence than commerce and fishing, the commanders of French essels are forbidden to disturb or stop the vessels of English isherincn ; and, in i elation to neutral trade, France proposed. 56 to exempt from capture all merchantmen whatever laden with innocent goods ; the English answered, that Britain could do without neutrals, and would continue to capture therm When these traits in the character of both nations are consi¬ dered who can wonder at the armed neutrality that followed the execution of this threat? And is it not a matter of asto¬ nishment, that the states of the continent did not again unite against England, until after an experience of fourteen years further perfidy, and contempt of the rights of nations. The opinion, that necessarily follows a perusal of these instances of bad faith, cannot be better expressed than m the language or Azuni, a celebrated writer on maritime law: « England has always felicitated herself on her superiority at sea ; but how shamefully has it been acquired ; by the viola¬ tion of the sacred principles of the laws of nations; by ruining the commerce of every nation, and by keeping so many r^nci seamen to perish in her prisons. If the British government desires to disturb the peace of the world, it calculates chances, it watches the moment when perfect security induces the citi¬ zens of other countries to engage m commercial speculations and to excite their maritime industry....itthen commences war; hostilities precede any declaration and the seamen become its ’ "such, in fact, is a faithful picture of the British government. For about three centuries, it has had but one object, which it has now at length obtained....no commerce but its own is safe on the ocean. The states of Europe have been alternately cor¬ rupted and betraved by it; their substance has been drained, the flower of their youth cut off, their growth stunted, and their in¬ dustry destroyed....for no other end but that Britons alone should be the carriers of commerce, that Britons alone should supply the world with manufactures !* And, under what fri¬ volous pretences, have they been thus duped into lum and dis- Elizabeth pretended, that the world was in danger of being overwhelmed by the Spanish armada: yet she drove every neutral flag from the ocean. . , , Cromwell, that the true faith was m danger....yet he was t most faithless of men. . . ,, Charles II. that Holland was avaricious....yet he sold even thino- he could acquire, and was himself a pensioner of b ranee, William III. who was himself the usurper of the throne of hu wife’s father, and who iiad fomented a war in Handers, de- ' dared, that Europe wanted repose....yet proposed to starv< Queen Anne and her successors....new pretexts for every wai and all of them equally absurd. 57 ' England has constantly clamored respecting the ambition or usurpations of those, whom she wished to weaken and destroy, but has never relaxed in her own system of universal monopoly, or ceased to aggrandize herself by the enslavement of fifty millions of Asiatics. She did not oppose the usurpations of Prussia, because the Hanse-towns being the first victims, a commercial rival was removed. She did not oppose the at¬ tempts of Russia to reduce Sweden and Denmark, because their ruin would open the Baltic. She did not oppose the dis¬ memberment of Poland, because as the price of her acquies- cence she obtained commercial privileges from Russia and Prussia ; and she plotted the dismemberment of France, be¬ cause by the extinction of feudal subjection, by the release of the human faculties from the heavy weight of monastic, privi¬ leged orders, and a jarring and vexatious jurisprudence, all its natural capacity was set loose; and because even under all the pre-existing disadvantages, the force of nature in a great mea¬ sure triumphed over slavish institution, and its resources and genius enabled it after every war, to threaten a rivalry of trade and manufactures. No one can reflect upon the enormous and unnatural power of a state composed of but fifteen millions of people, producing very little ol the materials of its own manufactures ; and pretend that it is the result of their peculiar advantages, spirit, or in¬ dustry. It is the necessary effect of an early and uniform sys¬ tem.... England has not engaged in wars with states, that have had no commerce ; Austria, Prussia, and Russia, have been her allies and the objects of her regard, because neither of them, could approach a rivalry, and because all of them were necessa¬ ry to check the enterprize and industry of France and Holland. It is as fortunate for states, as it is certain, that the period ap¬ proaches, when this proud and insolent people must take, among the nations of the earth, that secondary, or at the utmost that equal station, which alone they have a claim to fill....an event that all neutral powers must hail as a propitious era in human affairs. March 9, 1809. LETTER XII. IN my two last letters, I presented several prominent in¬ stances, in the conduct of Britain, prior to our revolution, to ji shew the nature and uniformity of that policy, which has placed in her hands the monopoly of trade. The next inquiry that I am o nake, relates to our own maritime concerns, and to the I proper object for those hostilities, which the public at large nov/ deem inevitable. I say the proper object, since all parties dr* H dare that we have more cause to complain of one belligerent than of the other ; since policy and justice command us to se¬ lect that power which has injured us most; and since by resist¬ ing one, we remove the difficulties in which we are placed with the other. As I propose to shew that, on every account, England is the proper object for our resentment, in the first place I will notice the pretexts, urged by its partisans, in favor of an opposite course of conduct. If, my friends, we are to be guided, in our relations with France and Britain, by the general character of each ; if we are to be inimical or friendly to either, in proportion as it has re¬ spected the rights of neutrals, in former wars, and our own in the present one ; if, in short, we are to accept the challenge of the advocates of England, and engage in war with tne earliest aggressor....why do not those advocates lay before you the evi¬ dence of Britain’s good faith and respect for neutrals ? and where are the proofs, that France has at any time been as hos¬ tile to neutrals, as her opponent ? When those advocates avow that the earliest aggressor demands earliest hostility, when so important a point is at issue, you may be assured that the best possible evidence is adduced to prove that France should be the object of enmity : what, then, is the evidence ? Instead of class¬ ing and enumerating the outrages of both belligerents, they tell you that France is ambitious ;....instead of presenting a faithlu* view of the conduct of each, they tell you, that the British navy is the bulwark of your liberties;....they mutilate and perveit well known historical facts, to create a belief that 1 ranee was the earliest aggressor ; and close their pretended proofs by de¬ claring that France guides our councils. Such being the nature and extent of the evidence in favor of England, there would seem to be no necessity for offering r, fair statement of the case ; the more especially as the subject has been so often noticed : but, in circumstances of so much im¬ portance, there cannot be too much discussion ; and it may be Useful to expose even this inadequate defence. -If you had heard Fi ance reviled only within a few years ; if the clamor, raised against that nation, had originated when it had vanquished its invaders and turned its energies against them....you might be disposed to believe it sincere. If the men, who now represent the ambition and power of France as awful and portending ruin to your country, had been the advo¬ cates of France in her distress ; if they had condemned the dis¬ memberment of Poland, and the coalitions of Pavia and Pilnitz for the dismemberment of France....I would endeavor to believe their apprehensions really exist. But, my iriends, how differ¬ ent was their conduct: when France struggled lor an existence, when it had no ambition but to u assimilate its government to vour own,” when it had no army but undisciplined conscripts. 59 when Bonaparte was an obscure subaltern, and when France ap¬ plied to your country for flour to preserve its people from fa¬ mine ; the same faction reviled it, that reviles it now....the very men, who now'express so many fears for the freedom of nations, applauded every despotic measure undertaken at the instance of England. Away, then, with the detestable hypocrisy, that would conceal under an affected dread of Bonaparte, an inve¬ terate anglo-commercial hatred of France.The advocates of Britain are afraid that her monopoly, and not your liberties, I wdll fall before the energies of France ; their Diana is in danger and as faithful votaries they wish to avert it, by employing your resources, by involving you in their contest. As unfortunate and as absurd is the pretence that your safety depends upon the navy of England. If its pow r er had ever been employed to prevent wreak states from being ruined; if it had interposed to save Sweden, Denmark, or Turkey from the am¬ bition of Russia, or the Hanse-towns from the usurpation of Prussia ; if it had checked the Barbary pirates, or been employ¬ ed to prevent the partition of Poland....you might be induced to confide in it. But, as the British navy has never fought, but in an inglorious cause, and as it has never ceased to persecute neutral and weak states ; vou must smile at the credulitv that could suppose you capable of such folly as to rest your hopes upon such a basis. The insults and wrongs, that your country Iras sustained, from the naval pow'er of Britain, have been too long and severely felt, to create in your minds any other im¬ pressions than those of hatred and alarm....its tyranny and am- bitioi'.'aare not like those of France, in relation to your country, chimerical or a theme for idle prediction ; they have long been, they are now, experienced by every class in our community. Preposterous as those pretexts are, they are surpassed in ab¬ surdity by the insinuation, that France has an influence in our councils. If the falsity of it, is not already established by the long and abject endurance of every insult and injury that Bri¬ tain could possibly exercise ; if forbearance, even w'hen the ad¬ vocates of England themselves dared not deny the justice of w r ar, did not silence the slander about French dictation....I ask you to review the proceedings of the congress, that has just closed its session ; in these, you will find a humiliating evidence* that, if any foreign influence prevails in our country, it is that of England. When the measure of our wrongs was full, in 1807-8, an embargo was laid preparatory to war: but in 1808-9, the embargo was raised, although redress was contumeliously re¬ fused....did this evince French influence? As a substitute for the embargo or w ar, a non-intercourse act was passed, and what is its character? Does it merely continue the restraints existing against France in 1807-8, and those against England imposed subsequent to the affair of the Chesapeake? Far from it....this act imposes more oppressive restraints upon France than those 60 of 1807-8, although no new cause of complaint existed; and, although England has given new cause of complaint, the res¬ traints of 1807-8 have been materially removed in her favor. Is this the way in which French influence would be exercised, if it had an existence ? Be assured, my friends, the influence which encourages Britain to trample on our rights abroad, has driven your country from decisive conduct at home ; and, that it is that influence, which, under every administration, has pro¬ duced lenient measures towards England, and harsh measures towards France. I have thus briefly, but perhaps sufficiently, noticed the pre¬ texts, that are employed to persuade you, that England was not the earliest or greatest violator of your country’s rights. In my next letter, I will expose the perversions, of historical facts, that have been boldly imposed upon the public ; and in the pre¬ sent one, mqp\re....Tvhether France or England had the greatest interest to avoid injuring us , at the commencement of the xvar f in 1793 P . It must be evident, in the first place, from a general view of the character of each state, that England considers it to be her interest to repress or destroy the commercial efforts of other states, and in this the destruction of neutral trade....because her views have for three centuries been directed to a mono¬ poly; because her colonial and manufacturing systems render u monopoly of trade necessary to their prosperity ; because the extent of her European territories render agricultural pursuits inadequate to her population and their demands; because her marine and commerce have been almost uniformly successful , •and because France is benefited by a neutral trade. France, on the contrary, is interested in the prosperity, of general and neutral commerce ; because she is alarge producing us well as manufacturing state ; because her character ever has been, and probably will long continue to be, agricultural moie than commercial; because her manufactures and colonies do not afford her an adequate interest, it would be impracticable to attain it; and because the success of neutrals must weaken England, and deprive it of the means of annoying not only France, but all commercial states. ' Such having been at all times, the obvious motives of those powerful states ; and more particularly at the era of the French revolution; the state of our relations with both countries, prior to that event, merits consideration. At the close of our revolutionary war, the French had every reason to expect, and every motive for perpetuating, the most cordial friendship: the gratitude of the people and condition of the country, opened a vast field for their enterprize, and they had every prospect of being able to lay the foundation of a prosperous commercial and manufacturing intercourse. But their government, either ignorant of its true policy, or afraid 61 ;>f the examples of our free government, neither exerted itself :o maintain an active correspondence with the country nor to :herish a commerce, that only wanted governmental patronage, [n tact, France refuted by her conduct after the war, the calum- nes that attributed her engaging in it solely to interested motives. 1 he conduct of England was strikingly opposite.... when peace ,vas made, she resorted to concealed means, bv which to re- rieve what she had lost in war; the success of her policy in lestroymg the internal industry of Portugal, and the external .ommerce of Holland, pointed out those means; she had two >bjects to attain ;....to monopolize the supply of European ma- lufactures and the purchase of our produce; and to acquire a •ohtical influence in our councils: 1st. To aid her own com- aercial views : 2d. To punish France for assisting us in the evolution: 3d. For annihilating our form of government or ssimilatmg it to its own. Instead of avoiding, like France n intimate connexion, Britain exercised all her energies to roduce an oblivion of the past, and to make our resources ubservient to her interests. Those views were facilitated by le identity of language, habits, and prejudices; by the influx r English books and newspapers only; and by the ability to upply, and give credit for manufactures. Britain also took are to appoint as her consuls, natives of the country, who hav- lg betrayed its cause, had the local knowlege, the ability, and iciinationto perform all the services required of them. Such was the state of the relations, or rather of the views of ranee and England, in the year 1789, when the revolution immenced. Prance held no influence in these states, but the 'atitude of the people ; it had no advantages but those of trea- es, granted, as tokens ol that gratitude, during our revolu- |on. England held a great commercial influence ; the duties o importation of foreign goods being artfully appropriated for f e payment ol the public debt, its holders were the friends of 1 at country, which could supply the greatest quantity and on e readiest terms ; and the great body of the merchants were iritish partizans for the same reasons. If , my friend 5 , the French, in 1792, were powerful by land and a; if their finances were prosperous and their trade flourishing • e> might have disregarded the advantages of the friendship of merica: but, impoverished at home, and vanquished abroad ithout a single advocate or friend in Europe....what must have en, what was their obvious interest, in relation to America? as it to retain her friendship, or to add her to the long list of emies. Did not every motive of prudence and policy de- , ’ an abandonment ol the conduct pursued by Louis XVI d every exertion to retain the good will of this country ? If Hey" Sr“' u aS e e identIy tHe ° nl >' correct uc> its necessity was evinced by the nature of the stipula- is of existing treaties. By the treaty of 1778, America guaranteed to France her American possessions; and by the same treaty, French ships of war and privateers possessed an exclusive privilege of carrying their prizes into American ports ; these and other important advantages possessed by France,_ a, a time when their value was inestimable, made it the first wish and best interest of that nation to maintain the closest friends ip with these states, and respect for their rights. And as if t e ties of reciprocal good will were not already sufficiently strong, France had scarcely declared her independence, when she open¬ ed the ports of the mother country and of the co.onies, to American vessels, and placed them as to duties on a looting V ''ondie C other hand, the motives that induced Britain to en¬ gage in the coalition against France, rendered the reduction of America an object of her ardent desire and expectation: the stinulations of our treaty with France, the advantages that out friendship offered that nation, the similarity of condition as tc free government, the benefits of a neutral trade to France, all combined to induce Britain to involve us in war on her side or to render our neutrality useless to ourselves 01 Fiance England was interested, besides, in our injury, because we had after conquering her on land, advanced to a commercial rivalry As no treaty existed, to be a bar to her encroachments, she die not hesitate to put in force her insidious intentions, and to tack France through an inoffensive neutral; possessing a t as influence in our councils and holding us - tnbutanes rathe than customers for her manufactures, she did not peimit hei se to anticipate any resistance on our part....and her prediction have been but too faithfully realized. _ Such, my friends, were the respective conditions and inte rests of France and England ; and, you will find m their cor duct the most ample evidence of the correctness of my dei cription. March 16, 1809. letter xiii. I TRUST, mv friends, that in my last letter, I proved : vour satisfaction, that, in 1792, France was materially mt rested and anxious for the welfare of neutrals, and particular of America.. ..since the preservation of her people from fam depended upon neutral supplies, ana since her^treaty w‘ - in guaranteed orivileges essential to her safety and commert It must have been equally evident, that England was in rested in the suppression of American neutrality in paiticul 6 : CS O for the very reasons that made it the wish of France to resnec, 3ur neutrality. ^ * If any doubt yet remains on your minds, that this was the ase, I will remove it, by informing you, that, France propos¬ 'd. 1 " a forma manner to the court of Londbn, to respect neu¬ ral flags in all cases but those of contraband and actual blockade md that the proposal was indignantly refused.* The evidence’ hat I have yet to lay before you, will be equally emphatic. I now proceed to the question JJ as France or England the first aggressor ? You are to bear in mind that, the advocates of Britain, avow lat the first aggressor is the proper object for resentment: and ? at , rel ymg upon your supposed ignorance, they pretend that ranee was the first aggressor, and demand war against that ation. You are also to remark the manner in which this avowal made, and the evidence that is adduced to prove France the rst aggressor. Passing unnoticed the host of hireling printers take the highest authority in these states, in the estimation of ngland s fnends, the Essexjunto. In their late official report the legislature of Massachusetts a war is recommended against ranee, because, as they say, it was the first aggressor, and eu proof is this....“ The French authorised the capture of ;utrals, laden with neutral provisions, but bound to enemy’s ’i t 5 , ° n tks 9t h of May, 1793, one month prior to the British •cree for the same purpose.” V, ere ’ >'° 11 are told > that the first French aggression was i the 9th May, 1793. Now, if it shall be shewn that Britain d aggressed prior to that date, and that the French decree of ay, 1793, was a retaliation for an earlier act of Britain (and the way the Essex junto assert that retaliation cannot be com¬ muned of) It must follow, according to the position of the British vocates, that, as soon as congress shall meet in its next ses- I"’’ K shoukl declare war against England. This will be the Ijiious conclusion, and the necessary course of proceeding. That I may establish the point, beyond the possibility of lubt or misconception, I ask your attention in the first place The French government made every exertion, in 1792-3 to induce , emu,,, neutral In one of the letters of M. Cluu^velin tol^d G i e d- ■ 2o, 1 79o, the following remarkable proposal was maile- it is scare,-h- To'.'-ive to the n d '7 S ha,,gl i* i - 1> re - iccUd b 7 the British ministry: ' ' ' t, c to tl.c naMg-ation, maritime commerce. and c-oods of individual^ lenud consent of the* -hich the law? of„°aU^d^ Llividual o, ran- i m,pC ’ S ' ,Ve to the intercourse and prope l, ' a U c nt.weh o^state UP|, ’; CSS; *" * that P e ™ i «»us custom, which ar/merwurse £ 0 , ! mnce !’ ."irrupts in every sea, the most no- siranveas m iholr , ' T cu at ‘ ons , on "Inch the existence of pen. ■ man di ' m e,' 0 ten depends ; which suspends the progress riu' " ; , whlch , anus individuals against each other , deliver? , he 1 merchant to pillage, and devotes to death the marin, Hce to his Britannic niriesl “ '' 1 "‘ !lon,;r!l 'de ol.5^+ oftl.e proposition to a brief review of events, the greater number of which oc. curred prior to May, 1793. The question is not dependent upon reasoning; it rests upon a train of facts, collected rom English as well as American state papers,_ all connected with the subject, and giving force to the discussion that will o or- Fifteen years ago, such a review would have been unnecessary, but many of you have since that time, by years reached the class of'citizens, should learn to be able to decide in polit.ca questions, and should therefore have every information. 1 On the 6th June, 1789, the French revolution commenced. In Tuly and August, 1792, the conventions of Pavia and rn- nitz were signed: their objects were not merely the overthrow of a free government in France ; they extended to the partition of two thirds of France and all her colonies, to the suppression of the electoral states of the German empire, particular^ a- varia, and to the final dismemberment of Poland. Austria, Prussia, Sweden, Spain, and Naples signed tins con¬ vention in 1792, and between August, 1,9-, and ’ Russia, Holland, Portugal, and England acceded. Thus all h great states of Europe, nearly all its physical force, comomed against France singly. But this did not satisfy the coalition, itwas determined in order to conquer France, that there should be no neutrals ; and in this measure England embarked with the Greatest vigor, bullying such states as could not be purchased, and making the determination of the coalition subservienc tc liel In April, 1793, England agreed to pay Sardinia 100,000 dol lars per annum, for entering into the war. In the same year it agreed to pay annually to the elector of Hesse Cassel —o,00 crowns, and to keep in pay 8000 Hessian troops besides. I, the same year, it agreed to subsidize Hesse Darmstadt am Baden, in the same manner. , r y* The only states that remained neutral, therefore, \vere mark, Switzerland, Genoa, Venice, Tuscany, and America... the means taken to involve them in a war are now to be noticed Russia, Prussia, and Austria, m 1792, demanded that Dec mark should abandon its neutrality; the answer given was, hi Danish majesty cannot join the concert of powers, mconformit with the rules of government, which are proper ioi him. Upon the death of Gustavus III. in 1792, Sweden abandon# the coalition. A demand was therefore made, that it shou again become a party: the regent answered m May, 1/9. “ Sweden is resolved invariably to maintain, during the exis ing war, a strict neutrality, towards the coalesced powers as w< JS In November^ 1793, the British minister, Fitzgerald, call' upon and required Switzerland to join the confederacy ; it a swered, “ accustomed to observe our treaties, we cannot depa under anv pretext, from the neutrality we have declared. . 65 In 1793, the British minister, Drake, announced to Genoa, that “ in the present war, against the usurpers of power in France, no government can declare itself neutral zvithout becom¬ ing an accomplice Genoa refusing to join the coalition, a British man of war entered its port, attacked therein a French ship, and killed above 40 of its men. France announced, that notwithstanding this event, it w'ould respect the neutrality of Genoa, knowing that it could not have prevented this British outrage upon its rights. ^ To a demand of the same kind made by England, in Septem- ber, 1792, Venice declared it would remain neutral, “ since it could add no weight to the coalition, and by a war would run the risk of propagating (what in complacence to England it cal- ied) the pernicious principles of Gallic madness.” The British minister at Florence, lord Hervey, informed the grand duke of Tuscany that his neutrality would not be allow- , ’ lon & e _r than hl s aid was unnecessary: the French ambassa¬ dor, La Flotte, was driven out of Florence shortly after upon peremptory demand of the British ambassador, and in October 1793, Tuscany was forced to declare tvar. 7 There is every reason to believe, that the British minister Hammond, applied to our government, to abandon its treaty with trance ; the answer is unknown, but although neatralit- was avowed, the measures of our government for a time directly favored the views of the coalition.as I shall endeavor to shew ne re alter. . 1 have given this view to shew you, my friends, the systema¬ tic measures taken, particularly by England, to drive every state \rotn neutrality, in order to famish and conquer France, Ii i& mportant that this object and the means taken to attain it should ,c remembered. It is now to be shewn, in what way the coalition lowers were determined to destroy the commerce of such states' is by their neutrality could benefit themselves or aid France’ In.November, 1792, three months before the declaration of var by France, the English ministry directed the detention of dl vessels, in the ports ot Britain and bound for France with irovisions....including in their order as well French vessels a- hose of neutrals. * In January, 1793, the Prussians took possession of the Hanse - owns : French and neutral vessels, to escape seizure, left the .orts, but had scarcely reached the sea, when they were detain- d and sent into England. These violations of the laws of nations, of treaties, and of ■eutra rights, were committed, when England was in a declar- d state of neutrality and peace with France ; and whilst a ■rench minister was in London, begging the ministry to rc- cen e . peace, , andto P ermitthe exportation of provisions to -ere t lr ? m So atrocious, indeed, these act..-, that the British ministry were compelled to take refuge under an act of indemnity, passed in June,. 1793 to escape impeachment and punishment. Alludm & those outrages, in a debate in the house of commons, January, 1793, Charfes Fox said, “ the prohibition to allow the ex P ort ^ tion of provisions to France, whilst they are allowed to be ex¬ ported to any other country, is an act of hostility so severe, as can have no excuse or justification but m hostile acts of France, a it is not even pretended that such hostile acts have taken place. The British annual Register, for 1793-4-5, declares tha , l was the object of the English ministry', to compel all neutia states to join in the war against France ; and that the order* against commerce had that object principally in view. You will remark, that England had a stable, permanent go- verment, and ample resources, whilst France was in a state ot anarchy, and had as many rulers, as there were months, in the first years of her revolution. On the acts of the one, therefore, we can look with no indulgence ; whilst it should excite no sur¬ prize if there were causes to complain of the othei. these considerations among others, exhibit a striking contrast infavo, of France , when it is known that the aggressors against her were also the earliest aggressors against neutrals. I will now lay before you, further evidence, that England., whilst in peace, plotted the' destruction of neutral commerce. In September 1792, the British minister in Russia, agreed uith the ministry of that power, upon a treaty binding the contract¬ ing parties to interrupt neutral commerce with France thi. treaty was formalin ratified nearly two montns prior to the French decree which is said by the servile supporters and retainers ot England, to be the first’act of aggression; similar treaties were made with other powers; and as extracts from them will be satisfactory I subjoin them.The opposite column contains the French decree of May, 1793, which, if no other evidence ex¬ isted, would be sufficient to prove that it was an act oj retalia- lion only* EXTRACT, JYovi a convention , between his Britannic majesty and the empress oj Bussia, definitively signed at London , March 25, 1793. Art. III. Their said majesties, reci¬ procally engage to shut all their ports, against French ships, not to permit the exportation, in any ease, from their said ports, for France, of any military or na¬ val stores, or com, grain, salt meat, or other provisions ; and to take all other means in their power for injuring the commerce of France, and for bringing First French decree , of May 9, 1793. “ The national convention, after having heard the report of their ma¬ rine committees, considering that thf flag of neutral powers is not respectec by the enemies of France j that t\v< cargoes of flour, arrived at Falmouth in American vessels, and purchase! before the war for the service of th< marine of France, have been detaine< in England, by the government, wh would not pay for them, except at price below that at which flour ha 1 been sold. J “ That the ship John, capt. Sheet * Set Appendix....C.> Iier by such means, to just conditions of peace. Art. IV. Their majesties engage to finite all their efforts to prevent other powers, not implicated in this war, from giving on this occasion, of com¬ mon concern to all civilized states, any protection whatever, directly 01 iudi- rectly, in consequence of their neutra¬ lity, to the commerce or property ol the French, on the sea or in the ports or France. EXTRACT, From a treaty , between Jus Britannic majesty and the king of Spain, signed at Aranjuez, May 25, l/9o. Art. IV. (Precisely the same as ar¬ ticle III. in the above.) Art- V. Their majesties also en¬ gage, the present war being generally interesting to every civilized state, to unite all their efforts, in order to pre¬ vent those powers, which do not take part in said war, from affording, in consequence of their neutrality, any protection, direct or indirect, on the sea or in the ports of France, to the commerce or property of the French. On the 30 th of August, 1793, a trea¬ ty, containing'the like stipulations, was signed in London, by the ministeis of England and Austria. And on the 14th of July, 1793, another treaty, of the like character, was signed between England and Prussia. O The British ministry acted upon Ihe above treaties, as I have before shewn, prior to their war with France ; it was not, however, until the 8th of June, that their specific orders appear¬ ed ; these instructed the men of war and privateers, to intercept all trade whatever with France; and for the first time, declared, that the notifica¬ tion in a neutral country, of a blockade of an enemy’s port, subjected the ves¬ sel of that neutral state to capture, if found on the sea, proceeding to such port, although there should be no ac¬ tual blockade. ley, laden with near 6000 kentals 61 American wheat, bound from Falmouth to St. Malo, has been taken by an Eng¬ lish frigate, and sent into Guernsey, where the agents of government have simply promised to pay the value of the cargo, because it was not on ac¬ count of the French. (Other instances stated, are here omitted.) “ That the divers reports, which are successively made by the maritime ci¬ ties of the republic, announce that si milar acts of inhumanity and injustice, are daily multiplied and repeated with impunity throughout the seas. “ That under such circumstances, all the rights of nations being violated, the French people are no longer per¬ mitted to fulfil, towards the neutral powers in general, the vows which they have so often manifested, and which they will constantly make, for the full and entire liberty of commerce and navigation ; decree as follows: « Art. I. The French ships of war and privateers, may arrest and bring into the ports of the republic, the neu¬ tral vessels which shall be laden, wholly or in part, either with provi* sions belonging to neutral nations, and destined for an enemy’s port, or with merchandize belonging to an enemy. « II. Merchandize of an enemy shall be confiscated to the profit of the cap- tors ; provisions belonging to a neutral, and bound to an enemy’s port, shall be paid for according to their value, in the place to which they were destined. “ III. Neutral vessels shall be releas¬ ed, as soon as the unlading shall be effected. The freight stipulated, by the shipper, shall be paid; and just indemnification shall be allowed, in proportion to their detention. “ IV. An inventory of such cargoes shall be sent to the minister of marine, and another to the minister for foreign affairs “ V. The present decree, applicable to all prizes taken since the declaration of war, shall cease to have effect, a* soon as the enemy powers shall have declared free and not seizable, al¬ though destined for ports of the re¬ public, the articles of provisions, be¬ longing to neutral nations, and cncm\ $ property laden in neutral ships.” You will perceive, my friends, from this contrast, that bng land was the first violator of neutral rights ; but, lest it should he pretended that the treaties above mentioned did not jrp 68 far as the French decree, it may be well to inform you, that* immediately after the publication of the British order of June 8, 1793, of which you will find a minute in the above, our minis¬ ter in London, Mr. T. Pinckney, had a conference with the Bri¬ tish minister lord Grenville : he complained ©f the violation of our rights, and asked if Spain would pursue the same course as England, since the treaties (as above quoted) did not go so far as the order of June, 1793 lord Grenville replied....that though it was not expressly mentioned , it was fully understood by both parties (to the above treaties) to be within their intention , to capture all neutral vessels laden with provisions and bound to FranceP Having thus established, from the nature of the case and offi¬ cial documents, that England was the earliest aggressor, and that what the advocates of England call the first act of French aggres¬ sion, was an act of retaliation only ; I propose to inquire whe¬ ther our own government , under the Washington administration in particular , did not consider England as the earliest and great¬ est aggressor ? The evidence on this point must be conclusive, since the principal authorities are the leaders of the federal party, The correspondence of our minister at Paris, Mr. Gouver- Tieur Morris , with the Washington administration, in 1793-4, proves that France was anxious to repeal her decree of May, 1793, in order to preserve her alliance with America; that the French government uniformly expressed the warmest wishes for ©ur welfare; that, it at no time intimated even a wish for any aid from us but such as our neutrality permitted us to afford ; and in one of his dispatches, Mr. Morris declares that the French decree of 1793, originated in the measures of Britain, The'correspondence of our minister in London, Mr. Thomas Pinckney , in 1793-4, proves, that the English considered them¬ selves pledged by the treaties with Russia, &c. of March, 1793, to intercept all neutral trade with France ; that they did not, at any time, pretend to justify their measures by the plea of reta¬ liation , but, on the contrary, that they declared their right thus to interrupt all communication with rebellious France. Almost the whole correspondence of our government with the English minister in this country, consisted of complaints against his government,,,, whilst the correspondence with the French minister consisted of answers to complaints against us y made by France, Can the contrast be mistaken? The proceedings of our citizens and of congress further shew the sense of the country: On the 27th March, 1794, Mr. Jonathan Dayton laid on the table of the house of representatives of the United States, two resolutions....the first, for the sequestration of all debts due b) the American citizens to British subjects, the second, for appro¬ priating such debts to the relief of those, whose vessels had been plundered by British cruizers. 69 On the 7th April, 1794, Mr. Clarke laid a resolution cn the table of the house of representatives U. S. for suspending all commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain. Mr. Sedgzvick, in answer to the resolution of Mr. Clarke, said, that he hoped negociation with England would precede war, and if that failed to secure justice, u we must seek redress by the means God and nature has given us.” Mr. Sedgwick at the same time proposed to raise an army of 25,000 men. The president, Washington , in his message to congress, April, 1794, said, “ the communications I have made to you in the present session, from the dispatches of our ministers in Lon- don, contain a serious aspect of our affairs with Great Britain.” In the same session, an embargo zvas laid, and in May, 1 794. the people of Boston , in regular town meeting, besought con¬ gress not to repeal it. In the debates of congress, and the resolutions of the people, Britain was constantly proclaimedto be the first aggressor: against her alone, hostile measures were preparing; and, against France no complaints were heard but amongst the agents of her enemy. That the matter may be put out of doubt, read the following extracts from the dispatches of the Washington administration to our minister in France: a letter of June 10, 1794, says: “ There is reason to believe, that the embargo , when it was first laid, excited uneasy sensations in the breast of the French minister. But, you know enough of the history of this busi¬ ness, to declare, that, it zvas levelled at Great Br itain , and was made general, merely because if made partial against her, it would have amounted to a cause of war ; and that the embargo was repealed because it zvas reputed injurious to France .” Can any thing be stronger than this? If France was the first aggressor, why did Washington say this? Great Britain must have been a grievous aggressor indeed to have received such treatment. But 1 have yet to call Mr. Timothy Pickering be* fore you: in a letter to our minister in France, dated Sept. 12 1795, Mr. Pickering said : “ The government of the United States is sincerely friendly to the French nation: the latter doubtless believes, that the great body of the people are friendly towards them....the belief is well founded, and it is equally well founded as to those who administer the government.” If France was the first aggressor, Mr. Pickering was but too zealous in the cause of Britain, notwithstanding those pro¬ fessions, not to complain, if there were cause. The truth is, war was proposed against England alone: a minister was sent to. demand redress from England and not from France. All -his was done by the Washington administration.. ..and what Joes it pr^ve ? 70 I flatter myself, that 1 have thus established the point in con¬ troversy : the proofs that I have laid before you form but a por¬ tion of those which are applicable and incontrovertible. If there is any advocate of England, who imagines he can disprove a syl¬ lable of what I have said, I ask him to attempt it: the cause of that faction is interested, and therefore silence must be attri?i buted to inability. I agree to the justice of the position that it we should go to" war with the first aggressor, it should be with Britain who was the first aggressor ; and the sooner war shall be declared againsther, the more safe and honorable for this country. larch 21, 1809- LETTER XIV. I FLATTER myself, that, in my last letter, 1 proved, that Britain was the first violator of neutral rights, and that, in following her pernicious example, France has constantly excus¬ ed herself, upon the pleas of necessity .and retaliation: these excuses I am unwilling to consider as any justification of France; but, as the advocates of England place great reliance upon them, their force cannot be abridged by the change, and if they justi¬ fy England they afford equal protection to France. ' This point being settled, the next inquiry that presents itself is, whether England or France has been the greatest aggressor. This is a question, which the friends of the former have very wisely shunned; they tell you, that it is immaterial what were the consequences, since every thing depends upon the pnonty of aggression. But should it appear, that, besides being the earliest, Britain has been infinitely the greatest aggressor, it wil be a point of much importance in this discussion, and it will in¬ crease the necessity for singling out that nation for hostilities. As it would be impracticable to state all the acts of depreda¬ tion and insult, that this country has tamely suffered, for sixteer vears, or to give any thing like a mercantile account betweei the outrages of the belligerents ; I must confine myself to ai .epitome of all the orders, decrees, &c. under which neutra commerce has been abused and ultimately swept from the ocean 'This view will shew the progress in usurpation and injury, anc the relative character of each belligerent. I have endeavorec to give a correct analysis of all these acts ; and if that of the lati orders of council is hot entirely so, or as complete as it migh be, it arises from the impracticability of confining in so smallj space, the features of such extensive and complicated docu ments. Such remarks, as offer themselves on perusing tht epitome, shall follow it. * 71 BRITISH ORDERS, Sec—No. 1. The treaty ratified in March, 1793, by England and Russia, and adopted in the same year, by Spain, Austria, and Prussia, binds the contracting par¬ ties to prevent all neutral trade with France. No. 2 —June 8, 1793. Directs the seizure and condemna¬ tion of neutral vessels, laden with neu¬ tral provisions, bound for France. If Swedish or Danish vessels are met entering a port blockaded, they are not to be seized for the first at- ernpt: but other neutrals (there were no other neutrals but American) are to be seized for the first attempt. A proclamation, published in a neu¬ tral country, that a port, island, or na¬ tion is declared to be blockaded, is alone sufficient to justify the condem¬ nation of the vessels of such neutral ‘•'Late, bound to such places. No. 3 —November 6, 1793. All vessels laden with any produce fjof French colonies, or carrying provi¬ sions to such colonies, to be seized. No. 4 —January 8, 1794. AH vessels laden with produce of French W. I. islands, and proceeding From such islands to any port in Europe, (to be seized. Vessels laden with pro- luce of said islands, and owned by Frenchmen to be seized, wherever hey may be bound. Swedish or Danish vessels attempt- ng to enter any blockaded port In said i slands, not to be seized on the first at- empt; but other neutrals (Americans) '.o be seized the first attempt. All vessels laden wholly or in part vith military or naval stores bound for aid islands, to be seized. No. 5-—January 25, 1798. All vessels laden with produce of '.ny colony of France, Spain, or Hol- and, and bound from any such colony, o any port in Europe, except Engl¬ and, or the country to which such cssels belong, to be seized. All ves- \ ols, wherever bound, laden with ene¬ my’s property, to be seized. All vessels attempting to enter any lookaded port, in said colonies, to be (sized; Danish and Swedish vessels ot until after being warned, other cutrals (Americans) to be seized on lo first attempt. Vessels laden whol- » or in pail with naval or military foies, bound to French, Spanish, or )utch '’’olcrtit*", to be stired. FRENCH DECREES, kc. No. 1 —Decree of May 9, 1793. In retaliation for proceedings under treaty of March, 1793, directs the de¬ tention of neutrals, laden with enemy property or neutral provisions, the for¬ mer for condemnation, the latter for purchase. To become null and void the moment England should respect the rights of neutrals. No. 2 —May 23, 1793. Exempts Americans from the ope¬ ration of the above decree. No. 3 —May 28, 1793. Suspends the operation of decree' No. 2. No. 4— July 1, 1793. Americans again exemptedfrom the operation of decree No. 1. _ No. 5—July 27, 1793. Again enforces decree No. 1. No. 6 —November 18, 1794, Enemy property found in neutral vessels to be seized and condemned, as long as England refuses to respect French property in neutral bottoms. The general regulations of this de¬ cree favorable to American commerce. No. 7 —January 3, 1795. As an evidence of regard for amity and treaties with America, directs a» observance of neutral rights, viz. That free ships make free goods : That actual force is necessary to con¬ stitute blockade: That contraband includes those articles only, that are directly used in war No. 8— July 2, 1796. Directs French vessels to treat neu¬ trals as they permit the English to treat them, to the injury of France. No. 9—March 2, 1797. Considering, that the treaty of 177$, guarantees to France whatever favors America might thereafter grant to other states; and considering that America, by the treaty with England of 1794, grants to that state the right to seize naval stores as contraband, when found onboard American ves¬ sels, bound to France ; the right to seize French property found in Ameri¬ can bottoms ; and the right to treat as pirates any Americans found in the ser¬ vice of France—the commanders of French ships are therefore authorised by the treaty of 1778, To seize all enemy property and naval stores found in American vessels, the latter being destined for British ports. To punish as r>l rates, Americans 72 No. 6 —March 22, 1799. All the ports in Holland declared in a state of blockade. No. 7— June 24, 1803. Neutral vessels, that shall not have furnished on the outward voyage, ar¬ ticles contraband ot war, are permit¬ ted to convey from enemy’s colonies to their own country, the produce of such colonies. No. 8— August 17, 180o. Neutral vessels are permitted to trade until November 1, next, fiom enemy’s colonies to England, laden with produce ol such colonies, the property of neutrals. No. 9— May 16, 1806. The whole coast, from the Elbe to Ostend, declared in a state of blockade. No. io —January 7, 1807. Neutrals forbidden to trade fiom one port belonging to France or its al¬ lies, to another port in their said donu- nions > to be w&ruccl the til stj but seized upon a second attempt. No. 11— October 16, 1807. All masters of ships, pilots, mari¬ ners, shipwrights, and other sea-faring people, born in the dominions ol Bri¬ tain—recalled. _ Commanders of ships oi war and privateers, are ordered to seaich foi, and seize, if found in neutral ships, any persons as above stated, although such persons may have become adopt¬ ed citizens of the United States. Such persons serving in neutral ships of war, to be reported to the British government. Certificates of naturalization, grant¬ ed to any person born in British domi¬ nions, declared to be null and ot no effect. r , No. 12 —Orders in council , o c. The orders in council of Nov. 11 and 25, 1807, were adopted and confirmed by’acts of narliament,passed in March, April, and June, 1808. A brief view of their objects and provisions can alone be presented in a newspaper. It is to be noted, that at the period of the adoption of these orders, Americans were the only* neutrals. In the first place, Americans are forbidden, under penalty of seizure and condemnation as lawful prize, to sail to or from any port or colony of France or its allies, or any port from which the British flag is excluded. Americans, laden in whole or in part, with goods the produce of France, ol any ally, or of the colony of either, to be’ seized and condemned us lawful in the British service, although they mav have been impressed into it. No. 10— January 18, 1798. Subjects to capture all vessels, laden in whole or in part, with British mer- chandize, and refuses to admit into French ports, any neutral vessels that had during their voyage entered or touched at a British port. No. 11— March 18, 1799. Places America, in relation to the role d’equipage, on a footing with all other neutrals. No. 12— October 29, 1799. Declares, that, as the English and Russian navies are manned, in part, by subjects of neutral states, French enm zers are to treat such subjects as. pi¬ rates, without permitting them to jus; tify themselves on the plea of forcible detention. No. 13— November 14, 1799, Suspends the operation of decree No. 12, until neutral states shall have had time to recall their subjects, im¬ pressed and serving on board British ships. No. 14— Deceviber 13, 1800. Repeals the article, of decree No. 10, subjecting to capture, all neutral, vessels laden with British merchandize. No. 15— December 19, 1800. Establishes the regulations ol the ordinance of July 26, 1778—which are highly favorable to neutrals ; sanc¬ tioning the principle, free ships free goods, and the other principles sel forth in the armed neutrality. This ordinance, however, provide: that, in case other belligerents shouk not equally respect commerce, thei France might retract the privilege: here sanctioned, and treat neutrals a they permitted other belligerents t treat them. No. 16— Berlin decree, Nov. 21, 1806. Enumerates the instances in whici England violates the laws of nation and rights of neutrals : declares, thal as the British disregard the principle of justice, and for their own ends ar intent upon the ruin of all other con' mercial states, it is lawful to oppos them with the weapons they employ this decree, therefore, establishes th following regulations which are to b the fundamental law of France, unt England shall acknowlege on the ocei the rights of war observed on lane until she shall respect the property ar persons of private individuals, and cor fine blockade to places actually inyeste' All commerce with the British i $?izc, as well the vessel as the cargo. Americans, desirous of selling the produce of their own country, in any port of France, of its allies, or of their colonies, must in the first instance clear out for a British port; pay light, port, and other costs ; and, for permission to proceed as desired, they are required to pay a duty upon the cargo. If after paying the duty, or getting a licence, and sailing from the British port, they cannot get admission into the desired port in France—they are to return to the British port, and there they may sell the cargo, or return with it to America An American, arriving in a British port, with a cargo idtended fora French or allied port, and finding lie cannot enter the desired port, may lay up his cargo in a British warehouse for 15 months : at the expiration of that time, he must remove it, and pay all expell¬ ees ; or in default thereof, the cargo must be sold to pay the duties, Sec. But the said cargo may, at any time within the 15 months," be taken out, and either destroyed or re-exported to America, upon payment of all the costs. An American, laden with cotton, and arriving in England, is not permit¬ ted to export it to any French or allied port, or to return with it to America : |;t must be sold in England—unless in my special case the king of England may grant a licence for exportation. Americans, desirous of obtaining for heir own use, any produce of France, >f its allies, or of the colony of either, ■hust first sail for England arid obtain permission to proceed to the port of lestination ; if permitted to take a car- ?o at such port, they are then to call it a British port, and pay a duty upon t, which will entitle them to proceed .0 America. Americans, after having been per- nitted, to sell their own produce or he produce of a French colony, in the notlier country, and to receive a rc- um cargo, must call and pay a duty ipon it in some British port. d r ine, brandy, sugar, snuff, and to- >acco, after having been imported into 'mgland, with an intention of export- ig t hem to some French port, in the aothcr country or colony, cannot be so xported unless by special licence from he king of England. The following are the duties, that in American must pay in British ports, >r permission to sell the produce of is own country, in any port or colony f F 1,ance or of its allies; these at‘c but few of the articles taxed: K lands is prohibited, they being declare ed in a state of blockade. All private persons and property, belonging to the British islands, to be seized whenever found. All merchandize or productions of England or her colonies, to be seized whenever found. Vessels from England or her colo¬ nies, or having touched at either to br prohibited from entering any port or colony of France. No. 17— Milan decree, Dec. 17, 1808. Considering that England compels all neutral vessels to call at her ports and pay a duty on their cargoes: that, by tlris regulation, such states as sub¬ mit to pay this tribute, place them¬ selves on the footing of British colo¬ nies : and that submission to this imposition encourages England to es¬ tablish and consider it as a right : therefore. All vessels, that shall have paid a tax to England, or submitted to her regulations, shall be condemned as British property. All vessels, with whatever cargo* sailing from any port in England, in her colonies, or in countries under he; control; may be seized as lawful prize. This decree to cease to be in force against any state, that shall have firm¬ ness to assert its rights ; but to be en¬ forced against all others, as long as England continues to harass the com¬ merce of neutrals. No. 18 —April 17 —Bayonne decree. Considering that an embargo lias been laid on all American shipping in the ports of the United States; and that therefore, any vessels, found on the ocean under the American flag, must be considered as fraudulent and really covering British bottoms. All vessels under the American flag found at sea, or entering the ports of b ranee, after this date, are to be sei¬ zed. Duel of French. Ashe?, Keef, Rutter, cables and Cordage, Corn, Cotton, Fish, Flour, Ken:p, Inaigo, Iron, in bar?. Iron, pig. Pitch anu Tar, Pori:, Rice, 1 obacco, Turpentine Wheat, D 0 H 3 . Cls* per cwt. 2 23 bbl. 3 33 cwt. 4 5° cwt. 3 iy bushel, 0 15 lb. 0 16 cwr. 0 go bbl. 2 cwt. •* 3 37 !b. 0 45 ton. 13 50 do. 6 75 bbl. 0 ay do. 6 sf> cwt. 6 4S lb. 0 cwt< 0 7I bushel, 0 2l mnltcr- >le resolution on tins point, not to admit of any pioposall iVS’emK,, on the .object of the right, or claims ol neutral pot c'13. ^ •’ 4 4,44 4,4 ' -J ■ • J 'Papers relating to negotiations at L:-.e. 75 ,shall any longer be carried on but by license from the English ministry. Britain , in short, interested in the ruin of commercial states, has not hesitated at any act, calculated to attain that end. It has at no time, by its own acknowlegement and boast, been af¬ fected by the decrees of France, yet has exercised its enormous and unnatural power to crush neutrals as if they were enemies. These observations relate to the above official acts of the go¬ vernment ; upon extending the inquiry, the contrast is rendered still more odious to England. The British h ave constantly impressed our seamen, not only on the high seas, but in our own waters, and on our own qua¬ rantine grounds. The French never have done so. The British have constantly asserted a right to seize our ves¬ sels, bound to ports not open in peace. The French never have done so. T. he British have blockaded, by their public ships, our bat’s and harbors, seized vessels entering and going out, and sent them to their own ports for trial, or rather for condemnation. The French have not done so. The British have repeatedly fired at and detained, in our own waters, our coasting vessels ; and in one instance, killed an Ame¬ rican citizen on board one of them. The French never have done so. The British have attacked and destroyed, in our jurisdiction, and therefore under our protection, an enemy ship. The French never have done so. 1 he British have assailed, in our jurisdiction, the minister of France and broken open his trunks. The French never have done so. The British attacked the United States’ ship of war, Balti¬ more, entering the Havanna, and convoying a fleet of American merchantmen : they impressed from fifteen to twenty of the crew of the Baltimore, and seized a part of the convoy; dis¬ gracing our flag and plundering our property, at the same time.. The French never committed such acts. The British attacked, in our own waters, a public ship of war, the Chesapeake, killed and wounded a part of its crew, forcibly impressed another part, every man of whom were natives of America, and after performing this exploit, returned into the harborof Norfolk. 1 he French never have been guilty of such an atrocious outrage. I he British have declared, by proclamation, that our natura¬ lization laws are of no value or effect. The French have not done so. The British have published, in our own papers, a proclama¬ tion inviting our citizens to violate our own laws, and offered protection to such as should violate them. The French neves have done so. ' ’ 76 The British have published in official form, that. American ships which should violate our laws, and enter British ports, would not be called upon for the usual papers. The French have never done so. The British have published, in our own papers, a letter iiom their prime minister, as an appeal to the American people against their government. The French never have done so.—.Genet, the French minister, was recalled by his own government lor addressing the American people, on a personal controversy with our government. , . , . . , The British have forced an illegal trade with our citizens, by means of armed ships. The French never have done so. _ The British, in fine, have refused all atonement or reparation for the injuries and insults experienced by our country ; and they have, instead of punishing, promoted the admirals and cap-^ tains, that have been most audacious and wanton in their abuse and violation of our rights. . . - Such, my friends, are some of the most striking instances of British outrage; probably there are many others, m your remem¬ brance, equally gross and unjustifiable: I have noted these to contrast the conduct of the two belligerents, and I think, it must be evident that our complaints against Prance bear no sort ot comparison in extent or multiplicity with those against England. If, however, any advocate of the latter, is disposed to question the fact, I hope every attention will be paid to him : a thorough investigation is absolutely necessary, and the public voice will remain on that side alone, that is supported by plain and unde., niable facts. Marchs 1, 1809. 4 ' • LETTER XV. » I OMITTED to mention, in my last letter, some circum* stances, that are too much in point to be entirely overlooked. The peace of Amiens, in 1802, had virtually repealed all the belligerent orders injurious to neutral rights : it is of conse- : ouence, therefore, that you should know, which of the belhgej rents first renewed its aggressions, and fortunately this question may be decisively answered. , . . From 1S02 to November, 1806, France did not issue a single decree prejudicial to neutrals : the ordinance of D'8, heieto fore noticed, was alone enforced, and it was the wish of Bona¬ parte, as avowed by M. Portalis, president of the tribunal ot prizes, to respect the rights and interests of neutral P°' ver . Hut England had no sooner broken the peace of Amiens, Bias - her orders against neutrals were renewed.... seven different mea¬ sures were taken by her ministry from 1802 to 1806, calculated to destroy all neutral trade with any part of Europe, excepting England or her allies; the last of these orders was issued in May , 1806, and declared the whole coast from the Elbe to Brest, 1200 miles in extent, in a state of blockade, although it was not even pretended to be practicable to enforce it, within half that extent. Bonaparte, therefore, finding that these acts of outrage produced all the consequences, that could have followed equita¬ ble measures, and that neutrals made no efforts to maintain their rights.... abandoned the liberal policy, which characterized the preceding part oi his administration, and retaliated by the Ber¬ lin decree of November , 1806. At the renewal, therefore, as well as at the commencement of the war, Britain began the system of depredation, that has terminated in the present embarrassments of our country; and, as the advocates of England have themselves declared, what [should justify the United States in going to war, it can no longer be questioned that Britain is the proper object for hosti¬ lities, since she has not only been the earliest, but the greatest violator of our rights. Although the decision on this point might be taken from what, i have already stated in these letters, and which, I am persuaded, defies refutation....there is another description of outrage upon our rights, which deserves your attention ; it is such as no na¬ tion, but Britain, has ever perpetrated, and such as no indepen¬ dent power, but America, would have so long and tamely sub¬ mitted to. 7'he outrage I allude to is founded upon what is termed the rule of ’56, which declares it unlawful for neutrals to carry on, during war, any other trade than that which the) pursued during peace. To place the subject in as distinct a point of view as possible, I will state.... 1. The circumstances under which the ride was issued, and its objects....2. The an- hority which gave it existence....3. Its consequences to neu- nils. ...4. Its pretexts, and inconsistency with the practice of England herself. 1. Every maritime power of Europe has made it a part of ts policy, to monopolize the trade of its colonies ; and the po- icy of admitting neutrals, during war, to participate in that rade, has been as universally and steadily pursued. England, pent upon the destruction of the French marine, opened the r var ol 1755-6, by unexampled acts of perfidy to France, and butrage against neutrals. In the moment of peace, her fleets aptured above 300 French merchantmen, the crews of which ■vere immediately cast into loathsome prisons. Having thus rippled the only marine that could check their usurpation, the British introduced, for the first time, the rule of ’56, and cap- are cl all the neutral vessels found trading to or from French 78 .Colonies .The complaints of the neutral powers were loud but unavailing.... the British fleets rode unresisted on the ocean. 2. England never has had, like other states, a maritime code, and she has constantly refused to acknowlege any fixed pi inci- ples... .because, uncertainty affords pretexts for usurpation. The power of deciding what are the laws of nations or the rights of belligerents, is not invested in the legislative or judicial depart¬ ments of government; the ministry, or privy council, alone ex¬ ercise this all important authority, and they decide upon all questions, not according to the laws of nations or the pnnci- pies of universal justice, but upon expediency or accoiding to circumstances.It is true there are admiralty courts, and their proceedings are conducted in a manner somewhat like those of the ancient civil law proceedings; but they are bound to give judgment according to the orders of tne council, howe\ ei repng- nant they may be to the laws of nations or of justice ; and, in--a deed, the judge of the high court of admiralty is himself not only a member of that council and a pensioner of the government, out he participates in the proceeds of prizes condemned. Lnder such a corrupt system, can it be a matter of surprize, that every! species of outrage and tyranny has been exercised against us, under the mockery of law. 3. It would be impossible, m this place, to enumerate all the ruinous effects of the rule of ’56, upon our neutral trade, under the various modifications, which the interests of Britain dictated.- I submit to you, however, a federal picture of this outrage, the more willingly because its source must convince you how infa¬ mously unjust this rule must be, when it is thus condemned. The memorial of the merchants of Philadelphia, presented to congress in January, 1806, and signed by Messrs. Geo. Latimer, Robert Wciln , James Tard, Joseph Sims , and other equally warm. federalists, contains these sentiments :.... « The doctrines of the British court are novel in themselves, unequivocally hostile to neutral rights, inconsistent with thej former declarations of her ministers and decisions of her judges ; and partaking rather of the shifting character of com enience, than of permanent right or established law. « The effect, of this novel doctrine, upon neutral interests, is of the most serious and alarming character; it goes to nothing snort of the destruction of neutral commerce , and of inflicting a most deep and deadly wound upon the trade of the United States in particular. t . , J “ The time and manner, of announcing it, accord with tne principle itself. At a moment when mercantile enterpnze, con¬ fiding in the explanations given upon this point by the Britis ministry, was strained to the utmost....a new decision o t court of appeals is announced, and every sail is sti etched t catch the unweary Americans, unsuspectingly confiding in wrr was the laws of nations. . “ submit to these practices, would derogate from the nai t.ional character and independence of the United State* ” If i..is possible to add to this description of the in/lous con- cluct of Britain the materials are to be found in the memorials from Boston, Newburyport, and New York, presented to .-on- gress along with the above....there is also a letter, from the nre- sent governor of Massachusetts, C. Gore , confirming every sen- timent m this memorial. J , 4 - T , he P r ?‘^ ts > that a '-e urged by the British ministry, bv tne author of M ar in Disguise, and by the other advocates of this pernicious doctrine, are....that, the revenue and number of seamen of France are increased, to the injury of England, by the neutral trade to the colonies. The futility of their pretexts must be evident from this single remark....that, if a belligerent has a right to interrupt a neutral trade with the colonies be* cause the revenue and seamen of his enemy are thereby increas- e , he may interrupt all trade or intercourse with the mother country also, since the revenue and seamen are increased by any trade whatever. And, indeed, it is now evident, that Eng¬ land had it m contemplation to forbid all trade....the rule was first applied to the colonies, it is now extended to all trade what¬ ever. But, besides the obvious injustice of these pretexts they are refuted by the practice of England herself: after con¬ demning the American for trading to a French colony, they permit their own subjects to pursue the voyage, in the same vessels and with the same cargo thus plundered from the neu¬ tral to the very port of original destination, and issue a licence or the purpose....a fact, which if no others existed, would alone iprove that the hostility IS not against the revenue and seamen , . I r l e ’ b , u ‘ a S ain3t the innocent trade of neutrals. Further if it is illegal for a neutral to trade to a French colony in time’ jfe“ 6 ga t0 trade t0 British colonies; yet what rhe navigation act of England, the 10th article in particular nterdicts all intercourse with its colonies, yet there is no in Lar 'on’ihh rT " 0tbeen adraitted them, during Ivfmnbl 1 thl nP? n p. he snowing quotations, from a celebrated »an phlet, published in 1804, by Mr. S. Cock, commercial and ub 1 C agent of Liverpool, must be conclusive : it is addressed o teheT Ut mlniSter > Ge °- Cann ' n g> and is an a ,Zt o lord ShefiieW s object,ons to opening the colonies to neutrals. ... e P arture (says Mr. C.) from our navigation laws, to the nee l/„ he aCtS r° f 17 , 95 ' 6 ’ enlarged beyond all former experi- umber rfUr.-i iind consequently our revenue and the L n f lf ing- men. Our naval force and our ability to ipport tt, have been powerfully promoted by opening our colo- te m„P^ d ? 0f th,S pf ; ri0cl ( 1804 )very fir exceeds even r • '-Mrishing period of the peace before 1793, and the --mintnee of our naval power is sufficiently proved by a sc- .Kies of smenclid victories, unequalled even in the naval history of Britain. Facts brilliant and striking .lute tliese refute the assertion, that the suspension ol the navigation act injures the trade or navy of England; if that act had been adhered to, we should have had much less than half our present commerce and revenue, to meet the arduous contest in which we are engaged. In 1792, our import was fifty millions, duty five.,.. but, in 1801, our import was eighty millions, duty eight. In short, the im¬ mense rise in our trade and financial resources, whilst our fight¬ ing seamen arc more resistless than ever, shews the wisdom ol accommodating our laws to our circumstances . u Foreign carriers are so far from injuring our marine, that ♦hey contribute greatly to its strength, by permitting us to spare fjur seamen from ships of trade for those ol war .In the Ame¬ rican war, if we had not carriers, we could not have continued hostilities, a great portion of our import and export trade was carried bv the Flemings....a custom diametrically opposite to the navigation act: and why did government suspend that act, but because they thereby preserved our trade, acquired revenue^ and could employ our seamen in the navy for our national salva¬ tion. , . . , w A departure from the navigation laws, in the present war, has enlarged beyond all example, our trade, revenue , and the number of fighting men.* “Britain has doubled her commerce, and greatly increased her naval power, by employing neutral flags: The following statements are given in proof: Entries into all the ports of Great Britain in 1791 ] 1792 1800 1801 Foreign ships, ------ tonnage,. 'seamen, ----- 1,710 265,574 11,931 1,586 253,858 13,685 j 4,341 649,985 34,108 3,132 654,354. 33,327 Clearances from all the ports of Great Britain in 1791 ] 1792 1800 1801 Foreign ships,. tonnage, . seamen,. 843 156,548 7,622 771 149,095 7,761 4,292 630,170 34,104 5.057 742,847 38,612 These important facts, emphatically prove, that at the mo ment Britain forbids neutrals to purchase, even for their own use * To understand tbe extent to winch British trade is promoted by the cn nlovmcnt of foreign seamen, it is sufficient to be acquainted with the tact, th- Jt the commencement of every wa.- the British parliament passes an act pci nutting their merchantmen to be navigated by crews, consisting of one-tourt British subjects, the remainder foreigners. By this means the government j enabled to' impress for their fleets, thrpe-fouvths of their own mcicanti.j seamen. the produce of French colonies, her own revenue, seamen, and trade are increased by the carriage of British colonial produce. in neutral bottoms .When you reflect, my friends, upon these damning truths, can you wonder, that France refuses to remain an indifferent spectator? Can you be surprised, that Bonaparte Irefuses to allow the neutral carriage of enemy’s property, when jhis enemies violate all neutral rights to his injury; when they support the war by the very means that they declare it unlawful ior neutrals to pursue in relation to an innocent trade to French colonies ? Such are the origin, authority, character, and effects of the fa¬ mous rule of J 56. I beseech you to read again, the Philadelphia memorial ; the perfidy and outrage there complained of, were perpetrated before Bonaparte had a single decree in force hostile ( o neutrals: the rule has not only remained in force, but its I errors have been increased; the consequences predicted in the federal memorial have been realized, neutral commerce has been destroyed, and a deep and deadly wound has been inflicted upon 'he trade of the United States . Yet, with shame to them, let it je told, that some of the very men, who in 1806 called upon government not to submit to these practices, have since de- lounced the government and declared that England has done is no injury! some of the very party, which declared that to submit to the rule of 1756, would derogate from our national character and independence, have now the impudence to pre* end that we should go to war with Bonaparte* to avenge the ;onsequences of this doctrine, which was enforced by Britain >efore he was born, and which was renewed before France had ssued a single obnoxious decree. When you reflect, my friends, upon the enormous abuses ommitted upon our rights by the British, abuses that cannot be lescribed in stronger terms than the federal memorials convey; .nd when you reflect, that, without repeal or redress for those buses, the men who thus demanded them, are now crouching o the rod that smote them, violating the laws of the union, and xcitingf rebellion in the land, which by their own acknowlege- nenthas been so much abused and insulted....when, I say, you eflect upon these things, you must have more than a common hare of charity to believe that the motives of such men, and uch a party, are either pure or honorable ; and you must have n uncommon share of apathy and indifference for the welfare f your country, if your resentment is not avowed against that ation, which has never ceased to look with enmity and jealousy pon the happiness of our people, the freedom of our country, nd our prospects of a prosperous commerce. You are called ) support your government, not merely under the pressure of See the rebellious proceedings in Massachusetts. t See appendix....D. 82 foreign aggression, but against a faction, which after having complained of that aggression in the bitterest terms, have now become the panegyrists of that foreign power, and the revilers of their own government. The present condition ot our peo¬ ple, in doubt and timidity respecting foreign relations, ana from this very circumstance distracted at home, cannot be much longer continued, and it behoves you to be prepared lor any events that may arise. . In the present letter, I close the consideration of the ques¬ tions....on priority and extent of aggression; and, I invite any advocate of England, to shew that I am incorrect m declaring.... that the British have been the earliest and greatest violators ot our rights, and that, if the plea of retaliation can excuse ag¬ gression, France alone is entitled to its support. In my next, I will endeavor to vindicate the republican party from the charge of producing or promoting our present embarrassments.. ..Qy a review of the conduct of the first administrations of our country. April 6, 1809. LETTER XVI. I PROPOSE, in the present letter, to enter into an inqui¬ ry, of no inconsiderable importance, and to call your attention to a number of circumstances, that seem to have, very unaccount¬ ably, escaped the recollection of the public....it is a season fit to speak truth. ‘ ‘ What has been the conduct of our government towards trance and England ? . J The examination of this question will prove, what it is ot great consequence you should know’ That Britain has had every reason to be satisfied with our government, and theiefordl that her depredations are the more unjust. 2. That France has had serious cause to complain, and therefore, that there is some excuse for her conduct. 3. That the embarrassments, now felt by our country, originated in the unfortunate policy of the admi¬ nistrations which preceded that of Mr. Jefferson. This inquiry can have no invidious object at this time, how¬ ever plausible such an objection to it may have been thirteen! years ago; indeed, it is absolutely necessary to a just concep¬ tion of our public affairs, and especially as you are every da} falsely told, that, the evils which have befallen our commerce concerns, are the effects of measures adopted by the represen tatives of the republican party. That I may render the exposition as concise, and yet as dis jtinct as possible^ I divide the subject under these heads.;...** The conduct of France to America, from 1778 to 1795 , when the British treaty was adopted. 2. The conduct of England f“ m that term. 3. Our conduct to France and England. 4. Our conduct in relation to our maritime or neutral rights. l._ For evidences, of the magnitude and generosity of the -.ervices of France in our revolution, I appeal not merely to those who remember them, but to the public declarations speeches, and correspondence of the Washington administration! although the latter is the weakest testimony, it proves....that he alliance of h ranee, greatly contributed to the freedom of America ; that France realized the armed neutrality of 1780 * md that to the alliance of France, we owed in a great measure" yhatever favorable terms were had, at the peace of 1783. Of the irst point in particular, there is this evidence. In a public dis- i >atch to congress, gen. Washington declared, that the people and rmy were becoming tired of the war, and that if Cornwallis had jot been captured at Yorktown, he could not have answered for he issue....now we all know, that the capture of Cornwallis could ot have been made, without the aid of France. If there should e any doubt on this point, I refer to the speech of Robert God- I ie Harper , on the petition of the daughters of the count da rasse, delivered to congress when it sat in Philadelphia. It is eplorable that any necessity should exist for thus asserting what ever ought to have been disputed; but as ingratitude was nee the reward of France* it is a duty* to renew at this time, ie remembrance of those services. Ihe commercial and exclusive privileges with both nations ijoyed under the treaty of 1778, were of importance to France. 1 peace, and necessarily invaluable as soon as the war of 1793 roketmt; of course her conduct was proportionable- friendlr . c ! rcums Pfct. Until July, 1793, the executive had not single complaint to make against France, and then the com - amt made, was in consequence of the retaliating decree of ?,,, 1 y tar ‘ the message to congress, cf December, J3, Washington said....“ the representative and executive bo- ■esot trance,'have manifested, generally, a friendly attach- ■ ent to this country ; have given advantages to our commerce ad navigation ; and have made overtures for placing those ad. 'images upon permanent ground. 1 As soon as royalty was abolished, France opened ail its ports i Americans and placed them, as to rights and duties, upon a ioting with its own citizens. As soon as our government complained of Genet, his conduct "m disavowed , and another minister substituted, r ranee, in short, allied to this country, by friendship and by iattes; having no friends in Europe; assailed from without the greatest combination of powers that ever was formed u.vuised and a prey to famine within....had every reason to re- J CG(tt t:ie idea - hat it had a friend Amcrzra. and every vr r I 84 tree to strengthen the existing ties. Genet, I' auchet, and Adet, severally proposed to form even a more favorable commercial treaty, than that of 1778. . . . But the friendly disposition of France was evinced m a num¬ ber of other instances, too remarkable not to be mentioned. On the 4th of Tune, 1794, it announced the measures it had taken to obtain the release of our citzens, captive in Algiers and to es¬ tablish a peace between that regency and the United States. September following, the Washington administration answered, that this friendly aid of France, would strengthen the ties uniting the two republics. . . . . . . . * This transaction is the more striking, when it is contrasted with the fact, that it was by the agency of the British govern- went the Barbary powers were engaged in hostility to us, and ot consequence the cause of all our injuries and tributes paidsince. _ - , . . i TVT 1 _ 4 *r(\A Virannf* mQflP mmiWnSatlOn tO consequence me cau&c ui - * • „ . On the 18th November, 1794, trance made compensation to the Americans detained at Bordeaux by an embargo ; and repeal- " , ~ neutral commerce, excepting that tlie Amencans aacuiicuati.tnucuuc.^ ^ . ed all existing decrees against neutral commerce, excepting that relating, to enemy’s property, and this property it declaxcc .it would exempt from seizure, if England would respect the pnn- ciple; and . , . On the 3d January, 1795, even this decree, subjecting encm) property to seizure, was repealed. In the same year, France voluntarily declared it would int 1 fere, to obtain from Spain the free navigation of the river Mis¬ sissippi, for our citizens ; asked whether the Flor.das would b. useful to us, and intimated that we might obtain them withou any equivalent. . , . . . , The Washington administration instructed its mmistei, n Mav 1794, to assure France....that, “the president felt ai anxious solicitude for the success of the French revolution ♦hat he preferred France to all other nations as a friend and a } lhat he retained a grateful sense of the important services ren dered by France, to America in its revolution....and, that, al though neutrality was preferred in the present war, m case th< United States embarked in it, it would be on the side oj i ranee and against her enemies, whoever they might be. And, assus pi cions may be entertained of the object ot Mr. Jay s mission x'ou are to declare that the motives of it are to obtain compete sation for our plundered property, and restitution of our forts. Such were the friendly dispositions of France, prior to th adoption of the British treaty....and such were the avowed sen tirnents of our government: you will presently-learn the retail that was made for the one, and the sincerity of the other. 2. Of the conduct of England , it would be perhaps sufficii* to savl.it was the reverse of that of France : the instance! however, will be noted. Passing over the scenes of our reve lutionary war, in which Americans were hunted down as it the. were wild beasts....we find, that, the peace was scarcely d* 85 cltUed in l/8o, when it was violated; the negroes of our plan- teis Aveie cartied off, in express violation of treaty, and the forts within our territory were forciblv withheld from us for seventeen years after they should have'been surrendered. ’But the enmity of the British was not confined to those acts....they stirred up and aided the Indians to butcher our defenceless fron- tier settlers... .their officers guided the savage operations, and British soldiers , disguised as Indians, assisted in the indiscrimi¬ nate massacre of our people, of every age and sex. These facts are not stated at hazard : the speeches of lord Dorchester the correspondence of general Wcujne, and even the instructions to John Jay, emphatically establish the truth of these infamous proceedings. The correspondence of the executive with ou- minister to France, also proves, that the British instigated the Spaniards on our south-western frontier to send the Creeks and other Indians to butcher our people in that quarter. And a let ter Irom the administration to Mr. Jay, declares... “ Although we cannot prove that the British have been tampering with the people of Kentucky and in the neighborhood of Pittsburgh to encourage them to revolt against the general government’• it has been boasted of by them, and an expectation of such sun- them”# USPeCted t0 llUVe * JeCn excitecI '« the breasts of some of On the ocean, the British committed outrages of as deep a dye. Orders were secretly issued, under which hundreds of our vessels were captured, the cause of which was equally un¬ known to their owners or to government. When Mr. T. Pincknev applied to the British ministry for the release of our seamen, if- is believed there were between two and three thousand Americans attained, then forced to serve in the British fleets. I believe, i may with safety affirm, that, besides thus plunder¬ ing our property and enslaving our citizens, official evidence L.U1 P ro, hiccd to shew that it was Britain instigated the Algerines to follow their example. Even Mr. Harper, warm f ,' e away ® ,' vas m t ‘is friendship for the English, instead -ursTnthf K h r ,r f int f e '! eren T CC J ith the A 'S erines > evidently con. rs in the belie, of it.In his speech upon the British treaty md as an argument m its favor, lie said....“ Britain has great mtrT- S ° “ U i h S ° aSt0 have directed the -rms of the late truce between that state and Portugal: this nfluencc is so great as in a considerable degree to direct their ause' C ofIi d 'l ha$ i 1WayS b , eel ’ reSarded as onc the primary mr ships.” dtpredatIons the Algerines have committed upon flic complaints of our government, in consequence of these , ? es ’ w . ere Seated with insult: as is evident from this pie ‘ge in a letter from the Washington administration to Mr. of *" n,m< ' ef '° l ™ hr -he MM> or 86 T. Pinckney, dated September, 1793...,“ It Is with concern we aid obliged to observe, that, so marked has been the inattention oi the British court, to every application, that has been made to them, on any subject , by this government (not a single answer, we believe, having ever been given to one of them, excepting m the act of exchanging a minister) that it may become unavoida¬ ble in certain cases, when an answer of some sort is necessary, to consider their silence as an answer... .perhaps it is so intended. So hostile indeed, was the conduct of England, that even Timothy Pickering was compelled to acknowlege it.... 44 that our commerce (said he, in a letter to the French minister) has been interrupted by the armed vessels of England, and sometimes with insult, we certainly shall not attempt to deny: it was be¬ cause of these aggressions, preparations for rear xverc made. Redress having been refused, at that period, congress laid an embargo.. ..which was avowedly to operate on England alone : a non-intercourse act passed the house of representatives, and was only arrested bv the casting vote of the vice president; a sequestration of British property was strenuously advocated; and the congress seemed well disposed to assert the 1 lghts and 1 avenge the wrongs of the country....but they were checked in the honorable purpose: and the Washington administration took the chief justice, from the bench, and sent him, who was an avow¬ ed partizan of England, as envoy extraordinary to that country. I need not recapitulate the disgraceful and the iatal effects which proceeded out of that measure ; perhaps it is to that alone we owe all the misfortunes which we have suffered since. Such, then, was the conduct of England, and, when I say that it was the reverse of that of France, the fact cannot be questioned: . , . , France granted us commercial privileges....England plunder¬ ed our trade, and impressed our citizens. France interposed to open the Mississippi and terminate oiu disputes with the Spaniards....England instigated them to per¬ severe in their hostilities against us. France interfered to release our citizens captive in Algiers.... England urged the Algerines to enslave them. France attended to, and granted redress upon our complaints...# England refused all redress, by a contemptuous silence. In such circumstances as these, it no other existed, our go¬ vernment was bound by the common principles of policy and justice to treat France at least with liberality. But, with how much more liberality, ought it to have acted to that France, which in our distress had rendered us such essential services, and which now in turn asked.. ..not for any sacrifices , not that we should support them as they supported us.... but, the obset v~ ancc of treaties and the solemn pledges oj friendship , which ivel gave when in distress ourselves ! With shame, be it told, how-1 ever, that our government, at the very moment it avowed friend* 87 terminated in hostility a^nstherTand Instead thr^ir^sSs^ r : ffi:ctually As it will be useful to defer for another letter an „™' • of the two remaining points,- I conclude he IresenlInr ?? die following description, of the condition of “ "’.n''b Mr * Giles in the debate on the British treat- • it n ’ fi , •- v to appreciate the honor humanity o a xt Arena hle you istration, which whils^it ron n ' ’ * A \ S iatltu ^e of the admin- u. ,0 '; 0 “uic ,5'",r ,h ,' were unfortunate in their only efforts “ the , Frenc h ^rnment in its form and principles to our ow„T g °‘ r st ^S^ c 3>Jh?r; aga T- dern times. The war was n f tl f d ^ th f history of mo- character, and a series of victorieI°threw OC ’'I “"if des P erate tion of that country. On March 1 ' th ^ sub J“ga- 'eated on the Roer • on the i athti ’ ? h ren ch were de- sut; on the 4th of April Dnm ' e rL ' v °h in La Vendee broke 19th, a rebellion brokl out in the departmeTof^r “ my! Ma - V he 30th, another at Lyons....on Ji ll'lOth Co ide °‘ re * ^ °, U m the 27th Mavence 'on the oo.l t> Conde surrendered, ft ft «.*, T ioi “K;, f"' & zszxtr- * ft.., The ItuTCl, Marseilles, and the departments rfVaucfi ^dTl’ m ’ ‘ nC u’a" 1 s 10rt ’ ,vas convulsed with intestine ,V • - E ^one. •vtended to the very heart of lnt estine divisions, that -most formidable^Srmal pressu^Tnd 0 ^ U “ der is, was a prey to the horrors of famine.’^ addltlon to ai ’ ■April 12, 1809. letter XVII. »iich FrancehadgeII?ous t U- Ume ft ate ^ the im P ortant services, ’'vices that e^^K I ^ ,dePed . , “* I fro “ ™ to 1795....’ endship. 1 Our gratitude, or at least to our ; J--..whichIjuditliollo 1 }^ 011 ^ olltra S es committed by Eng- ‘ gotten until t ty " “ ,C ™ "<* 88 lre-rted her, in the midst of her difficulties, with ingratitude treatea ne , ; n of Paf l 0 f receiving redress from hng- have acquiesced in "her maritime usurpations, and thus laid 'the foundation of all our subsequent dishonor and com- meidal misfoit t f, e serv ices of France, to remain ? r n ' h er enemv and bv the injuries of England not to a Ut her Gainst France....how much more strongly were we bound by the" solemn injunctions of existing treaties, to maintain “"meTthTwa^cornmenced, in 1793, we had no treaty with England, we were ^tadttStfe^of'the most forcible and binding character. Those treaties were ratified in 1778, under circumstances so . hose tie. if governed by sinister motives in favorable to b ranee,'lira,, 8 advantage of them ; su« «“■“[>'-i - is b «• sr£S3?34 r -fhad a nrofi r tedduri.4 our revolution ; France fulfilled her en- d ements and expected that, when necessity demanded it, gage me iu , i „ 177 a to 1793, the stipulations 01 ™ Jor,W when the war solemn engagements. It “hid. fulfilling our engagements, 've^iolat^e, ^ ^ acquitted for thTs breach of moral andjpolltical justice; It was the act of a people hr a constitutional way, it is true, dismissed those whe p traced them. The stigma however remains on our history and tt might "to be looked at, in order to avoid a recurrence o £U bi the'present letter, however desirable, it is not practicable l? % 4-j. £ jyars ulLtWskf treaties, slid to reoder the lojiietice on thjs pod the more obvious, I quote the following principles of the *XglmSS3£SZ2* he tvh. vioiste. «»»,« fates the laws of nations....doubly guilty, he injures his . and wounds the whole human race. . , o-oven tc Treaties between nations are binding, although th g ment of either may be deposed, and another form substitute, # “ °nepa r ty to a treaty has no right to interpret it, at its will to the injury of the other. ? “ When two nations engage in war, a third or neutral state other° n&ht t0 a t£r thC C ° ndltlon of one to the Prejudice of the . . “ ^ h< : n a natlon has formed engagements by treaty with one state, it is no longer at liberty to enter into engagement* with another state, inconsistent with the first. ^ h “ If a neutral enters into a treaty with one belligerent and r e n f ° rmi * ng ° nC W ! th , the other belligerent, it becomes par. tial and loses its neutral character. 5 ’ ment n of° f t ^ e F arly K CtS ° f , °'- r S ov f nmen t, upon the commence, nent of the French revolution, shewed at least an indifference respecting ns issue. _ If governed by friendly dispositions, it uould have sent, as it did when it sent Mr. Jav to London a minister to France, if not friendly to the resolution, at leLst not disposed to assist the coalition against it:....but, in annoim- ■ ng Mr. Governeur Morris, an avowed foe to the Frencl/cause lure, °;t e lTf y n PeC,e i 0f i £° pUlar rightS ’ the a dministration in- lured itself and insulted France. His appointment was opposed :n the senate, expressly on account of the man’s inveterato mo¬ narchical tenets, and his hatred of free government. The ore- hctions respecting Mr. Morris’s ministry were realized, France lemanded his recal, but, when our government complied it issurecl the minister that it did not disapprove his conduct! In April, 1793, the president presented to the heads of de = t sa senes of questions, the motives for which the quel , ^emselves plainly discovered : amongst the most remarks hnidTr these ""' vhether a minister from the republic of France hould be acicnowleged ? And, w-hether the treaties with Fran-e , e obll Sat°ry. The principles of the laws of nations, quoted -.bove, could not have been unknown to the government I -m warranted, therefore, in saying, that the iere h°p U Fr ° n , th0Se fcVlnccd a disposition not to acknowlege he French republic, because it was at the time surrounded wub |an b eio, and to refuse to fulfil our treaty engagements, because ey were important to France and disagreeable to England a say theTasiT* a P roclamation of neutrality was issued.... 1 ^ * ,f leaS ’ U , was unnecessary, and its terms but too une- uivocally spoke the anxiety of our government to evade the st : - ulations of our treaty with France: .. U Le Frenchcnl 5 ' °- ^ we fere bound to maintain and protect ask h h f n,C V n dr"" 31 , FranCe had ‘he generosity not onedir / f, m a of this stipulation, they voluntarily aban- oned , and with a candor that is rare in the transaction.; of r a- le d’;!'; i r ";° re we °ught at'/east to have abstained from aiding in ■d British m ° l ^ os ? co ' om es : but our government permit- ™ ,sh , ofr ‘ cers to land pn our shores to purchase cavalry - ses, and to transport them to the West Indies, to enable the 90 British troops to conquer the French islands: our government . also consented to surrender the right of supplying the French colonies with provisions. In both instances, the interests of Fi ance were palpably sacrificed, in violation of the spirit of our ; treaties with her: it was pretended, that it would be violating our neutrality to return to the French a part of the arms which they had sent us during our revolution ; yet the administration : did not prohibit the exportation of cavalry horses, to aid in re¬ ducing the colonies we were pledged to protect. It is necessary s tc read the nation to the transactions of those days. They are painful to remember, but the pain proceeds from their being true. Bv the treaty of 1778, we were bound to admit French crui- j zers' with their prizes into our ports ; and, to exclude from i them, not only the prizes made by cruizers of the enemies of j France, but such cruizers as had captured French property. Yet, not only were British cruizers, that had captured French j ships, admitted into our ports to victual and refit, but in some instances the prizes themselves were brought in, fitted for sea, and sent to cruize against the French. From 1794, a British squadron was constantly cruizing off or within Chesapeake bay, under admiral Murray ; its ships following such French vessels i as departed from our ports, making prize of them, and then returning within our waters. The government was well ac¬ quainted with those violations of treaties, and of our neutrality,! but it did not interfere in a single instance, until the British ; had accomplished all they could have desired. By the treaty of 1778, we were bound to permit the consuls t of France to take exclusive cognizance of prizes brought into i our ports by French cruizers; yet, in June, 1793, in violation j of this treaty, and treaties are the supreme law of the land, the! courts of the United States were directed to take cognizance of those prizes, and the French consuls were thus deprived of] their privileges. The consul, Duplaine, at Boston, had taken charge of a prize, according to treaty ; he was three times in¬ dicted before the state court for it, and each time the jury re-1 fused to find a bill against him :....the administration, unable to compel him to surrender the rights of treaty, or the jury to violate the supreme law, deprived Duplaine of his consular authority! -jj I Besides those open infractions of treaties in relation to prizes, the collectors of our ports, the judges of our courts, district attornies, and marshals, all subservient to the wishes of Mr- Alexander Hamilton, left no means unemployed to harass arx perplex the consuls of France : the oaths of British subjects and seamen were received as conclusive testimony to support the vexatious detention of French cruizers and prizes....whilst every aid and countenance was covertly extended to Britisi ( cruizers. Such was the conduct pursued by the administration, prior to menth ° f Bmish treaty ' Bef ore I notice this histru- z^cr^riTv: r te ^ uplicit >’ ° f the ^ ia t^ respecting it. At the moment Prance was rendering us every jas-ic-, and when England was violating our dearest rights • at It ,T our government was obliged to acknowfe-e’the one and congress were preparing for war to avenge the other- no man could have believed that the administration was p-e- r’ .ng to injure France and to submit to England ■Scions however, were excited, and they were increased by the zeal’ lin" acted To iV 0 '"T*" them - ° ur in Franci til ? d r t A ° T lnfdrm the government of that country ♦hat r ” ril ^ sl p n °f Mr. Jay had but one object,.,.to obtain redress fjr tie injuries w/nch England had committed. The same de-la a .on was made in the senate, and announced to the pub k hei h dmn'si “lv equalled bv iheir indignation at finding, that Mr. Jay had not only no't obtained any redress, but had sacrificed our own rights the rbligations we were under to France, and even the most vdP lie branch of our own export produce. lhe British had issued an order, in Tun'" irQ? f™- tU rose of starving France, to seize’all IZ’zl JmS r ^e^ laden Whh Corn \M or tuea/....hundreds of n l ? ? ."’ ere ca P tured under this order, and the i thefodowinr 't m,Strat ' 0n re . monstrat ed against this measure, ^, une ’ “ is so manifestly contrary to the bserfe “ist a .’- n0thinS m0re WOuld be “ces«iy/than to Uc^’in which°we w nJS dir m dy t0 draw us from a state of larnctcr !„’, e w ‘ shln S t0 remain. It is an essential eatvh to L . r y , t0 , furnish no aids (not stipulated by .the other if'w’ WC are not e( l ua % ready to furnish • It we permit corn to be sent to Great Britain J. e . e( l uall y bound to permit it to France. To restraint' ould be a partiality which wou/dlead to war with France • and’ 2 TST* “ ?"»'“»» Cr‘Z;“t •ZZir Z, ? tSrr- .1.1. •hat i i / w ^ lc h she would not be the dupe -md op houM ra e grOU , nd COuld we otherwise explain it! Thus ■ itaiu, into^w 0 ",-” plUnged ’ by this unauthorised act of n^of F.nrfand^h* f and ‘ n 1793 ’ against the usurpa- ience that the - 'l b - - S ° >apid ' vas lhe progress of British in- 1795 bv M administration abandoned this honorable ground ■don fie dm aV - i lrCaty - After ba vm g made the abfve de- merely cl u ^ l, atl °. n SU1 T Cndered our ri S lu of conveying, > cot n, four, and meal, but every description of frovi ■ sian 3 y to France. It acknowleged the right of England to seize all our vessels, laden with provisions, and thus sacrificed not only* our own rights, but concurred in the project of starving our faith¬ ful ally France, and evinced a carelessness, whether its govern¬ ment, unwilling to be the dupe of our artifice, declared war against us or not. By the treaty of 1778, France was bound to permit our ves¬ sels to trade in all property whatever, except actual contraband: this was highly favorable to England. By Jay’s treaty, wesu* rendered the right to protect French property, to the manifest injury of France, and contrary to the laws of nations. By the treaty of 1778, we had a right to convey to. England naval stores and all other articles not directly used in war. 4 privilege of great importance to England. By Jay’s treaty, we j agreed, that to supply France with naval stores was unlawful, the injustice of this to France, you can all appreciate. By the treaty of 1778, we guaranteed the French colonies: j but by Jay’s treaty, we agreed that to supply them with provi- sions or carry their produce to Europe was unlawful..;.the per¬ fidy of this was increased by our agreeing to supply the colonies of England . _ . . Under the treaty of 1778, the French sold their prizes in our ports, but as soon as Jay’s treaty was ratified, the French were prohibited from selling them. Bv the treaty of 1778, our citizens had a right to serve as j volunteers in the armies or fleets of England: by Jay s treaty, our citizens were forbidden to serve in the fleets or armies of France. . Of the baseness and perfidy of those acts, there is no lan¬ guage sufficiently strong to convey a just sense; they ceitainl) afforded full ground to the French minister Adet, for declaring, that, u under the cloak of neutrality our government presented a dagger to England, to cut the throat of a faithful ally, and participated in the tyrannic and cruel rage of England, to plunge the French people into the horrors of famine.”* * The paper, presented by Mr. Jay to the British government, was more like the supplication of a tributary, than the remonstrance of an independent an. inured nation. The envoy declared that he placed his principal reliance uponi his maiesty’s benevolence ; and it is therefore not astonishing, that instead cl, redress we received an additional share of injury. That the injury was reccivj •ed, will be seen from the following statement of the neutral innocent property, captured and sent into England, within the five months, ending November, 3795, that is within the very first year* after Mr. Jay had made his treaty: Quarters. Wheat, - 104,760 Rye, .... 9,110 Barley, - 200 Oats, - l,80o Indian corn, - • - 8,573 jneaJ, (bushels) - 5,806 Barrel Flour, • 38,22: Meal, - . 65 1 Rice, - 4,06- Do. (bags) - . 1,02'| •t At)' : Ship bread, (bags) 93 , was the e *P«s8ion of censure confined to the nation, wc conr), h , US f lnjUr , i ^ Brhish Annual Re Si«er, noticing the conduct of our administration, expressed these emphatic semi- WW Th » USh llttle WaS J t0 , have been ex P ected from national ? ra- Mude ,t was supposed that national honor would have prevented the American government from seizing the opportunity, whilst ™ "; as ^“Sgiitig for a political existence, to throw the tinned States into the arms of its most potent enemy.” own r fl U ' dbe usel ?, s . s for me t0 comment upon those facts....vour all its rl f C 10 ^ S WJ T ? x P ose t ^ le conduct of our government in andtrfilvT ’%’. “ SU f ldent l ° sa ^’ . that ’ b > its h>P°crisy P y to Fiance, and tame subserviency to England the administration disgraced itself and involved'the country in all its subsequent embarrassments. - * ■*[ -Tnf ted - the "T Solemn en 8 a S eme nts with France, and by open °* them Validi * wi ^ n p n ! ‘, vio ! ate , d , th o >" s ?f nations, by entering into a treaty »uh England whilst it declined to enter into one with France'- JJ n , ng lnt ° ? n S a gcments hostile to those already in force : c, by interpreting our treaty with France, at its will, in ord-r to cover the violations of it.* ’ omer tr,, RtflcCt Up ° n , the rtlative conduct of France and England treated t US ’a, a r U P on .„ the condition of France when we thus r^rt r u W,U , 110t be astonished *at France ceased to ■n 1 r r . ] S hts ? or that our commerce became the prey of pec d raP e CU> - , ?° ^--.consequences could have bUex- P cted....we cajoled and injured the one, and submitted with disgrace to the outrages of the other. are n?b’5 ht m** reSt c! uestion ' under discussion, but there other evidences, deserving of your notice, which prove •... T ™ r present commercial embarrassments originated in the Whe" En ° f - ° Ur tW °f rSt ^ministrations^ England and Russia commenced, in 1793, their wa” Against neutral commerce, it has been alleged and never ha* ted Stated t’ a " d Denmark Proposed to the Uni- the richts of the ' V f h , tbem t0 su PP ort - with force if necessarv, me rights of the neutral flag....and that the American admin istration absolutely refused. Sweden and Demnari: then u,"e d rights° Wn f ° rCeS ’ alK SUCCeSsfu "y resisttd cbe violations of their -ourts^f Swe^l ^ Ul ' V, | IT 93 ’ p ' n K* and and Russia notified the ; r ts S en , and Denmark, that they had entered into en- «“L b : -“■* *• *• «- «tS * See appendix. „.E. 94 In the following month, Sweden and Denmark returned the following answers u As the independence of Sweden in a great measure depends Upon commerce, it is impossible that she can consent to any thing that can in the least impair it. The subsisting treaties must have in this respect their full and complete effect. It is expected, in consequence, that Russia will withdraw the orders it may have given to the commanders ol its vessels respecting the commerce of Sweden.” “ His majesty (the king of Denmark) could not guess the meaning of a declaration, that in no way concerns Denmark, nor of a proceeding which applies the principles and right ot blockade to situations which- preclude every idea of the kind. To restrict the commerce in grain, as it now subsists, is a thing quite insignificant to the cause which Russia has es¬ poused; but, it is not so to Denmark, because it involves a sacrifice of her rights, of her independence, and of hei trea¬ ties, which she intends to maintain . His majesty refrains from entering into a more serious examination of this subject, since Russia has thought proper to reject the only judge, whom Den¬ mark could acknowlege....namely, the common law of nations. Similar ansv r ers were returned to England, and thus Sweden and Denmark, although not in alliance, as we were, with Fiance, had the courage to assert their own rights: their declarations were followed by the employment of an armed force to protect their trade, which they did with complete effect. In the ear / • part of 1793, the British had captured a number of their ves¬ sels, but the British government was soon after not only com¬ pelled to compensate the injury already done, but to pledge \ themselves to respect the commerce of those powers in future , and, hence it is, that in the subsequent decrees of England, we , find Sweden and Denmark exempted from their most oppressive provisions;....whilst the commerce of the United States alone became the object for unrestrained plunder. Let me now contrast the conduct ol America w ith the abo\ e. On the 7th April, 1781, the principles of the armed neutrali- tif, of the preceding year, were solemnly and unanimously ^adopted by congress. In the letter of Mr. John Adams, to the states general oi Holland, urging them to join France in supporting America, he stated that the United States had adopted and never would abandon the principles of the armed neutrality . In all our treaties, prior to 1794-5, w r e incorporated those principles. We w ere more affected by the decrees of England and Rus¬ sia, than Sweden and Denmark together :....v r e were moie capa¬ ble of commanding respect tor our rights:....we had an immense commerce to maintain:. ...our intercourse with France v as more Advantageous than that with KncAmd-* , v. i character to establish, and the refpect of'ihT ’ i’ national m our revolution, to preserve by our conduct " 0rId ’. ^ired were robbed and grosslv insnLrl ccjncluctas a nation :....we demand redress:....and we were nlerL /! tain ’ a ? d bound to treaties, to serve instead of injurmg France ^ r”? by in our day of necessity and dimef- vet in’ ^ alI - y those obligations, our administration Jot’onlv mP f ° f aU sis C as Sweden and Denmark hnH ] i efused to re- acknowleged bv a tre-itv V * d d ° ne ’ but confirmed and our commerce to ruin Ind r ?' 7 Usur P ati °™ that subjected to the laws of nations to the ' °. ui . ltr -' to disgrace. Contrary and to our most1%antS e K PleS ° f ,*? ?™ ed "eutralit^ ed that the British mitrhttabe r ’ cul ' administration consent¬ ed naval store con?idVri^ thn'^ S { laden with Provisions agreed that a cdist or i 8 • T f rtlcles as contraband tion :....it agreed, that we michr h”) be b j? cIcade d l:i Y prociama- rying on during war, a Irade not ' 7 preVented f rom car. neglecting- to make nm 1 • • G P cn to us in peace: and, bv for*the sa?et y “fl% P a m °ir i^ Wh r Ve V n the ed them to impressment. * ’ h ^ ly cnmmaII 7 abandon- istration of Mr^JeffeSo^co^ 13617 t0 j d \ that with the adm hl- When he came into powe r heT"? the rUin ° f our trade * in every way that the commerr* 1 ?^ ° Ur CGmmerc e harassed it to devise:.he found the most ^ 0 , U i S ^ °* ? n 8 Iand induced of nations, the most solemn eno-oo- bacred P 1 maples of the laws essential rights of America °^ treatles > and the most decessors. And, if he did nm• ^ and sacr ^ced by his pre- tion, place the external affairs 0 /° 106 Course °* administra- ■condition as lie IcfiSrt^ in 33 P ros P«™ a hypocrisy, tameness, and wrfidl- of r“ was * bec ause the iad left him no alternative but 'to amt *^ ,n S administrations, ■rto resist it at some sacrifice. " ‘ l ° submt t0 outrage, the moment for resistant.. , ssailed in 1700; but instead of re° U i ri S hts we re first cquiesced in the injuries -md ,“ lstl . n S’ tbe administration Ur seamen were wi«C^ ou r own confrT f md ^ Wh «* artially plundered; when the neutral ° u f, P ropert y but av f joined us; then it wa- t u~ f ‘ . J tes of Europe would »ade with honor and with effect, j/t'! 7?. C ° U ' d h . av . e been uc ’» a host of British merrha + lad done so, it is very ■nunes; hut the honest Im L ric, "’° U,C T haVe made theh- .cted to ruin, or the lt?f •* n >vouId "« have been sub- tvattons would have been felr^P^u ' 3t t,lat time > s °me anporai y and would have been ’ JU , they ' l ' 0llld have been j.cnt safety. The opp 0 r tU nhv h-- P 7 COmpenSated b t subse- of 'bose who had ], een g’, . wa s not taken, “ the £en So, °mons in council, and Samp.. sons in combat, were cut off by the whore En Sj and ’’’;'; r ^^ f® nrt TO be wondered at that the commerce of the country was ruined when the government had lost the faculty of maintaining U Yt?seech those, therefore, whose fortunes have been ruined , maritime plunderers, to attribute their disasters to the policy mestic privations to the payment of foreign tribute. April 10, 1809. letter xviii. HAVING extended the discussion, cf the questions* . . i form th Q subject of these letters, to a much greatei Vnedh than I originally proposed; I will closest m the pre- ? letter ard endeavor to shew, from a review of what I sent letter, a^ nations, as well as men, have ad- haVe r n -mnrovma Ae r rc ative conditions:....*. That Eng- n C ln“e C t3yinterrupted this improvement That Te result of the preset war must be favorable.to the rights and interests of neutral and weak nations :....4. g ^ of our government to promote tus o^jc \ ( u f eac h other, We ^^S^ka^&e?ful. . . and o^P"';‘ S raotiveSi which induced men to associate in tribes T and to form nations, impelled them as nations to culti- tunes, u . , . N>ressarv and useful as tms con vate eommcmalinteixour m Ne«*«y that iguo “ controversies omens “““'T ly to regulate then cone . submit to moral re? sk assse* “svit',' 97 other, so far to imitate the example of men in society as to adopt a regular system of laws to protect the weak ,„a!/’ ■ ? aggression; they contented themselves with withdr-. - ° he rights and duties of states, in peace or in war? This im provement became rapid, as soon as the chanrtw f r m " u-as changed from military to commercial by X* ^cove^Tf the mariner s compass, and as soon as printing- beo-»n tn ^ ^ Md a civTv7 ati0nj i' 1 ad ™iced with the increase of commerce’ imposing character from thefeague of tt “ ’T * ^ and As earlV as the 14th centurv natLnl . " 6 ? and wars, practices characteristic of barbarism ; Ae^agre"^ hat the governments and armies of staffs oh i a ? a S[ eeci , mi .h» «h. people of e.eh ft" « « rade or industry of the other; they agreed that nriunt ' V nd property should be respected • and that- thl P p | rsons ral states should not be interrupted in their commerce and In’ ercourse with either bellie-erent- TKlc • merce and in- »». f „-sis"-; i. T ™"sr ae use or supremacy of physical force, and placed nationals m ely nearer, the happy condition of men in society, than thcv ad ever been before. But commercial avidity raised an almost ■surmountable obstacle to such improvements 1„ • • , a r s: , and ; 11 was therefore, not until the land wars of four ceT ries had taught Europe the benefits that followed the departure om the practices of barbarism that tl,e , 1 , . • departure kn ; n tyon . r inat tne determination was Aen m 1 / 80 , to confine the rig-hts of wnr rm „ • , • p lirviWt. i oi war on the ocean within ; marked th« hw™ from tSnf‘of je early ages ,*£ t^ ? f jvitzerland, theforcingof bmX at t d COaht ! ons lormed k her subsidies and intrigues - 1 • enor ar *d menaces of the declaration of the duke of t: wars'excfredTn La *V C ° mbined P°w?rs into France; from bm tf»p *• , , V^dee, and their assassin character- ’-•ndham aZTthe ^ larations °f her ministers, such as Pitt, Cund 'Burk ,L ft. f3ther of her Political morality ,» . a ,..f r ^ n ’n th< i war u ' a s a war helium ad internicic- 2 ‘ t n unsparing, desolating, exterminating. 1 l\r *«. / Se et . ters ’ * * iave endeavored to obtain truth and to 1 ed e and h S0 , UrCe deri ved * or whomsoever . con? 'Europe? hL a Iteafc iat ^ ° f a11 nations ITS, Which were found °PP° scd f be improvements, in maritime - but a sccondarc rcnt ^ C,aI NaturaI1 y hold- t rank among nations ’ l , U& maintained a place in the her ncio-fibor- and l - a cours p conduct destructive g s, and at variance with the rights of all in*- 98 . - I dependent states. A commercial monopoly has been neces¬ sary to her supremacy, and to attain this object she has constantly kept the nations of the continent of Europe at war, and has made the existence of war the pretext for annihi¬ lating the trade of neutrals. I have enumerated many facts, to prove that, Britain regards no other restraints than those of physical force, and that because her marine has been generady predominant, she asserts a right of giving law to all commer¬ cial states: in further evidence, that such are her dispositions, I quote the following sentiments, from the work of Mr. Charles Tenkinson, (the late earl of Liverpool) intended as a defence oi the rule of ’56, and other violations of neutral rights: u s tateR enjoy all the rights men did before they entered into society: an Individual in a state of nature has a right to protect his person and property, and if A. enters into a contest with B. ■t third person C. has no right to protect B., since he would thereby deprive A. of the right to destroy B. for his own safe¬ ty.” ' Such was the avowal of a man, who for fifty years had great¬ er influence in directing the maritime policy of Britain, thar all of its ministers. It was made at a time, when Englaiw was unopposed on the ocean, and explains in an emphatic man¬ ner, the principles by which she has always been goveined This acknowlegement is such as no man can misconstrue ; r avows that physical force is superior to moral obligations ; am it declares the"right of thatnation, which may be able, not onlj to exterminate its enemies by the sword, but to cut them oi from all intercourse with the rest of mankind. Nor was tin iniquitous and barbarous doctrine merely avowed, it has beei constantly acted upon: upon it were founded the decrees fo starving France, and all the subsequent measures down to th orders in council, and it is this doctrine which is urged in the pair phlet called War in Disguise , and other productions of the pre sent British ministry. . . To what disastrous consequences, this doctrine, if adopte by other states* would lead, every reflecting man must be abl to determine: if nations are as independent of control as mt in savage life, and have a right to regulate their will by the force, with what justice can Britain complain of the progress* France ? If it be right in England to issue an universal lai shutting up the ports and harbors, and forbidding trade betwe* any one nation and another ; if it be right in Britain to procku an intention to starve any nation, and to subject another natu -who may not be concerned in their dispute to outrage and pin der, for doing an act innocent in the eyes of morals and t law’ of civilized states ; if Britain asserts as a right and ma tains it by force, the blockading of whole continents by a m< arrogation of authority ; in what does this right consist, hovvr founded, whence derived, what are its limits, by what me; 99 i 3 it maintained? If it be law to-day, it must be also law 0 -mon-ow 5 if it be right in one nation, it must be also ri^ a ! ,0 ; her nation in similar circumstances; and it befnir founded on the power to dare and the means to effect it' It must remain so long as that pawer and will a.re united ■ but gnt as.erted by Britain, whenever any power obtains a forc- superior, a force adequate to destroy this right, then by the “ c ru tllat Britain now urges, it will be her duty to s”b' aj.t to the same fatal rigors. Apply the principle' hasn!‘ ranee as just a right to employ its power, in subjecting ti e hole continent to its yoke, as Britain has ’to exercise an « f f dominion on the ocean. The establishment, therefore ner UC stamof mT 0113 ^ rana >b w o«ld replace the world in its for¬ ma state of misery and barbarism; and perhaps the reitrsf fcdd be'tl 01 ! •. al British generations that are to come ,ew code of 6 laws'fo ' r'" ® yste !"’ b - v the establishment of a lew code ot laws lor civilized nations. But, fortunately, it is the interest of no other power bm ' itain to adopt such principles; every nation in Europe has '•aims that Lve"l tr ° dUC M ,n ™ arkime wars > the same res- es. Henrv IV ofTr T ° f , their fittest atroci- ussia, and Louis XVI. did honor to themselves a^d thefr emm- it tire peonlTof’f ab0l ‘ Sh P nvateerin g> and in fine to per- ude undent rr natlons at war, to pursue unmolested, the , and intercourse that existed durino; the neare nnd ^ ie hostilities to n * , ? uie peace, and to con- nostinties to the fleets and armed ships. Britain Aon- listed every overture of this kind ; and when in her ‘read t pTrntit the'r * reC ° Saize the ri g hts °f neutrals,' die did en sL mS not , ? V ' ar , d anxiet * t0 a moment, L also to vioW. U herseIf > *>M induce other War of 179 ^ -t s P lmci P^ es: and the circumstances of Ing her wilt’s SeA but Tu favoraUean occasion lor ful- trals, and prevailed on Russia whicTimd'T n g hts of ™ in 1780, to follow her vimrff S f° 7 d hnvp clno 1 1C1 exam P le * Subsequent events in- rert he h "t ;t ll, Cnt , ereCl the " al > "uh no ob eel ons- ^ the . des V' Uctlon of modern laws of ’most nn Sa f V i ln t ^ e su y u gati°n of France, the removal of' tv of SeutraE th?-ov m rtT' al ^ a PP'' ehended from they 7 neutrals the overthrow ot her monopoly. With, those 100 ' j views it was that she so eagerly promoted the coalitions of Pavia and Pilnitz:* hence it was, that when she sent the royalist ofh- cers of the French marine on an expedition to Quiberoon, she not only abandoned them on the French coast, but directed her ships to fire upon them; and when she burnt the naval arsenals, of Toulon, in contempt of the most solemn engagements, she pronounced both acts of perfidy and baseness, naval triumphs.} Hence it was, that Nelson declared it was the pleasure ol Eng¬ land that Spain should no longer have any trade ; and to this policy alone are we to attribute the destruction oi Copenhagen and the robbery of the Danish fleet....the outrages towards other European neutrals, and all the commercial misfortunes that have befallen our own country for the last sixteen years. 3 . If, therefore, the improvement of nations has been intei- ruptedif principles, so favorable to neutral and weak states, which were recognized in 1780, have ceased to operate, it is owing to the unprincipled means that Britain has so steacu 5 employed for their destruction, and not their abandonment b) the other nations of Europe. On the contrary, the war is nov, waged for an object palpable in itself, and in which all state:j have an interest. It is not to retain Malta, that hostilities ar< continued, since France lately offered to surrender it; it is no! to check the military career of Bonaparte on the continent since every campaign adds to his power: the real cause is..., Britain anticipates, among the earliest effects of peace, fror the genius and interests of the French government, not only successful competition in trade and manufactures, but a propc sal, to the civilized nations of the world, and an agreemer among all civilized nations to form such a maritime code s would put a period to her usurpation and tyranny on the seas. In the issue of the contest, therefore, all states, who have a interest in the freedom of navigation, are concerned. Tlj whole maritime history of Britain shews what would be tr result to weak states, if she were to succeed ; but the polict ar interests of France would make her triumph propitious to even neutral. In anticipating, therefore, the ultimate success « France, I am warranted in asserting that it will replace a 1 n * In a speech, delivered bv Mr. Pitt, in parliament, in the winter °f he said....“ It has been said,' that it is a war of extermination we are abou • undertake; ves, such is the war. Again, it is said, it depen s on our ■whether we Uve in peace with France....prudence commands us to live witl) French as enemies.” , , j f “ Shall I speak of the Quiberoon expedition, which no man, not clean honor, can think of without shame and horror ? An expedition, in which M lish blood was not shed, but in which British honor bled at every pore. Mr. Sheridan's speech in parliament....October o0 » « Every thing that has passed at Toulon, is scandalous and disgraceful to > arms and the English name. I would wish the world not to believe took that city and its marine under our protection, for the disgracelu pu p pf seizing the first opportunity to destroy them.” Mr. Fox's t beech.. ..yan. ci. I 101 tions in that progressive state of improvement, from which thev have been diverted by the interested views and machinations of Britain. Her expulsion from Spain, her affected but hollow concessions to our government, and the very pitiful manner in which these concessions are made, speak anmnWhn “ 1 ! respecting the issue of England’s hostilities: and happen^rnen 1 , ma ^’ on Jr ^ earliest consequences of peace will be the adoption of a system, founded upon the universal nrincinles n f justice and the rights of all nations, under S neutrals n^v und protection in all future wars. * £ ' 5 ,i In circumstances, therefore, in which our K overnmen< is placed, its conduct will become not only imponam to^ur of the’ n" ? f ° ther . state ?-. We have had experience enough i the unsettled state of maritime rirdif*? • tvp v, . ^ rests to secure; we have a character to establish,thoiXomewhai tarnished by our conduct from 1793 to 1800; we are destined to become the first commercial nation; it becomes us then * if do not take the lead in establishing a code for the future Guidance • p eS ’ at east to contribute to its establishment. The exne’ L m \:zi Hr 1 loss ’ p ;t th r we p- K capable of. anCemCnt * perfect, * as’ Zy advancecMn tm^ovelml'theirr^ecrion'in ’ land" 5S»etT eri t ° f barWi J ’ Proves that thTn^they warfare Sir W ' ' '"‘'v a h°hsh the abuses of maritime of Engbind scoff at th^’i T ZZ ° f thc relations of states • ancl thev t fu . rthe k r im P>-°vement, in the their sneers i!!? ’, r ,7 te , rm . 11 th e new philosophy; but tread of its realization” 3 C ^ lea absurd, only shew their tuting moralinsield of i . Z'Z ,tself IS . secured by substi¬ le induced tr> « ,P '. slca force; and if savage men could pomposed of civir^”) ^ tltmstlvcs to control, surely nations, rosed to receive the he T’ T* Z P r£ P ared > and "><« lations stand as l fi °, f association for mutual defence; iety is daere a,^ °‘ ,nutual support a * men in so- hey will unite in '"S' pteposterous, then, in supposing that 7 n ‘ tCln an association, for their general benefit? f'Mapeake! M '' Rr * ,n " ha ' 1 ofrt ' r ? d atonement for the murders or y,., Cottages were the foundations of cities and states ; so ueaties have been the basis of association among nations; but when treaties were first introduced, the pirates of Europe treated them as the advocates of England now treat the idea of a con¬ federation of nations, they were the nezv philosophy of that age; treaties, though violated in these days, in a manner beyond ex¬ ample, have not been exploded ; and although Britain has per¬ formed her part in bringing them into disrepute, they still re¬ main as links in the chain that unites civilized powers. But a confederation of nations for protecting weak states, is not merely a theoretical idea, or a matter of casual sug¬ gestion ; there have been confederations, and they have pro¬ moted all the objects, that laws accomplish in society. There had been repeated confederations of states, in Europe, for the regulation of continental concerns, prior to the famous league of 1780; but as the latter was formed for maritime purposes, it is the most remarkable : England ought not to have doubted the efficacy of confederations, after having been compelled by that of 1780 to abandon, with disgrace, her piratical deprecia¬ tions upon neutral commerce ; she cannot dispute their efficacy, .since she sent two expeditions, in the course of the present war, to frustrate the objects of northern confederacies, lhe politicians who deal in mystery, and who wish to afford a lati¬ tude for any course of conduct, call partial confederacies ba¬ lances; and thus the balance of pcxver is one of the cabalistic phrases of this class ; their own measures afford the best expo¬ sition of their using a figure of speech wholly unappropriate ; when the whole of Europe was raised in arms against France, it was to support the balance of power; now the dominion ot the sea is the balance of power; but an association or confede¬ ration for giving freedom on the seas, is called despotism ; ut it is the despotism of just law against crimes and criminals; and it is to be desired, as it appears to be realised in our times, that all civilized states would establish a code of laws for their general and common observance.* J It is evident, therefore, that states, like men, stand in need of mutual protection ; that they are more likely to form a soci- etv for supporting the weak and punishing aggression, than men were when they passed from a savage to a civilized state; that states have advanced in this important improvement, and that they have reaped the advantages anticipated. As in society. * A new paradox, but of the same equivocal generation, lias been started while this sheet is at press; which is in the following curious paragraph ^ “ The balance of power, which for three centuries prevented the destruction o any one independent state by violent means, and exhibited before the dismem¬ berment of Poland, nineteen distinct powers ol the most unequal strength i> to be ascribed, not to the moderation or to the jealousy of the tour great rivals, Put to what may be termed, an equilibrium of weakness in their military const m ' fiOJTS. 10:3 nations have the power to recall then T shewn ’ that »-# r ::sa t - F t^ us.# re ' enue 01 ln « nation that has injured ditW ^ in^^IT'T n£'° C! ? im ’ the misei ‘ abIe con- society ; let them pursuing* t’^ i - co:n P ara j lv e happiness of tions also the blessFngs of associa^io^^n^if'tl l ° ” a ' move the inclination let them H™ ° ’ , the >' cannot re- to profit by the weakness of others. ‘ ^ Str ° D8 ' ° f aU P owe,! > ) 1 ‘ April 28 , 1809 . t'.at “5- E “ offers were accepted = to the impolitic cnr.ciac* cf fr e -{" bo flt,riI ™t<‘d in a great V I APPENDIX. A. “* explain so forcibly the EE» IV. am indUCed t0 add > “ * -te .o P t,“ h ?h better, a'brkf afte; v ^rh d ?"kt v! ;Sh re “ the earl!est <*?«, sian government in an attempt to maintaTn tL marl^'T rat r 0n ° f ^ Rus " proposal was, after some time, assented to by Russia for the British S ' The as tyrannical a control over her commerce as over that nf q British exercised Accordingly, on the 16th August 1800 Rn\J, ^Sweden or Denmark. tablishing the following principles of the armed neuSy Inra™? 101 '* rC eS ’ on the coasts of belligerent nations. 3 d fr ° m ° ne port t0 another » -nt-band, belonging to subjects of belligerents, “ 3- The denomination, a blockaded port shall hp i * i when the disposition and power of the blockading ships shdl bel.Ch^^ ° niy der it apparently hazardous to attempt to enter ° " h as to ren ' re^ly «sed“ **" UnderSt °° d to “ «“* only as are di. ° f a shi P’ s W°» only, and A convention, for maintaining those principles wnn the princi- B. .CONDUCT TO AMERICANS WHEN THEY WERE COLONISTS OF / xSKI i AIN. . Besides imposing duties on American exports and imports the 1 • • jSrel'event "° rth °‘ S articles as Britain could not furnish So that a m - 0t bUy * ° r t0 P urchase such on the ^ S32 CONDUCT TO IRELAND. to father-in-law, James II. one of the articles of agreement nronosed tn 1 L that he should destroy the woollen trade of Ireland, in order that that brancTof j n En ^ land: William assented, and thus were tl^ Irish, whilst tributaries of England, forced to abandon the woollen trade and en ^age in the linen trade, because the former interfered with the interest ’ of Fn”: and, and because the manufacture of linen had not succeeded there. " * c c. 4n£r r were ui he Immane instructions, given by Russia to admiral ‘ co,lforniabl y t0 its treaty with England, of March, 1793 : We have ordered a fleet, of 25 sail of the line and frigates, to be equipped *«"» months and put under your command. A * Principal duty of our naval armament consists in what follows- We re bound according to our stipulations with his majesty the kin- of Great Bri am to endeavor to prevent these French, who persist in tlieh i^belhon fnim ~ eiwng a:i) supplies ot which they may be in need. The hostile measures mployed agamat them, are not strictly conformable to the natural laws of war* f e . n 1 un 01 tuuately takes place between nations under lawful government • but 1 dutie m H aSUreS i are tak f n agaInst th0se villains, who^o^£i£d t iafiTnf t t0 r t f G °r d ’ ; lle laws ’ a,,d the g»—nt, who have ™e„ lose vilkina hC ,“ e “' T" soverei g'>- -the means of punishing > d insure success i,"sW] 1 ^ interruption of trade with that country and its depend-rems- , ,,-1 ' } . tlU : from the following among other facts. ' ^pena.ncies, may he conceived The exports, in 1796, for France and colonics, from the nnrt of pi ;p i ’ i • alone, amounted to 4,185,431 dollars. " 1 J 1 °* 1 hiladelphui In 1/ 98, tobacco sold in Britain at from 4 to 5 dollars n—f no • ' ^nce it sokl at from 40 to 50 dollars : rice sold in Britain at 6 or 7 shPhntr * vvhilst m France it sold at 40 livres. The profit nr diffm-or,™ • • ’ u-ticles, was made by British merchants licensed to sell tiiem^V Finn’—^ hat we were duped by a “ British party” at horn- i n order t o ti,.5J . m > f our ex Port trade to France into British coffer* ’ ‘ ‘ ° WtllC P rofits In the year ending October, 1806, the commerce of the United States w-s cv " Th, m“ alo “ “ "' 6 did t0 Gr< -’ at Britain and her colordes ^ ^ } “ The total amount of our exports m that year was 101,313 386 doll vs Of this we exported to Britain and dependencies . ' eg 9 bc!n .? “‘holic at tlms violates the rights of their em ' *? su .PP° rt t,le very government, mmerce. 8 thc “ C0unu 7> «the best branch of then- That all this loss of trade is efTer-tp/l K«r +i l/3 r> , . ' whilst the French decrees -u-r- . >. !? order S no man can doubt, aintain a constant intercourse with Prit^ 1 ~ iarn) ^ss, and whilst oiu- slops •t for a port in FrancTor HoUand ’ ^ ^ vessel da ™ to cleir ; onishment at our country^for^IirrcndcF 110 ^ ~ V ° id ex P rcssin g‘ tlie utmost luths of our export trade’ S " ^ V ’ lthout a struggle, £earlv three. *ed population of ^ L * * tCrC0UMC ™ th three-fourths of the du¬ ll,887,501 2,521,995 5,096,490 G. • Chaw, .fcccA on the Fall-land Uland^tion. . No« micr 13 , lrro . 'ipted ^regulate''itas™ rHd In" .‘‘' “p 1 ' !i ritidi ships j and when they a ‘ ' * ■ ' ’ I »r \ * * - 7 ! ft n < » S * . . .J| ft ' 9 - ♦•+ -i | I * ' . REPORT A DEBATE, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON A RESOLUTION FOR RECOMMENDING TO THE LEGILATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES, AN AMENDMENT TO THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF THE FIRST SECTION OF THE SECOND AR¬ TICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, RELATIVE TO THE MODE OF ELECTING A PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE SAID STATES. BY WILLIAM -DUANE. COPY RIGHT SECURED ACCORDING To ACT OF CONGRESS. ) PRINTED BY WILLIAM DUANE, No. 106, MARKET STREET. 1804 OSBl^FiX^i ogam REPORT OF A DEBATE. Mr. Clinton of New York, after a few prefatory ob¬ servations on the necessity of designating* the persons severally, whom the people should wish to hold the of¬ fices of President and Vice President of the United States, and stating that the state which he represented, as well as others of the union, had through the medium of their legislatures, strongly recommended the adop¬ tion of the principle, laid on the table the following mo¬ tion, which he read ; and it was made the order of the day for the next day, and printed. Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representa¬ tives of the United States of America, in Congress as¬ sembled, Two thirds of both Houses concurring, That the following amendment be proposed to the le¬ gislatures of the several states as an amendment to the constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three fourths of the said legislatures, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said consti¬ tution, to wit : That the third paragraph of the first section of the second article of the constitution of the United States, in the words following, to wit : u The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least, shall not be an inha¬ bitant of the same state with themselves: And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each, which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate : The President of the Senate shall, in the pres¬ ence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted : The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an ( 4 ) equal number of votes, then the House of Representa¬ tives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list, the said house shall in like manner choose a President: But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the rep¬ resentation from each state having one vote ? A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice: In every case af¬ ter the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President ; but if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President,” be expunged from the constitution, and that the following paragraph be inserted in lieu thereof; to wit ? The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves ; they shall name in distinct ballots, the per¬ son voted for as President, and the person voted for as Vice President; and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice President, and of the number of votes for each ; which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit seal¬ ed to the seat of government of the United States, direct¬ ed to the President of the Senate. The President of the senate shall, in the presence of the senate and house of representatives, open ail the certificates, and the votes shali then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors ap¬ pointed, and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House ot Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot, one of them for President ; and if no person have a majority, then from the highest on the list, the said house shall, in like manner, choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote : a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a mem¬ ber or members from two thirds of the states, and a ma¬ jority of all the states shall be necessary for a choice. The person having the greatest number of votes for Vice- President, shall be Vice President ; and in case of an ( 5 ) equal number of votes for two or more persons for Vice- President, they being the highest on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice President from those having such an equal number; a quorum for the purpose shall con¬ sist of two thirds of the whole number of senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. OCTOBER 22 . The order of the day being called for on Mr. Clinton’s motion of the preceding day a desultory conversation took place, during which Mr. Butler offered another amend¬ ment, the object of which was to limit the service of an v person chosen as president, to two successive periods of four years, this and some other verbal amendment were finally referred to a select committee, namely, Mr. But¬ ler, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. S. Smith, to report and consider thereon. MONDAY, OCTOBER 24 . Mr. Butler chairman of the committee to whom was referred the propositions for amending the constitution, made report, which being read. Mr. Dayton moved to strike out all that relates to the office of vice president, which after a short desultory debate was lost. OCTOBER 25 . On motion ordered that the amendments to the consti¬ tution yesterday reported by the committee be the order of the day for to-morrow. OCTOBER 28 . The clerk of the house of representatives informed the senate, that they had passed a resolution for an amendment to the constitution, for designating the choice of president and vice president, to which they desire the concurrence of the senate. NOVEMBER 10 . Mr. Bradley stated in his place that the legislature of the state of Vermont had passed a resolution, that it is highly important that an alteration should take place in the second article of the constitution of the United States, which prescribes the mode of choosing a presi¬ dent and vice president and that a copy of the said resolu¬ tion should be sent to their senators and representatives in congress respectively and the resolution being read, it was moved That the senate do now proceed to the consideration of the report of the committee, made on the 24th of October ( 6 ) last, on an amendment to the constitution of the United States, respecting the election of president and vice-pre¬ sident. The question being required it passed in the negative—Yeas 9— Nays 22. The names being called for to the yeas and nays by one fifth of the senators present they stood as follows. YEAS, Messrs. Anderson, Hillhouse, Tracy Butler, Olcort, Wells, Dayton, Plumer, White—9 Yeas NAYS. Messrs. Adams, Ellery, Potter, Bailey, Franklin, Israel Smith, Baldwin, Jackson, John Smith, Bradley, Logan, Stone, Brackenridge, Maclay, Taylor, Brown, Nicholas, Washington, Cocke, Pickering, Wright—22 Nays. Cendit, [It may be proper to explain the apparent contradiction, in those who had been advocates for the amendment op¬ posing to come to the immediate consideration. The lact is that by the resignation of Mr. Clinton a few days before there was not a certainty of two thirds of the votes present, as may be seen by the above votes. The advo¬ cates of the amendment therefore, wished to gain time so as to obtain the accession of some absent members— daily expected.] NOVEMBER 16. It was moved and agreed that the further consideration of the report of the committee to whom was referred the motion for amendments to the constitution of the United States respecting the election of president and vice president; and also the resolution of the house of representatives., on the same subject, be the order of the day for Monday next. NOVEMBER 23. The senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee to whom was referred the motion for an amendment to the constitution, in the mode of electing the president and vice president of the United States whereupon the president pro tern. (Mr. Brown) submit¬ ted to the consideration of the senate the following ques¬ tion cf order. a When an amendment to be proposed to the constitution is under consideration , shall the concurrence of two thirds of the members present , be requisite to decide any question for amendment .?, or extending to the merits , being short cf the final question C 7 ) A debate took place on this proposition, tedious intri¬ cate and aesultory which it was very difficult to follow and often to comprehend. ' ana Mr. Adams was of opinion that on all questions in Volrm S ; !ie amendment two thirds of the votes were Subject. n ° C 011 mj ° fthe forms of Proceedings on the Mr. Dayton thought two thirds necessary on all defend! 15 here as wel1 in a *** **4* as tr rs Mr. Franklin differed altogether from the last snenK er, e considered all the preliminary proceeding previous to the ultimate vote, subject to the dSf a!1 ordinar >- majority, the motion here is a should 1 smon involving the mode of proc^edine* in tb\t if P and could not affect the final vote 11 h ? USe ; which must be carried by two thirds The amendment v,iJl come fairly before the house for discussion “vole s, ™P’ nowhe was question, bv dec lari n «• tJ , , ^ ddy settIed this to establish its own rules hr SlmUbecom P etcnt necessary, and it was Hr J f f 6 nature of things ceedings the simplest & ^ mlertaat m legislative pro- would apply a clumsy annai* 7^ *!?? m ° St eli ^ ibIe — who ficient was at hand ? ^ T' ** atlls w hde one simple andsuf- (Mr. Franklin) had madrth^" 116 ™^*'' 01 " N ' Carolina bore no analogy to form, r / P^Per distinction ; treaties proteedmg—^we may object ( 8 ) to a treaty in the whole or in part, even after it has been negociated and communicated to us by the proper autho¬ rity. How we shall proceed upon measures originating with ourselves is a different subject. . Mr. Dayton never suggested that we have no right to form rules for our own proceedings—he did not consider the question itself so much a constitutional one as of expediency. . Mr. Hillhouse—. it was a matter of indifference to him how the house proceeded on the question, so that the rules of the senate may not be embarrassed -the question appeared to him now to be principally the best mode of taking up the subject for diliberation. Mr Taylor _the gentleman from Jersey (Mr. Dayton; has acknowleged and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr Hillhouse) have concurred in the sentiment, that this amendment is not so much a constitutional question as one of expediency and form. In this view the gentle¬ men must consider that they cannot take from the vice president a right which he possesses to a constitutional equalitvin the election, as the constitution declares (ait. II.§ I.) that the president “shall hold his office during tc t h e term of four years, and together with the vice presi- “ dent, be chosen for that term.” No right of expedien¬ cy can find room in this place ; if there is any, gentlemen will of course shew it. The gentleman from Pennsylva¬ nia (Mr. Maclay) had felt no doubt on his mind on the subject. . , , , . ... Mr. Butler it never was intended by the constitu¬ tion that the vice president should have a vote in altering the constitution, whatever of the arguments of gentlemen relate to that point falls to the ground. The question now before the house is whether when a general proposition is brought up, shall the same number of two thirds be requisite to decide upon its admission as upon the subse¬ quent and perfecting vote. In his opinion the same number was necessary. So on a motion formerly made bv a gent lemaff from Jersey (Mr. Dayton) for striking out all that related to the vice president he thought two-thirds were necessary when a vote of that kind, as the sti iking out would go to an alteration of the constitution. On minute alterations of the letter or phraseology which di not involve the principle perhaps a simple majority would be sufficient. . Mr. Cocke considered the house as competent to tne formation of its own rules; and was opposed to this ( 9 ) new mode of proceeding, evidently calculated only to embarras. Mh. Hillhouse thought the decision on this question perfectly analogous to the cases which arise on treaties. Suppose that two thirds of the senate present concur with the proposition of the bill now before the senate from the house of representatives, and a majority agree to strike out apart. Mr. AV right— -gentlemen cannot or will not keep it in mind that the proposition before the house is not an altera¬ tion of the constitution, but the formation of a proposition upon which two-thirds of the house must ultimately de¬ cide and after which decision must go to the several states and depend for its final adoption upon three-fourths of the states. It does not, as the gentleman from Connec¬ ticut (Mr. Hillhouse) seems to assume require two-thirds of the senate to prepare and propose an amendment to a treaty ; it is the principal confirmation or ratification only that requires two-thirds. Gen. Jackson was not averse to a postponement ; tho* he did not approve of the idea of the gentleman from Jersey, (Mr. Dayton) concerning the abolition of the vice president’s office. If the senate would postpone, a committee might be appointed who would search for precedents and report by Monday, or on some other day. He moved to postpone—seconded by Mr. Bradley —lost, ayes 15, noes, 16. Mr. Pickering —.there appears to me so close an analogy between the proposed amendment and the case of treaties, that it ought to govern. The striking out of a pai t of the constitution must be considered as an amend¬ ment, for if a part is struck out it is no longer the same thing—he did not approve of subjecting a constitution to repeated alterations. Mr. Israel Smith— This appears to be a very im¬ portant constitutional question ; and in fixing the princi¬ ple care is requisite, though he did not see why it should not be done as early as possible. All our details of bills go thro’ the forms of reading and engrossing ; they are read and considered section by section and clause by clause, so that nothing shall be admitted but by a majority. 1 nen why not in the debates of an amendment use the same precautions ; if you admit amendments to the con¬ stitution by a common majority, it appears that there is not the same precaution. B ( 10 ) Mr. Taylor —the gentleman’s arguments were entitl¬ ed to was answer ; but a short one would be sufficient. The analogy with treaties is no more perfect than that with relation to ordinary legislative acts. Treaties originate with the executive, with a power of which there is always entertained a salutary jealousy. On the other hand a law must have the consent of the president after it has passed both houses, if the president refuses his consent the „ whole is incohate, and two thirds of both houses may non- obstant pass the law without that consent; and here only the cases are analogous ; we may proceed to give a law perfection in its preliminary stages, so may w 7 e discuss an amendment; but to the ultimate perfection of the thing two thirds are required. If the doctrine held by some gentlemen were to prevail, it would difficult ever to amend the constitution be its imperfections ever so great. Mr. Hillhouse was convinced by the arguments of the gentleman from Vermont, (Mr. T. Smith) that this was a question of the first magnitude. In the case ol a law to which the President denies his concurrence, when it is returned to both houses, no amendment can be made thereto, it must pass altogether by two thirds or is lost. Again, if you w ere to move to strike out a part of the amendment, it would appear by the vote on your journals, that the question had not been decided by two thirds.— In the passage of laws it is understood that ail parts of a law must have a majority of votes, but it is also well un¬ derstood that different parts of the same law will not ob¬ tain the same number of votes, and that some will vote against particular parts who approve of the rest ; yet that the whole must have a majority. He never doubted that a proposition for an amendment may be admitted by a majority for discussion ; but it was no more a conclu¬ sion that two thirds were not necessary on a vote involv¬ ing the principle during the discussion, because there was to be a final vote, than that two thirds would not be necessary on the last vote here, because it is not final in relation to the other house. Mr. Anderson proposed to postpone to to-morrow. Mr. Tracy also wished to postpone to next day. Mr. Nicholas hoped the question would be decided before the house rose—and as it was a simple question of order be wished the wholesome rule of the other house to be pursued, to decide the questions of order without debate. ( n ) The question to postpone being taken was lost Aves 14 Noes 16. The proposition offered by the presidentwas then called up for decision—.whether two thirds were necessary Ayes 13—Noes 18. Mr. Butler desired to know from the president if the question now decided did not require a majority of two thirds. 1 he President said according to rule of the house, the question required only a principal majority to decide it. Mr. Dayton’s motion for striking out what related to the vice president was called for and the question taken on striking out—.Ayes 12—.Noes 19. 1 he report ol the committee at large being then under consideration. Mr. Nicholas moved to strike out all following the Thh line of the report to the end for the purpose of inser¬ ting the following. u a h future elections of president, and vice presi¬ dent, the electors shall name in their ballots the person voted for as president, and in distinct ballots, the person voted for as vice president, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. The person voted for as president, having a majority of the votes of all the electors appointed, shall be the president; and if no person have such majority, then from the three highest on the list of those voted for as president, the house of representatives shall choose the president in the manner directed by the constitution. The person having the greatest number of votes as vice president, shall be the vice president; and in case of an equal number of votes for two or more persons for vice president, they being the highest on the list, the senate shall choose the vice president from those having such equal number, in the manner directed by the constitution; but no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president, shall be eligible to that of vice president of the United States.” Mr. Adams objected to number three instead of 5, and wished five to he restored as the house of represen¬ tatives had already agreed to it—he asked for a division ol the question—which was not agreed to. Uj)on the question for striking out being put it was carried without a dissenting voice, and the amendment of Mr. Nicholas adopted in the report, leaving the number blank. ( 12 ) Mr. Dayton moved to fill up the blank with the num¬ ber five—upon the question being put it was lost only eleven rose in the affirmative. Lost Mr. Anderson moved to strike out the word two in nineteenth line—-Ayes 6—Lost. Gen. S. Smith then moved to fill the blank with the word three which was carried—Ayes 18 to 1.3. Mr. Adams suggested an objection to the amend¬ ment as it stood which appeared to arise out of the trea¬ ty of cession of Louisiana. His original idea was ad¬ verse to the limitation to natural born citizens as super¬ fluous ; but as it stood the terms upon which Louisiana was acquired had rendered a change necessary, for it appeared to him that there was no alternative, but to ad¬ mit those born in Louisiana as well as tnos<~ born in the United States to the right of being chosen for president and vice president. Mr. Butler said that if there w r as a numerous portion of those vffio were already citizens of theU. S. who can never aspire to nor be eligible for those situations under the constitution, he did not see how this supposed alter¬ native could be upheld. The people of Louisiana, under the treaty and under the constitution will clearly come under the description of naturlized citizens. While he was up he would take the opportunity of speaking to the question at large, and to examine the motives which pro¬ duced this amendment; the principal cause of solicitude on this subject he understood to be the base intrigues which were said to have been carried on at the presidential election. Mr. Wright called to order—.and a short altercation on the point of order took place. Mr. Butler proceeded.—He had on a former day asked if he might in this stage of the discussion take a view of the wffiole subject—the house had decided in the affirmative. When the proposition was first laid before the house, he had felt a disposition in favor of it; his mind had been shocked by those base intrigues, which had taken piace at the late presidential election, and he was hurried by indignation into a temper which a little cool reflection and some observation on a particular mode of action in that house, had checked and correct¬ ed, and finally convinced him that much caution was re¬ quired in a proceeding of that nature, and that in all human .probability such a scene of intrigue may never occur / ( 13 ) again, that it became questionable whether any steps whatever were necessary. Upon a careful review of the subject, it appeared to him that an alteration might make matters worse ; for though at present there has been afforded, by a course of accidents and oversights, room for intrigue, it would be preferable to leave it to the care and discretion of the states at large to pre¬ vent the recurrence of the danger, than put into tiie hands of four of the large states the perpetual choice of president, to the exclusion of the other thirteen states. It was a reasonable principle that every state should in turn have the choice of the chief magistrate made from among its citizens.—— The jealousy of the small states was natural ; and he wouid not tire the house by bringing to their ears, ar¬ guments from the history of Greece, because the sub¬ ject must be familiar to every member of that house, and indeed to every school boy. He would not weary them with the painful history of the conflicts of Athens and Sparta, ror the supremacy of Greece, and the fa- .al effects their quarrels and ambition on the smaller states oi that inveterate confederacy of republics.—* 1 lieir history is that of all nations in similar cir¬ cumstances—for man is man in every clime, and Passion mingles in all his actions—if the smaller states were to agree to this amendment, it would ix for ever the combination of the larger states,— md they would not only chuse the president but the vice >resident also in spite of the smaller states. It would ill jecome him who had been a member of that convention vhich had the honor ol forming the present constitution o let a measure such as the present pass without the most Icliberate in\estigation 01 its effects. JBefore the present onstitution was adopted all the states held ail equal vote >n ail national questions ; by the constitution their sove- eiguty was guaranteed, and the instrument of guarantee nd right he had subscribed his name to as a representative S. Caiolina, and had used all the zeal and influence of ^hich he was possessed to promote its adoption. To give us assent to any violation of it, ©r any unnecessary inno- ° n * ts principles would be a deviation from morality, lie had heard it said with confident boldness that ex¬ perience had shewn the necessity of amendment—and rat t e Constitution had already undergone correction, hat gentlemen should shew him that healing a wound ( 14 ) ✓ and cutting off a limb were operations not ofa different na¬ ture and different degrees of danger. He did not mean, nor did he apprehend that the proposed amendment would cut off any state in the union, but he was persuaded that it would cut off the weight, and the influence of many of the small states. He had been told that the people of the United States called for this amendment. How had this sense been collected ? It was a difficult matter to collect their sense; the great variety of habits, the diversity of cli¬ mates, the space over which they are spread; the differ¬ ent modes of education, and way of thinking, all ren¬ der it difficult to ascertain the general sentiment, and he who says the people at large wish for this amendment, in my judgment hazards greatly the respectability of cha¬ racter. It is urged that the people did feel great indignation at the scenes which were exhibited in the house of repre¬ sentatives on a former election—and that tiie people might be hurried into strong and dangerous measures to prevent the recurrence of scenes so disreputable to repuolican government. But if the people knew and would see all the points tending to one extreme line, they would take care to enquire whether in endeavouring to avoid a weather shore they had not forgotten the lee one. If the people are to have a master, Mr. president, it is indifferent whether they are to be bowed down by an insolent individ¬ ual oligarchy or a proud and haughty aristocracy of states ; if in the change of masters, the only change that is ex¬ perienced is a change of habits. But where, sir, is the danger of letting the choice ul¬ timately go to the legislatures. If there is danger it is cer¬ tainly wrong to send it to any legislature ; yet we find the constitution admits of considerable legislative autho- ritv in the organization of various constitutional powers; the fact carries with it some evidence of the prin¬ ciples of that instrument. What is the purport of this amendment but to cut off a part of that solemn com¬ pact the result of four long months deliberation, where low ambition or the pride of states never found admission, and where disinterested patriotism and the light of virtue only found access.—But sir, there are motives operating in this body and pro¬ moting this amendment, which, though not promi¬ nent are powerful; it is said if you do not alter the con- ( 15 ) stitution, the people called federalists “will send a vice- piesklent into tnat chair; and this in truth is the pivot upon which the whole turns. When we were as re¬ publicans out of power, did we not reprobate such con¬ duct r Shall w r e then do as they did? Shall we revive party heat? No, he hoped not; but that by a just and mild policy we should evince that we would do as w© would be done by. a he question was immediately taken on the report and carried—Ayes 20—Noes 11. iVlr. Adams said that though he had voted for the amendment he disapproved of the alteration from Jive to un ee. He felt, however, though a representative of a large state, a deep interest in this question-—was there no champion of the small states to stand up in that house and vindicate their rights. Mr. Dayton was not here as champion of the small s«.ates but as the representative of one of them he w as ready to enter his protest against being delivered over bound hand and foot to four or five of the large states_ 1 he gentleman from South Carolina had offered argu- ' ments on the subject irrefutable. The little portion of influence left us he has demonstrated to be now about to be taken away, and the gentleman from Massachu¬ setts, (Mr. Adams) after aiding the effort with his vote, has taken mercy upon us and after he has helped to knock us down, asks us why w r e do not stand up for our¬ selves. Gkn. S. Smith was not surprized to find those wdio v ere members of the old congress, in which the subject of large and small states was frequently agitated, familiar w ith the subject of those days. Under the present con¬ stitution he had been ten years in congress and had never heal’d the subject agitated nor the least ground given for any apprehension on this subject; he had seen the small states possess all the advantages secured to them with¬ out even a moment’s jealousy. The state he represent¬ ed, was once considered a large state, the encrease of others in population, however, had rendered it properly belonging to neither class; it was an intermediate state • out lrom the natural progression of the union it must oe ranked among the small states. In this view then he could speak dispassionately, and the small states could not with reason be apprehensive that a state, vduch must speedily take rank among them, could be I ( 16 ') indifferent to their rights if there were the least cause for apprehension. . . He had moved for the insertion of three instead of five • with this precise and special intention— that the fieoflic themselves should have the power of electing the president and vice president; and that intrigues snould be thereby for ever frustrated. The intention of the convention was that the election of the chief officers of the government should come as immediately from the people as was practicable, and that the legislature should possess the power, only in such an exigency as accident might give birth to but which they had not considered as likely to occur. Had it not been for these considera¬ tions the large states never would have given up the advantages which they held in point of numbers. If the number five were to be continued, and the house of re¬ presentatives made the last resort, he would undertake to sav that four times out of five the choice w ould de- volve' unon them. Diminish the number to three and the compromise of two and two between the opposing parties which has heretofore prevailed will be superce- ded bv an opposition of one on each side for president and a third between both for vice president. '1 he ques¬ tion of small and large state interests is not at all, in¬ volved in this question; it is a mere matter of imagina¬ tion; and if it were at all real, it would perhaps be found to operate differently from what is supposed— There are many of the states which are now small m reference to their population, which must already mel thftj influence, if any exists of their being very soon lixely to become large States—Georgia, Tennessee and Ken¬ tucky were of this description; in less than ten years these states will be larger than many now cahed large states _and their circumstances alone would be a^ suffi¬ cient guard against those dangers apprehended.- He would be one of the last to doubt the virtue and the wisdom which framed the present constitution; but like other gentlemen, he was aware of the fallibility of the wisest of mankind ; the founders of that constitution had tauq-ht him the important lesson, for they had pro- vided in"that instrument, a remedy for their own inex¬ perience or fallibility ; and time has in this instance, as in numerous others, proved their uncommon wisdom, for evils have arisen which though they could not lore- see, they have provided the means to correct them >— C 17 ) they could not have foreseen the danger to which the country was exposed at the late election ; they could not have believed that at so short a distance from the foundation of the constitution,, the country escaped from a civil war, only from the prevalence of that kind tern- per and magnanimity in the legislature, which prevailed in the convention itself. And shall we not do ail that is in our power to avoid the recurrence of similar danger. Had the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Butler,) been present at that critical period, he would have felt, as many oi his friends felt, a serious and restless anxie¬ ty Two candidates before the House, partv spirit high- the one determined to support the candidate up¬ on whom public affection and confidence had unequivo¬ cally centered, the other seeking to place in the execu¬ tive chair, not a candidate of their original choice, but a candidate through whom they wished"to retain at least a share of power; unsuccessful in that effort bringing forward a proposition to create a president—and how, by a law to be passed for the purpose, and in which the person was to be named. Leaving the votes and choice oi the people out of consideration altogether. Had this been effected, what other result would follow, but civil war. W ithout pretending to be in the counsels of ei¬ ther party on that occasion, he believed that civil war was seriously apprehended, and so much so, that he felt per¬ fectly convinced, that had a choice been made in the v.ay proposed, and a person could be found to accept it, that his head would not have remained on his shoulders lor twenty-four hours afterwards. Dangers of this kind . was so l lc itoiis to avoid ; and by that mild, and be¬ nignant mode provided by the constitution, that of amendment to the constitution. Mr. Hillhouse. In avoiding rocks he feared we were steering for quicksands. The evils that are past w e know ; tnose that may arrive we know not. The Dbject proposed is to provide against a storm, pheno¬ menons not rare or unfrequent in republics. You are ailed upon to act upon a calculation that all the states n the union will vote for the same persons, or that each two parties opposed in politics will have an individual candidate. Suppose the two candidates who had the u^hest votes on the late election had been the cham- uons of two opposite parties, and that neither would ecede, what then would be the consequence ; according C ° ( 18 ) ✓ to the gentleman from Maryland, a civil war ! When men are bent on a favorite pursuit, they are too apt to shut out all consequences which do not bear out their object. Thus gentlemen can very well discover the danger they have escaped, but they do not perceive that the op¬ position of two powerful candidates, gives beside the hazard of civil war, the hazard of placing one of them on a permanent throne. The first magistracy of this nation is an object capable of exciting ambition ; and no doubt it would one day or other be sought after by dan¬ gerous and enterprizing men. It was to place a check upon this ambition that the constitution provided a com¬ petitor for the chief magistrate, and declared that both should not be chosen from the same state. Here also was a guard against state pride, and this guard you wish to take away ; and what will be the consequence ? Instead of two or three or five, you will have as many candidates as there are states in the union. By voting for tw r o persons without designation, the states stood a double chance of a majority, besides the chance of a majority of all the states in the house of representa¬ tives. For once or twice there may be such an organ¬ ization of party as will secure for a conspicuous character the majority of votes. But that character cannot live always. The evil of the last election will recur and be greaterbecause the whole field will be to range in. He hoped this amendment would not be hastily adopt¬ ed, the subsisting mode was the result of much delibera¬ tion and solemn compromise, after having long agitated the convention. It is now attacked by party ; whatever gentlemen may say to the contrary ; the gentleman from South Carolina has confessed it. If gentlemen will suffer themselves to lock forward without passion great good may come from the present mode; men of each of the parties may hold the two principal offices of the govern¬ ment; they will be checks upon each other; our govern¬ ment is composed of checks ; and let us preserve it from party spirit which has been tyrannical in all ages. These checks take off the fiery edge of persecution. Would nbtone ofa different party placed in that chair tend to check and preserve in temper the ever heated zeal of party ; he would conduct himself with firmness because of the minor party; he would take care that the majority should have jus¬ tice, but he would also guard the minority from oppression. If we cannot destroy party we ought to place every check 9 ( 19 ) upon it. Ifthe present amendment pass nine out often times the election will go to the other house, and then the only difference will be that you had a comedy the last time, and you’ll have a tragedy the next. Tho’ it was impos¬ sible to prevent party altogether, much more when po¬ pulation and luxury encrease, and corruption and vice with them, it was prudent to preserve as many checks against it as was practicable. He had been* long in congress and saw the conflicting interests of large and small states operate; the time may not be remote when par¬ ty will adopt new designations—federal and republican par¬ ties have had their day—le to choose those whom they think most entitled to onfidence and respect. If we furnish an amendment vhich they do not approve, they will send it back to us. C 30 ) Mr. Taylor this appears to be a subject of so much importance—-and the matter introduced into the debate had given it a more serious air than it at first assumed. To estimate a measure of a public kind we must look to the consequences which it is intended or may inciden¬ tally prcduce. If the measure had the tendencies or would produce such effects as some gentlemen surmise, it would be very serious indeed. But he would be bold to say that it was never contemplated to countenance or encourage a classification of states. No man he believed who advocated the amendment would submit to a classi¬ fication of states any more than a classification of men, or the establishment of patrician and plebeian orders. Are gentlemen who hold forth these delusions conscious that the course they pursue is the only mode to excite that jealousy and distraction which they say they depre¬ cate ? Do gentlemen wish to excite an hostility of this kind, to inculcate the idea of discriminating the states into patrician and plebeian ? Are they regardless of the consequences or have they ever considered them ? How he would ask is this amendment to favor the large at the expence of the small states ? Gentlemen have not shewn. Have they considered that nothing is so fatal to freedom as the existence of orders and distinctions in society ? Could the effect be less pernicious if you at¬ tempt with any effect to stir up rivalry of states ? Are you prepared to estimate the consequences of violence and the conflict of weakness against strength ? Can any gentleman reflect on it without horror! Is it to be pre¬ sumed that if you set the furious passions in agitation that the large states will sit patiently and bear unmerited reproach and outrage ? Do you not perceive that these menaces and clamours proceed exclusively from those who affect so much concern foe the small states? Are gentlemen aware of the responsibility which they attach to themselves—that of exciting resentment and animosi¬ ty, and that kind of animosity, which a weak man injured always feels towards the stror,': for it is of no conse¬ quence whether the weak man is deceived, and insulted bv the imposition put upon him, if he is really deceived into the pernicious belief. He had persuaded himself a mode of argument so per¬ nicious could not be employed on this occasion; he had expected that the question would be examined and de¬ cided upon its true grounds. But beside this we find an ( 31 ) attempt to defeat the amendment by its form. Let us examine this amendment. By filling* up the blank with 5 you carry the election into the house of representatives, and why do we wish to keep the election out of the house of representatives ? Because experience teaches us to avoid the danger of diets, which are always exposed to intrigue and corruption, as we avoid elections by mobs from their liability to be misled by the sudden impulse of passion and violence. We wish to avoid both, because each by different paths leads to the same consequence. One or two elections by a diet, would repay the small states—.with what ?—with monarchy. Elections by diets always lead to monarchy. It is for this reason then that we wish to keep the elections where they should be in the hands of the people, where from very obvious cause nei¬ ther intrigue nor corruption can operate. It is by diets that Great Britain has been ruined in her prosperity and liberties. By placing the election in the house of repre¬ sentatives you expose the small states to the evils which Great Britain has suffered thro’ her rotten boroughs. The small number of representatives in the small states will expose them to the alurements, against which humanity is not always fortified. The danger of temptation must be guarded against; else the minority may be thro’ cor¬ ruption made to govern—-the small boroughs where there are few electors have given the rule over the majority in England for more than a century ; corruption has been the prime minister, and the parliament has been in fact the mere registers of the monarchical edicts. But it will be asked do we lessen the chance by lessen¬ ing the number. Yes, sir: the greater the scope is which you give the house of representatives, your chance is the greater for a number of candidates—-if you fill the blank with 20 you will have 20 ; if with 5 you will have 5 with¬ in the scope of that power and the greater numbers the electors may have to nominate the greater division of sentiment, and more numerous will be the inducements to corruption. Limit the number to 3 and you reduce the danger, and by condensing public sentiment, you will then have the watchfulness of ambition on one side and of virtue on the other directed without distraction to the limited number —he would therefore prefer 3 to five. Mr. Dayton believed it would come to this, that when the question came to be discussed and the rights ( 32 ) of the small states maintained, the large states would threaten us with their power. The same threats had been heard in the old congress, but they were laughed at, for the votes of the states were equal; they were heard in the convention, but they were spurned at, for the votes were equal there also; the large states must be cautious here, for in this body, for here too, the votes are equal. The gentleman had talked of a classifica¬ tion of states as a novelty, but he would ask if that gen¬ tleman pretended to be wiser than the constitution ?-— Look through that instrument from beginning to end, and you wiil not find an article which is not founded on the presumption of a clashing of interests. Was this fine process instituted for nothing ? Was developing the election in particular circumstances in the house of representatives intended for nothing? Was nothing meant by the provision of the constitution, that no amendment should ever deprive the states of the equa¬ lity of votes in this house ? Yet, it was that jealous caution which foresaw the necessity of guarding against the encroachments of large states. The states, what¬ ever was their relative magnitude, were equal under the old confederation, and the small states gave up a part of their rights as a compromise, for a better form of go*- vernment and security ; but they cautiously preserved their equal rights in the senate and in the choice of a chief magistrate. The same voice that now addresses you made the solemn claim, and declared there was no safety in association unless the small states were- pro¬ tected here. The warning was taken, and you find in that part as in all others, a classification governs every line of the constitution. Gen. Jackson said that though coming from a small state he had not been instructed, and was therefore at perfect liberty to act according to the best of his judg¬ ment ; though his state was now, in regard to popula¬ tion, small, and though it were to remain so, he could have but one opinion on this subject. He saw abun¬ dance of reason for prefering three to five. The con¬ stitution under the present form has directed the choice to be made from five. But the reason of this was con¬ sistent with the result to be produced; the electors were to vote for two persons indiscriminately, but with the restriction of voting for one only belonging to the state where the vote was given. The voting for two would ( 33 ) necessarily bring forward four candidates, and a fifth possibly, for we saw in the two elections before the last that there was one more than the four, though in each case the fifth had but one vote; he alluded to the vote for Mr. Jay. In the amendment proposed you are call¬ ed upon to designate for each office, and there can be little apprehension of having more than two or three principal candidates; and for twenty years to come he had no apprehension of a greater number of candidates if this amendment prevails. Now supposing that as on the first and second elec¬ tions, there were to be five candidates, and that there should be a candidate with one vote like Mr. Jay, and that the number were five; that there was an equal number of votes for two candidates as at the last election, two others with inferior numbers, and the fifth only with one vote, the election would devolve upon the house of representatives, and thus would have them place him who had only one vote on the same footing with him who had seventy three. Suppose the result to be the same as the last election when the votes were for Thomas Jefferson 73, Aaron Burr 73, John Adams 65, C. C. Pinckney 64, J. Jay 1— here the unequal numbers would be placed under the power of the house upon equal terms. What would you do, sir, if, there was not barely five who had not the highest nembers—.your difficulties would encrease with your numbers. He had no appre¬ hensions on the score of the present election, every member of that house must be satisfied that there can be no doubt of his being the man of the people above all competition—he believed too he was the man of the legis¬ lature ; all considerations as to the next election could have no influence here ; we must look to the future when we may not be so fortunate. Pie was sorry to hear gentlemen talk of separate interests, he knew of no separate interests, but felt himself bound to maintain the interests of the great whole. This he thought could not be done but by the choice from the number three.— You had best avoid the danger which experience has shewn you narrowly escaped. You must keep the elec¬ tion out of the house of representatives if you wish to keep the government from civil war, from the danger of having a man not voted for by the people proposed to be placed over your head, as you are plainly told had been E ( 34 ) proposed. We are but the servants of the people and is our duty to study their wishes. Separate interests do not exist—and the agitation of such ideas should not be countenanced. It is all a cant, a mere factious pretence —he had never known any separate or hostile interests in this country but that of whig and tory ; tho* he had heard much less said about these real enemies than the imaginary adverse interests so much talked of as the eastern and southern states—then the eastern and the western—then come the federalists and anti-federalists—> subsequently federalism and republicanism—and now it is the large and small states. Presently he should not be surprised to hear of the hostility of the rats and anti- trats j the danger from one is as real as from the other —He hoped to see all this delusion banished ; he was well satisfied it would not make any impression on the people.* By fixing on the number 3, division and pas¬ sion will be more effectually prevented, and intrigue will have less room for operation. Mr. Wright— we need not be told in this house, that the constitution was the result of a compromise, or that care was taken to guard the rights of each state ; these things we must be very ignorant indeed not to know. But does it therefore follow that it is not sus¬ ceptible of amendment or correction under experience ? Does it follow because for mutual interest and security this compromise was made, that we are precluded from effecting any greater good ? No man would accuse him of a wish to see the interest of any state impaired.— But we can preserve the spirit and intention of the con¬ stitution in full vigour without impairing any interests. x\nd this is to be done by the discriminating principle, it fulfils the intention and it forefends the recurrence of that danger from which you have once escaped. By this principle each elector may name his man for each office, and this can be done whether the number be 3 or 5. For the latter number he was disposed because already adopted by the other house, and he did not wish to delay its progress. If he were to form a constitu¬ tion, he would provide that there should be only two candidates presented to the house. But he did not re¬ ly on any number so much as on the discriminating principle. Mr. Nicholas— several gentlemen profess much re¬ luctance to make any change in the constitution, he would ( 35 ) make no such profession; and though he should be as jealous of improper alterations or the introduction of prin¬ ciples incompatible-with republican government, he would not hesitate to make any alteration calculated to promote to secure the public liberty upon a firmer basis, nay if it could be made better he would expunge the whole hook. Gentlemen who are for adhering so closely to the con¬ stitution appear not to consider that a choice of president from the number 3 is more in the spirit of the constitu¬ tion than from 5; and preserves the relation that the election of two persons under the present form holds to the number 5—a reason ecpially forcible with him was, that by taking the number 3 instead of 5, you place the choice with more certainty in the people at large, and render the choice more consonant to their wishes.— With him also it was a most powerful reason for pre- fering 3 that it would render the chief magistrate depen¬ dent only on the people at large, and independent of any party or any state interest. The people hold the 'sovereign power, and it was intended by the consti¬ tution that they should have the election of the chief magistrate. It was never contemplated as a case like to occur but in an extreme case, that the election should go to the house of representatives. What he asked would have been the effect had Mr. Jay been elected when he had only one vote ? What he would ask would be the impression made upon our own people, and upon for¬ eign nations, had Mr. Aaron Burr been chosen at the last election, when the universal sentiment was to place the present chief magistrate in that station. He did not mean any thing disrespectful or invidious towards the vice pre¬ sident, be barely stated the fact so well known, and asked what would be the effect-—where would be the bond of attachment to that constitution which could admit of an investiture in a case so important, in known opposition to the wishes of the people ? The effect would be fatal to the constitution itself; it would weaken public attachment to it, and the affectation if alone for the small states would not have been heard of in the deep murmur of discontent. Gentlemen, who pretended to feel, for he would not enter into their conceptions if they had any real apprehensions on the subject of the danger of the smaller states, forget that this is not a project of the large states ; they ought to have considered that it has originated with the small states ; and that in the house of representatives two thirds ( 36 ) of the representation is ‘hat of smaller stales: Have gentlemen forgotten that the amendment has been twice recommended from South Carolina, aftenvards by Ver¬ mont, then by N. Hampshire, and finally by Tennessee? Are these large or small states ?—Away with such ground¬ less pretences!—The attempt to excite jealousy in the small states cannot succeed. The people know that it is calculated to prevent a crisis which was long appre¬ hended and which the experience of the last election prov¬ ed to be well founded. Mr. S. Maclay said he believed that as it concerned one more than another state, it was perfectly immaterial whethef the number 5 or 3 were chosen. He conceived that it involved no question but what was common to all the states—and he wished this clannish spirit could be laid aside on occasions of this important nature, and that the gereral interest of the whole should be considered. In this point of view the present amendment cannot affect the political rights of any state for being on a perfect equality, in the choice of one from three as well as one from five, no danger of rights can exist, tho* other dan¬ gers may be apprehended. If any rights can be at all affected, they must be civil rights. But here he found it difficult to convey with the clearness he could wish his ideas on the application of the amendment to civil rights ; he would therefore endeavor to do that by comparison which was not so easily explained by itself. He would compare the states of the union in their collective capa¬ city to individuals in society ; wealth in society is power, and he who has wealth possessess a more extensive in¬ fluence than he who is poor; in this respect, perhaps it maybe said they are not upon a perfect equality, because one man possesses an equal direct power, with the poor man, and an overplus of indirect power, which the poor man does not possess. But the same men in their civil capacity, as citizens, are upon complete terms of equality, possessing equal rights and power as in the right of suffrage, and in the sight of the law they are equal units in the mass of society. Extent of territory occupied by a numerous popula¬ tion, is in a state what wealth is to the private individu¬ al. The state of small extent or of comparatively small population, stands in the same relation to society as the poor man. Notwithstanding this disparity of political or phy sical power, the rich and the poor man, the large / ( 37 ) and the small state, are equally interested in supporting their actual or personal rights. But they may be con¬ sidered as equally interested in supporting those person¬ al rights which connect themselves with the security of their wealth, in which they have but unequal interest__ The wealthy have beside their civil rights their property at stake, and may therefore be supposed more vigilant and watchful of innovations which might weaken or destroy that security by which they hold their rights and privileges. If this reasoning be correct, let us apply it to tne case under consideration ; why attempt to alarm and raise jealousies in the small states, when it is evi¬ dent that the interest of the larger states will be constant protection to the smaller states ? The idea might be carried farther, and it might be shewn, that if there is any thing in this amendment that has any tendency to alter the relative power and influence of any states in the anion, the danger would be to every state in proportion to its extent and population. It was probable that on this subject he entertained opinions different from gentlemen whose talents and in¬ formation he highly respected, on such occasions he always offered his sentiments with diffidence ; but he '•vas willing to hear and be convinced if mistaken ; but from every view he had taken of the cimendement it did iot appear to him, that it could alter the principle in the constitution, nor change in any way the relative rights and situation of the states ; in simple truth it is onlv alteration in the detail of the elective process, calculated o assimilate the election of president and vice president )f the United States to the modes already in practice in he election of the executive of several of the states. lie :ould not see that it would be attended with any danger o any olthe states, if there was danger the danger would ,e gre-ter to the larger states, as their interest is the greatest. But danger of this kind cannot and dees not :xist ; for it cannot be shewn that this amendment has * .can produce any effect on the law making power in his country, and it is in this power that we are to seek or the nature and the protection of all cur rights, civil nd political ; and with this impression he would vote or the amendment with the number three. An adjournment was called for and carried. NOVEMBER 25, 1803. T he amendments adopted in thjs dav’s debate were as allows: ( 38 ) On motion, It was agreed to amend the amendment, adopted yes¬ terday, and strike out the words in the manner directed bij the constitution f and insert—But in choosing the pre¬ sident the votes shall be taken by states, the represen¬ tation from each state having one vote, a quorum for this purpose, shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice/’ On motion, It was agreed to amend the amendment adopted yes¬ terday, and to strike out the words, “ and in case of an equal number of votes for two or more persons for Vice President , they being the highest on the list , the se¬ nate shall choose the Vice President from those having such equal number , in the manner directed by the constitu¬ tion ” and insert, “ If such number be a majority of the whole number of ^electors appointed; and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the senate shall choose the vice president: a quorum for the purpose, shall consist of two thirds of the whole number of senators, and a majority of the w hole number shall be necessary to a choice.” On motion, by one of the majority It was agreed to consider the vote of yesterday for inserting the word three in line 10th of the amendment ap-reed to, so that it stand blank*—-*and altei debate the sc» nate adjourned. NOVEMBER 28. The consideration on the amendment being postpon¬ ed on Friday 25 th—was taken up this day for a short time, when the following desultory conversation took place. . . Mr. Adams suggested the propriety oi postponing the question this day, as a member was absent indisposed (Mr. 1 Anderson) who was the representative of a small state. He was ready on Saturday to give his . vote on the main question, and on the incidental question ; but! as he understood the number three to be a sine qua non with the gentleman from Virginia, he thought it better the subject should be postponed until the house should be full. . Mr. Cocke said that number was not with him a sine qua non ; he would vote for the amendment with either number; tho’ from a more deliberate consideration % t 39 . ■) of the arguments he had heard he was disposed to think three the best number as it promised to bring the election closer to the people. He was not apprized how his col¬ league meant to vote. Mr. Franklin was against a postponement; his mind was perfectly made up on the subject, and it was time the senate should come to a decision ; the legislature of his state was in session, their sentiments were decidedly in favor of the amendment, and he wished it to reach them before Christmas, as they would most likely rise about that time. Mr. White said he as well as other gentlemen was ready to vote on the main and incidental questions, and was fully aware of the importance of an early decision ; his mind was made up as a member from a small state for the number 5, and he understood the member absent was in favor of the same number; he wished on his ac¬ count therefore to postpone though ready himself. The % gentleman might be able to attend.to-morrow. Mr. Nicholas thought there w r as no necessity what¬ ever to delay a decision ; if the indisposition of a mem¬ ber was a good reason for delay, business might be post¬ poned fore’, er ; but even if the gentleman absent was solicitous to deliver his sentiments, the filling up the blank with any number need not prevent it ; as the number might be withdrawn to afford him that op¬ portunity, and the discussion of the main question mieht still proceed. Mr. Dayton was opposed to that mode of proceed¬ ing, upon the issue of the number 5 or 3, it w as probable -hat the whole question would depend. Mr. 1 racy was for a postponement, he felt himself inwell—a pain in his side. Mr. Cocke was indifferent whether decided now or o-morrow, it would be all the same—postponed. Tuesday, Nov. 29. The order of the day being called up, on the amend¬ ments to the constitution—-a considerable time elapsed, when A Mr. Dayton rose and said, that since no other gen- leman thought proper to address the chair, altho’ laboring iimself under a very severe cold, which rendered speaking lainlul, he could not suffer the question to pass without in effort to arrest it in its progress ; and should consider us last breath well expended in endeavoring to prevent / ( 40 ) the degradation which the state he represented would suffer if the amendment were to prevail. As to the question immediately before the senate for filiinp' the blank withy?i>ey he felt Himself indebted to the member from Tennessee for renewing the subject—-he was grateful also to the member from Maryland (Mr. Wright) for declaring he would support it, as well as for giving the assurance that he was disposed to consider and spare the interests of the small states as far as possible, consistently with the great object of discrimination. Every member who had spoken on this subject, seemed to have admitted, by the very course and pointing of their arguments, even though they may nave denied it in words, ti vis was really a question between great and small states, and disguise it as they would the question would be so considered out of doors. The privilege given by the constitution, extended to Jive, out of which tne choice of president should be made, and why should the smaller for whose benefit and security that number was given, now wantonly throw it away without an equiva¬ lent. As to the vice president, his election had no in¬ fluence upon the number, because the choice of presi¬ dent in the house of representatives, was as free and unqualified as if that subordinate office did not exist.— Nay, he said he would venture to assert that even if th*?' number five were continued, and the vice president eii* tirely abolished, there would not be as great a latitude of choice as under the present mode, because those five cut of whom the choice must eventually be made, were much more likley hereafter to be nominated by the great states, inasmuch as their electors would no longer be com¬ pelled to vote for a man of a different state. The honor¬ able gentleman from Maryland (gen. Smith) had said, he was not surprised that those who had seats in the old con¬ gress should perplex themselves with the distinctions; but he could tell that gentleman, that it was not in the oid con¬ gress he had learnt them, for there he had seen all the votes of the states equal, and had known the compar¬ atively little state of Maryland controlling the will ol the Ancient Dominion— It was in the federal convention that distinction was made and acknowleged, and dened that member to do, what had been before requested ot the honorable gentleman from Virginia, viz. to open die constitution, and point our a single article if he could, that had not evidently been framed upon a presumption ( ) of diversity (he had almost said, adversity) of interest between the great and small states. The gentleman from Georgia too (Gen. Jackson) is very much afflicted that the state distinctions had been introduced on the occasion, and admonished the senate to put away all local considerations. That gentleman, may now be prepared to do so, since he had obtained all his heart could wish for his immediate constituents ; but if there was a single member, who had more ably, more perseveringly, and more successfully and warmly contend¬ ed for the rights and interests of his particular state, than any or ail the other members on that floor, he was that member. The gentleman had not only been quick, but tremblingly alive, to every measure that could in the most distant degree affect the interests of his state. It would be remembered that in the session before last, when a bill came up from the other house for allowing the privilege of frank¬ ing a few letters to a gentleman who sat there as dele¬ gate, and had travelled about 1300 miles from the bank* of the Mississippi to inform us that it was inhabited by other creatures than alligators, the bill was opposed by that very gentleman upon the ground that the dignity of Georgia would be wounded, and her rights injured by the passage of that bill. It was afterwards commit¬ ted and recommitted, whilst the unhappy delegate (since put in his grave, poor man no doubt of a broken heart) was compelled to wait several weeks without writing under privilege and without drawing a shilling of money, until the gentleman from Georgia could find leisure to secure the rights and dignity of his state from being injured by allowing the delegate to frank his billets. In a more recent and far more important transaction, it might be recollected also how dextrously, how zeal¬ ously, and how very successfully he had advocated the interests of a little corner of the union known by the name of Georgia—On the list of expenditures there would hereafter be seen between one and two millions account¬ ed for being paid over to the treasury of the state he represents as the fair fruits of Ins zeal and address_ lie may now be ready since he has obtained thus the extent of his wishes, to banish all local attachments pending thi§ question ; he would give him credit for his assertion, and for two reasons, Jirst, because the gen¬ tleman himself had said so; and next because he should F w ( 4 * ) on any other principle be at a loss to account for the vote he was about to give. Since these instances of state attachment, and of the good fruits of it, were so fresh in the recollection of the senate, it was to be hoped the gentleman from Georgia wouid allow members from other states sometimes to imitate his commendable example, by taking a little care of the interests of their constituents; not in the more trivial question of franking letters or of a few dirty acres, but in a question so very serious in its nature as to strike at their sovereignty itself. Some attention was due to the remarks of the gentle¬ man from Pennsylvania (Mr. Maclay) he went into an ingenious but subtle, distinction between civil and politi¬ cal rights, artfully calculated to divert the attention of the senate from the true distinction upon which this motion and the main question turned, by amusing them with an ingenious disquisition of the rights of men in society, dis¬ tinguishing them under the heads of political and civil, but without following him thro* his regular chain of reason¬ ing he would make shorter work, and reduce all that gentle¬ man had said to the test of analysis. To those representa¬ tives of small states who should vote with him, his disquisi¬ tion was intended doubtless as a sort of justification ; and to those of them who although voting against him must be compelled to submit, it was kindly meant as a consolation under the new dispensation of state influence—They were told that their rights were of two kinds, viz. fioli- tical , in relation to their standing as members of a state, and civil in reference to their rights as mere individu¬ als—that their political rights might be abolished or abridged, or their state sovereignties invaded and pros¬ trated, but their civil rights might remain unimpaired --that they might, to be sure, be less respected as Jerseymen, Rhode Islanders, or Georgians, but they would not therefore be less respected and regarded as members of the union, or Americans. Mr. Dayton said he liked the gentleman’s illustration of his argu¬ ment, much better than the argument itself, and he had approved the machinery be had employed, much more than the use he had made of it ; with his leave there¬ fore he would take the materials he had furnished for the occasion, and put them into plain and simple alle- gory. The gentleman from Pennsylvania had compared the great and small states confederated, to rich and poor ( 43 ) men associated in one community. Let the comparison for argument’s sake, be admitted to be just and iet the analogy be pursued. Suppose these rich men, four in number ; and the poor men, thirteen , had entered into a compact which required that a chief should be chosen from among them, once in four years, and that, as their votes were to be in proportion to their wealth, the four men would have a preponderance over the other thi 'tern. Suppose them allowed to vote for them¬ selves exclusively, but with this stipulation, that if on the first ballot, a majority should be found for one, it should devolve upon the whole seventeen to decide upon the chief, with equal voices. Would it not in this case, be the interest of the four to limit this choice to the three highest on the list, and of the thirteen to extend it to five ? In the first case of three , they would be compelled to elect one of the 3 rich, however unwor¬ thy ; and in the other case, they would be at liberty to choose one of their own number, if they thought him better qualified than any of the other four—They might it was true risk the displeasure of the four rich men, but why debar themselves from doing it, if the case should justify their running the risk. This could with proprie¬ ty be said to be such a case, or (to drop all figure) a ques¬ tion between the great and small states. The constitu¬ tion allowed a choice from the five highest on the list, and why should we debar ourselves of the right of such a choice ; it was a privilege which ought to be persisted in even though the resentment of the great states might be aroused, as expressed in the animated language of the honourable gentleman from Virginia; their power was great, and he could hear the menace of a former day reverberating through the senate chamber; its effects would perhaps be best ascertained by the vote which was to follow. Mr. Wright rose only to correct an error into which the gentleman from Jersey had fallen, concerning the number 5, wnieh he had spoken in favor of on a former day ; be had never admitted nor argued that the num- ber five or three would affect the constitution or the small states ; he had on the contrary declared that all he want¬ ed vv ts the discriminating principleand so that was ‘ fleeted, he cared not whether the choice was to be made from 5 or from 20. As he had not used such argu- ments, lie supposed he must have been imposed upon ( 44 ) by the misrepresentations of his sentiments in an infa¬ mous paper called the "Washington Federalist) in which nothing said on his side oltne house was reported duly j that paper had ialsified liis speech, and he took that op¬ portunity to state that whosever was the reporter of his speech.in that paper, was guilty of a lie. Mr. Dayton observed that the allusion he had made was to the support which the gentleman certainly gave to the number 5 ; as to what tne paper alluded to might sav he had nothing to answer. Mr. Wright —he repeatedly advocated the discrim¬ inating principle, and he had been represented as hold¬ ing opinions which he did not hold, tnat the amenoment was an attack on the small states ; now as he had never entertained that opinion, and as that infamous paper had so misrepresented him, he must repeat, tnat whoever wrote that charge in that, paper wrote a lie. Mr. Dayton hoped the gentleman did not mean to connect him in his observations ; he could not certainly suspect him as the author cl any piece in tnat paper. Mr. Cocke had also come in tor a share of the gen¬ tleman’s thanks, but there were none due, as he had acted as one o: the majority, and was w illing by gi\ing them an opportunity to say all they had to say in favor of the number 5. With him at iirstit w T as a matter oi indif¬ ference, so he obtained the discriminating principle, His constituents were unanimous in favour oi this prin¬ ciple, and he had tin ir instructions to that effect. He perierred the number three for the reasons he had alrea¬ dy given, it brought the election closer to the people, 5 would give a greater latitude and subject it to the le¬ gislature, which he did not wish to see take place. As to those dreadful consequences and all this depredation of states—he could not see how those things could happen. What if the large states were foolish enough to attempt the enslavement of the smaller states, were the small states so feeble and so few as not to be able to pre¬ vent them. As to this degradation of small states he could recollect tne time wnen it was sain, tnat if Pennsyl¬ vania w T ould give an unanimous vote, Jersey would gh e a vote to counteract it. He knew nothing that would degrade a state so much as intrigues of such a nature —and it was to avoid that degradation, he wished for the amendment. He wished the president not to be an intrigu¬ er—lie wished to have him what he now is tne man of the people, and for that purpose he would vote lor 3. ( 45 ) Gen. Jackson had intended to have given only a naked vote or this question, but the profusion of compli¬ ments heaped upon him for merely discharging his duty, demanded some return ; he had been sent to that body to watch the interests of his state and to do to the best cf his judgment justice between it and the United States. He had conceived the rights of Georgia invaded, and he felt it to be his duty to seek justice according to the constitu¬ tion. Whatever gentlemen may insinuate about dirty acres, no state of the union was so much oppressed as Georgia had been ; not by the large states from which the gentleman apprehends so much, but by the small. Let any gentlemen consult the convention of N. York, and they will find that not a single small state came forward to support her protest against a great wrong, when a treaty was sanctioned that violated her rights and parcelled outlier territory. As well might the union pretend to give up Philadelphia to Great Britain, as the county of Talassee to a parcel of tomahawking Indians ; had that gentleman been a representative no doubt he would have come down upon them in thunder, he would have with a loud voice rent the hall of congress with the wrongs of the state, and the ravage and carnage of which it was exposed—he would have described the children torn from their mothers arms by the ufeeling savage and dashed to pieces—the matron abused and murdered ; and deplored that to the authors cf such cruelties, the territory had been consigned. Gentlemen either know not or cared not for these wrongs ; and after several years supplication, it was only two years ago that half justice was done ; for half what was taken away by usurpation has not been restored by justice. We had paid other states for defending the union, but Georgia had not yet been paid and it remains yet to be known whether the widow bereaved of her hus¬ band in battle or murdered by treachery while defending his country, or the orphan who survived her murdered parents, are to be remunerated even for their country and equitable demands. Government by a law seized upon this territory and legislated for it. It was for that territory a delegate was sent, to whom the gentleman adverted. He opposed the extension of the privilege of franking to any delegate, because agreeing to it would be to acknowledge the title of injustice. No state had ever been oppressed by Georgia—year after year they had sent petitions demanding payment ( 46 ) for the service of the militia which had protected the frontiers, but they have net been paid to this hour. Upon the merits of the question of numbers he had wished to remain silent, but as he was up he would in¬ trude upon the house a few observations. He preferred the number 3, for several serious reasons ; he wished to prevent the choice from devolving upon the house of representatives ; he wished it to be out of their power if it should devolve upon them to elect any man not evi¬ dently intended by the people, the smaller number would render this more certain ; he did not consider it a mat¬ ter of any consequence from what state a president was chosen ; he believed the small states had never offered a candidate ; the period was too short since the exis¬ tence of the government to admit of many states having an opportunity to bring forward a candidate ; and various good causes had contributed to make the selections that had been from large states. While parties existed there would be a champion chosen by each, if Jersey has not brought forward one, it cannot be for want of inclina¬ tion ; and where Princeton college exists it w r ould be ungracious to suppose that the requisite talents couid not be found there. Georgia had never wished to bring for- w r ard a candidate, neither had Tennessee, nor several other states. He believed that wherever a man should be found in the union distinguished by his virtues, his genius, and his devotion to republican principles, that he would be taken up without concern for the state in which he has his residence. This league of the large states so much harped upon, he could not comprehend—where was it to be formed and how ? are we certain that Massachusetts and Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York will, notwithstanding their distance, several interests, and views, combine to tie the small states hands and feet ? No, sir, we find the large states disagreeing and as jealous of each other as the small; and with more reason if the argument has any weight at all. He preferred the number three in the amendment as it brought the election two degrees nearer to the people i because a constitution was not intended for the conve¬ nience of the servants, but for the use of the sovereign— the people. Out of 5 persons the provision tor a choice was before directed to be made ; the constitution as now proposed to be altered would approach to the principle and number of 5 in a safer and more certain way, for the president would be chosen out of the three highest^and. ( 47 ) the vice president out of two others. It was not proper that any man should have a chance of being placed in a situation of so much consequence contrary to the inten¬ tions oi the people. It is therefore our duty to prevent such an occurrence ; and we ought to send our amend¬ ment to the people free from defects as possible, because their rights are involved therein; neglect their rio hts and they will form a constitution for themselves; or in seeking to reform it they will incur the dangers either of a sanguinary revolution or of the establishment of a gov¬ ernment like that of Great Britain, sustained by corrup¬ tion and the wretchedness of the people. Mr. Taylor would trespass on the house with a few observations. With some other gentlemen he was not so much disposed to dispute about the number 5 or 3, as strenuous to obtain the principle of designation. The arguments of those who opposed the amendment he per¬ ceived had been all along founded on extreme cases, which even if they were to happen would not produce the affirmed effects on the small states. The number three he certainly preferred, because it gave a greater certainty to popular choice ; the extreme case of this would be an election by the house of representatives ; if the number were 3 how would this operate in the house ? \\ ould not the small states have a greater share of influ¬ ence than the large states, in the proportion of 13 to 4 ? Another case is that election should remain in the divisi¬ ble electoral bodies, as heretofore, or in the extreme be elected by an accumulated body in the house of repre¬ sentatives. Would this latter be in favor of the small states ? Would the election by a diet be preferable or safer than the choice by electors in various places so remote as to be out of the scope of each others influence, and so numerous as not to be accessible by corruption,_ It is true that tiie number 3 has a greater tendency to give the choice to the people, it cannot be true that the small states would wish to place it in the house of repre¬ sentatives, because 3 would give tue people the choice, and even if they did wish to take the choice out of the hands of the people, it ought to be opposed because it is contrary to the spirit and intent of the constitution. . division ot election is one of the soundest prin¬ ciples ot the constitution; elections are more free and less liable to passion and corruption in the state of divisi¬ on ; for experience has shewn that elections any more ( 48 ) than executive powers cannot be so well effected by ac¬ cumulative bodies. Your constitution directs elections in states, not assembled at one place ; and why • 1 ° pre\ent the evils to which diets or legislative bodies are exposed. Does not three then adhere infinitely more to the leading principle of your constitution, by placing it in the power of the numerous election districts, and keeping cut of the reach of the numerous or accumulated body tne choice ? Is it not necessary to guard by every means against w uat has proved fatal to so many republics ? Let the extreme cases on the other hand be taken. The number 5 is adopted. For what end? io carry the election to the house of representatives, v iii tne small states be benefitted by 5 more than 3 t X\ ill they not from the number, be more likely to be divided, and would not a number of the large states then possess all the advantages of number and union—for the gentlemen consider this union of the large states as certain, and they cannot refuse their own arguments or tne consequences of them. , Suppose the elective power of the people annihilated, and transferred solely to the legislature, yvcuid die small states consent to this ? Would they he so blind ? Yet by adopting 5 you promote this evil—oy 3 \ ou pi c\ ent it, And yet gentlemen say they look upon this as only a con¬ test of small and large states. The gentleman from Jersey had talked something of a threat alleged to have been thrown out in that house by him in a former day’s debate. He would beg leave to say, that the gentleman had most egregious!v misrepre¬ sented or misconstrued him. But he could see in it a very shallow stratagem ; he thought the gentleman possessed more skill; had his generalship been as gi«- 2 t as his reputation he would not have planted his ambus¬ cade where the enemy must see him from all siaes—and expose all his force by this state of his advance party. When he heard this clamour about the danger of small states, he was led to ask what was their number ? And looking round that house he found that there were thirteen represented—and only four large states 1 Are the representatives of the small states in this senate then so blind to their danger—that possessed of a full majority of nine states, they will deny themselves the power of self government! It is a principle of heroism or something else which enables minorities to govern / ,( 49 ) —but it is a principle of reason and virtue which gives the government to majorities in a free government.-— Are we then in making the designating principle, to ad¬ here to the form and desert the substance ? How does the constitution now stand ? We cfnise from 5 the president and vice president. How if we adopt 3.— Then the president would be chosen from 3 and the vice president from two making five. Here preserving the substance and indirectly the form. How ifwe adopt the designating principle and leave the number five. Then we should chuse the president from the jive and the vice president from two other—making 7 l The more the subiectis examined the more we must be cofi- vinced that 3 should have the preference. Before he sat down he would sav a word more on the ¥ • • ' r • , V • V subject of the threat alledged to have come from the ancient dominion. If he mistook not there were intima¬ tions held out in the course of the debate, that blood¬ shed would be the result of the amendment of the con¬ stitution ; and many other expressions of that nature had been employed, which by no means argued deco¬ rum, and could not serve as argument with any mem¬ ber of that house. The malignant passion of jealousy was conjured up, to be the herald of this civil discord, and the most disastrous afflictions were predicted as the consequence. In glancing at these unwarranted and unwarrantable sentiments, he had assumed it as a prin¬ ciple not to be overthrown, that free governments must exist upon moral rectitude, or perish ; and that if the United States were capable of being actuated to rage by their pernicious and destructive passions, rectiude and morality would no longer exist among them, and they must be destroyed by each other. What, sir, because there are strong and powerful states, must the weak be tolerated to menace them with injury and bloodshed, without the liberty of warring against the fatal conse¬ quences ? Are strong men bound to bear the wrongs done them by the weak ! Are the rich to fold their arms and bear to be robbed by the poor with silence and without remonstrance ? Yet such is the inference that must be made from what the gentleman has under¬ taken to call a threat. Wherefore threaten with good ? Can evil be the result of good, or good of evil ? Natu¬ ral and moral consequences flow from moral actions ; «id when there are any who undertake to do evil, it ( 50 ) is but strict justice he should suffer. He found some difficulty in bringing himself to notice, this charge of a threat .because he had perceived particu¬ larly in the paper published in this city a common practice of misrepresentation. In a former days debate he had alluded to the fatal effects which tne British government had produced on the liberty and pros¬ perity of that country, by the means of the rotten oo- roughs ; and he had been misrepresented as depreciating the small states and describing them as the rotten bo¬ roughs of America. It must be obvious that a purposed intention to misrepresent could alone have given senti¬ ments of the kind as uttered by him. He had not allud¬ ed to the states in their capacity as states; he had ob¬ jected to elections by diets, and the small states having but few representatives, he stated as more exposed to coirupt attempts upon them, than states where the number was larger. In an election by the house of representatives this would be the case—some states have but one, others two representatives, attempts would be made upon them, and though we have had virtue enough to resist tempta¬ tion, our country must be like all others subject to the casual decay of virtue, and at a future day the represen¬ tatives of small states may become as venal as those of the rotten boroughs of England; and no longer repre¬ sent the feelings, the interests, or the freedom of their country. Mr. Adams in a former debate had stated that he had not a wish to avoid or seek for the yeas and nays on any question, on the present occasion, however, he would when the question was taken call for the yeas and nays. But his own vote on the final question would be governed by the decision of the number 5, and he wished to have some record of his vote, that he might be hereafter able to defend himself against any charge of inconsistency . On the principle of the amendment he had formed his opi¬ nion, and he was free to confess, that notwithstanding the many able productions which he had seen against it, he thought it calculated to produce more good than evil. He was not however influenced in this opinion by the instruc¬ tions which had been read in a preceding debate from a former legislature of Massachusetts to their senators ; he presumed these were not read by way of intimidation ; to the instructions of those to whom he owed his seat in that house he would pay every respect that was due, ( 51 ) but he did not think that the resolutions of a legislature passed in March 1799 or 1800 ought to have the same weight; since that time four total and complete changes had taken place, and probably not one third of those who gave those instructions now remained ; he held a seat in the legislature himself three years since, but did not per¬ ceive any particular anxiety on the subject, and he did not think that the present legislature would be extremely of¬ fended if he were to give a direct vote against what was recommended four years ago. But as it seemed to be read to influence him he would state his reasons for his vote. Upon the alteration of the number from that agreed upon by the house of representatives, several arguments had been offered ; they were of three descriptions. 1. That no alteration of the constitution ought to take place unless it should be indispensibly necessary, and that in altering the constitution no departure should be made from its spirit. 2. That it ought not to be carried in the house of representatives. 3. That the alteration proposed would effect the small states. To the first he would say that although the amend¬ ment might be useful, yet it was not indispensibly neces¬ sary. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Butler) had argued on the necessity of adhering to the principles of the constitution on a former day with great force ; and tho* his arguments were used upon an amendment of another kind proposed by himself they applied in this case as closely as possible ; the same arguments had been used by other gentlemen, on a suggestion of the gentleman from Jersey (Mr. Dayton) concerning tiie abolition of the office of vice president ; it is true that some gentlemen declared that they had no objection to the abolition but disapproved ofthetimeit was brought forward, he agreed and voted with the gentleman on that occassion. But the ground is now changed and we are told that the principle of designation is not so much the choice as to keep the election out of the house of representatives and in a variety oi ingenious arguments we are referred back to antiquity to justify the injurious effect resulting Irom elections by diets. As a speculation upon the principles of government he admired the gentleman’s ( 52 ) «• » information and eloquence) but he was not prepared to act upon the principle. We had been shewn the great inconveniencies of carrying the elections into the house of representatives ; make it a separate question, and let it be fairly and fully discussed and he would then pre¬ pare his mind to vote. But before he could act on it now, he would just observe, that if you do not pursue that course you pursue some other and it would be necessary to provide a substitute before we abandon mat we possess. This consideration he therefore thought had no concern with the subject before us On the third point, that it would essentially affect the rights of the sir.ad states, he thought it the true object oi discussion ; and he saw it wholly as a federative ques¬ tion, and rejects all arguments oi the popular kind.— From the mode in which it had been argued the question would seem to be a dispute between 16 small, and one large state. The constitution however was a combina¬ tion of federative and popular principles. When you argue upon, or wish to change any of its federative prin¬ ciples, you must use analogies as arguments; popular arguments w ill not apply to federative principles. 1 he house of representatives was founded on popular prin¬ ciples; in this house the representation is federative, and not popular, it is in its nature aristocratic. The founda¬ tion cf ail popular representation is equality of votes; blit even the ratio of representation is different in diffe¬ rent states; the numbers in Massachusetts and Virgi¬ nia, in Vermont and Delaware are different in their pro¬ portions ; but still an equality of representation is pre¬ served, and the only difference is in the details.—r ut if you argue upon the principles of the Senate, this equali¬ ty of popular representation, or by an equal or relatively equid numbers will not apply, you must discuss it upon another species of equality, the equality of sovereignties, and the independence of several states federatively con¬ nected. Applying principles then to the election of President if you reduce the number from which the house of representatives is authorised to choose, do you not attack the principles of tire federal compact, rather than the rights cf the small states.—The executive it had been said, is the man of the people, true and he is also as was said though upon different grounds, the man of the le¬ gislature—it was here a combined principle federative and popular. Virginia had in that house 22 popular re- ( 53 ) preservatives, in this she has 2 federative; Delaware ha$ I popular aud 2 federative representatives. And even in the operation of election in the popular branch of con¬ gress, the federative principle is pursued, and the state which has only one popular representative has an equal voice in that instance with the state that has 22 popular representatives. It was therefore evident that the at¬ tempt to alter the number -from 5 to three, is an attack upon the federative principle and not upon the smalt states. - In answer to the gentleman from Jersey (Mr. Day- ton) the gentleman from Maryland (Gen. Smith) had said he was not surprized to hear him who was a member of the old confederation talk of the jealousy of states, and expressed much exultation that those state jealousies' haa been long laid asleep, that he had been ten years in the government and had heard nothing of them, hop¬ ed never to hear of them again. He was equally happy that they had been so long laid asleep, but why was it that they had not complained ? For very different rea¬ sons from those which had been inferred. It was be¬ cause the excellent provisions of the constitution had guarded against all cause of complaint. The states had no reason to murmur ; and they had not been stirred up; but is it to be therefore inferred, that if you now give them cause, that they will be equally silent, and that it ma\ not tend to civil discord. He knew of nothing more likely to stir them up, than an attempt to reform your federative institutions upon popular principles. I he gentleman from V irginia as he understood him the other day, had intimated that the smaller state sought to be cautious how they excited the indignation of the large stales, on this account he had complained that the gentleman from Jersey had misrepresented him; from .he illustration of his sentiments now given he was per¬ suaded that no threat was intended on that occasion, but is impression was made, it surely was incumbent on those who felt it, to notice it. Was it unnatural for a gen¬ tleman coming from a comparatively small state tolfeel indignant under such a circumstance? The gentleman rom Virginia (Mr. laylor) is so ingenious that like all ngenous men, his sentiments are not at once accessible >y plain minds, and to this cause misapprehension ought o be attributed. 6 Another gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Nicholas) had ’aid that the amendment had originated with the small ( 34 ) states, that the small states having a majority in this house and a majority of the legislatures, may defeat it if they choose ; and these are with him decisive as to safety. But the gentleman has not taken into view that this question of number has never been befoie die states, and that having had no opportunity to examine it, the ar¬ guments do not apply. It is by this principle his own vote should he regulated; if 3 were adopted he should vote against the amendment. But the gentleman Mr. Taylor had taken another no¬ vel ground ; that the smaller number was the most fgvorable to the small states. This, however, he sup¬ ported by a mode of argument to which he had himself objected. He had argued that if it was proposed to vest the election of president in the house of representatives exclusively, it would not be agreed to by the small states, because it was contrary to their interests. But this was an extreme case, and the gentleman well knew that so far from its being consistent with sound logic to argue from extreme cases, they are not admitted into argu¬ ment at aii. Gen. o. Smith, when he made the motion for filling up the blank with 3, did it after the most deliberate consi¬ deration of the theory and the principles of the constitu¬ tion ; which if he understood it right intended that the elec¬ tion of the executive should be in the people, or as nearly. - as was nracticabie, consistent with public order and se¬ curity to the right of suffrage. The provision admitting the choice by the house of representatives, was itself intended only for an extreme case, where great inconve¬ nience might result from sending a defective election back to the people, as is customary in Massachusetts where if the majority is deficient, a new election is re¬ quired. Our object in the amendment is or should be to make the election mere certain by the people. 1 his was to be done most effectually by leaving it to them to designate the persons whom they preferred for each office —As under the present form there was an extreme case, so there might be when the change of number should take place ; ior aitho’ even with tne number three there was a possibility of the choice devolving on the house of representatives, yet the adoption of the designating principle and the number 3, would render the case less probable. It never was the intention of the powers of I ( 55 ) the constitution that the election should go to the house ol representatives, but in the extreme case; nor was it ever contemplated that about one fifth of the people should choose a president for the rest, which certainly would be the case, if what some gentlemen contend for were to take place. When gentlemen contend for such a power, as would transfer the choice from the people_. and place it in the hands of a minority so small; how happens it that gentlemen will not bear to hear of the efforts which such arguments or such measures would produce on the large states. It was not the interest of of the small states to combine against the large. Suppose it were possible that the four large states should combine, and a combination of the small states alone could produce such an effect : Nine states in the union have but 32 votes out of 142 — .yet 9 states with one vote each make a majority of 17 ; tho’ in relation to population they con¬ tain only about one fifth of the whole, and by such a proceeding the one fifth might chuse president and vice president in defiance of the other four fifths. What would be the consequence of such an election ? At a subsequent election the large states would combine, and by the use of their votes they would frustrate every object which the small states might use their efforts to accom¬ plish. Notwithstanding what had been said concerning the jealousy of states, he could see nothing in it but the leaven of the old congress, thrown in to work up feel¬ ings that had been long still. It was the forlorn hope, the last stratagem of party ; and he was the more dis¬ posed to think so, when he saw r gentlemen from the large states coming forward as the champions of the small—.this might to be sure, be magnanimity ; but if his discernment did not deceive him, it was a stratagem to divide the friends of the amendment. Why was not the same jealousy entertained of the power of 13 cut of 17 , combining and giving absolute law to the other four ? V/ hy have gentlemen paid no regard to the experience which they have had from the last election, when less than one third of the members harrassed the public mind, kept the union in agitation, and congress engros¬ sed to the exclusion of nearly all other business for two weeks. Suppose that the house had been as accessible to corruption, as the diets of other nations have been, and that three inen, having in their power the votes of 4 ( 56 ) three states, had been seized upon, and the election .made contrary to the wishes.of the people Vv hat would be the effect—on the minds of the people—on the adminis¬ tration of the government—and on the attachment which the people feel for the constitution itself ? He need not attempt to describe the effects. But it is our out) to prevent the return of such dangers, by keeping the elec¬ tion out of that house. And the most effectual mode is to fix the selection from the number 3. The gentleman from Jersey had affected to consider a comparison of the effects of combinations ot s^tes, as a threat against the small states. He had listened as he always did to the ingenious arguments of the gen¬ tleman from Virginia (Mr. Taylor) he thougnt he had attended to his arguments with particular attention on that occasion, because they carried to his minci tn.d conviction which truth always carries couched in the language of sincerity. To him the gentleman s ousel- vations on that day conveyed the same ideas and con¬ victions which his explanations conveyed this day in a more copious wav ; but to him it appeared impossible— and if he had not heard the gentleman from Jersey (he confessed w r ith astonishment) he could not have believed it practicable to give any colouring of menace to his arguments. The gentleman from Jersey had cenaJied the gentleman from Georgia, for his attention to the state which he represented ; but what bearing had the gentleman’s discharge of his duty to his state on the present question l The gentleman from Georgia had not taken up the present question on the narrow ground of a selfish, jealous and illiberal policy, but upon great national principles ; it was the practice of that gentleman to act ; it was his practice to discharge his duty with fidelity to his state and to his country at large, and such conduct reflected honor on him. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Adams) says we had forgot the main object, that we changed our ground and that having first claimed the designating principle we abandoned it in order to keep the election pf president out of the house of representatives. The gen¬ tleman had misconceived the subject entirely ; if would only consider the subject again he would find that nothing had been abandoned, nor any tiling new assumed —he would find that the principles correspond so ex¬ actly as to support and enforce each other. It is to ( 57 ) place the election in the hands of the people we wish to designate—it is for the same purpose we wish to keep the election out of the house of representatives—it is to prevent intrigues we wish to designate, it is to prevent intrigues we wish to keep the choice out of the house of representatives—it is to conform the election out of three instead of hve to the spirit of the constitution that we wish to adopt that number—and the wish to keep it out the house of representatives is already sanctioned by the constitution. Where then is this contradiction— this abandonment of one principle and adoption of another. When he referred to' one part of the gentleman’s speech and compared it with another he felt some concern when he considered the gentleman as the champion of the small states. Mr. Adams said he did not profess to be the cham¬ pion of the small states. Gen. Smith—W hen the gentleman first rose he said he was the representative of a large, and he did call for the champions of the small states to come forth, in their defence ; upon the failure of an answer to this challenge he had boldly entered the lists himself in their defence and carried his chivalry so far as to marshal the contend¬ ing parties contrary to all former order, into 16 small and one large state ! What was the intention of this mode of distinction, to what end was it directed? Was it not to excite envy and jealousy, the worst of all passions which affect man—was it consistent with professions of regard for the public good to encourage this rivalry of states—the commercial against the agricultural—the east against the south—the small against the large—there was something in this beside liberality. He says he is not the champion of the small states—yet he tells you how they could be stirred up and what would be the con¬ sequence if they were roused—he tells you of the dis¬ tinction between federative and popular principles—and has employed all his ingenuity to induce the belief that we wish to undo the federative principle, to sacrifice it to the popular principle, which is he has told you the thing above all others which would stir up the small states and no doubt arm this glassification of 16 against the one state But the people were not to be stirred up by such argu¬ ment—they would know the value of national union and unanimity to their prosperity and liberty’too well to be led away by any thing we may say or do on this floor. H ( 58 ) While he was up he would offer an observation or two on what had fallen from the gentleman from South Carolina. He had said that the object of the amendment was to pre¬ vent the election of a federal vice president. Undoubted¬ ly such would be the effect of the amendment. The real effect of the amendment was two-fold—-to guard against the dangers of intrigue and corruption, and to place the choice in the power of the people. Could that gentleman who was a member of the convention object to render one of its fairest and best principles more safe and secure? Was it an objectionable principle to secure to the majority of the people the right of chusing their chief officers. This was intended by keeping the elec¬ tion out of the other house, and by limiting the number to 3 to leave as little room for corruption as possible, shomd it ever devolve by any accident on that house to make the choice. For if ever the right should again devolve on that house, he not only saw reason to apprehend corrup¬ tion among ourselves but dread it from foreign nations. Had our people been as corrupt as European nations generally are, there was a facility for it at our late elec¬ tion • but the members were incorruptible and we were saved It is to guard against the danger we look lor this amendment. That gentleman being a member of the convention who formed the constitution deems it sacrilege to touch that instrument, yet in an early state of discussion he had found that sacred as it was to fc him there was a part which he wished to change, and had brought forward an amendment for the purpose. 1 he merits of that gentleman’s amendment he was not now called upon to dicuss, but with the lights which he at present possessed, it was probable he might give it his approbation ; and it surely could not be deemed so extraordinary it offier gentlemen should wish to amend certain parts, when one of the framers of the constitution had thought it suscepti¬ ble of amendment. . Mr. Pickering had not intended to have spoken on ' this question so far as it concerned the numbers ; butts he should probably vote differently from his colleague, he conceived it proper to give his motives for Ins vote His wishes for the entire preservation of the consatut.on were so strong, that he regretted any change wascon- tempTated to be made in it, and he Wished if ani aim tion was made to keep as near as possible o lespni constitution as it now is, and it appeared to mm a ( 59 ) number three conformed more to that spirit than the number five —-he believed it to be the intention of the constitution, that the people should elect. As to what gentlemen said concerning the will of the people, he paid but little regard to it, the will of the people, he did not know how the will of the people could be known ; how gentlemen came by it ; it would not be asserted that it was to be found in the newspapers ; or in private socie¬ ty ; in truth he believed it never had been fairly expres¬ sed on the subject. We have seen an amendment brought forward from New York, but was that an expres¬ sion of the public opinion; if it was, it was a very re¬ markable one, for it contained an absurdity—-visible to every one. He wished to avoid innovations on the con¬ stitution, and to preserve the combined operation ot fe¬ derative and popular principles upon which it rested un¬ impaired. Mr. Worthington hoped the number 3 would be adopted in preference to 5. Nevertheless be approved so much of the principle of designation in the election of the president, and vice president, that rather than lose it he would vote for it with either number. The yeas and nays being called for on filling up the blank with the largest number according to order—the votes were as follows. Messrs. Adams, YEAS, Dyton, Bailey, Hillhouse, Butler, Olcott, Condit Plumer, Baldwin, NOES. Franklin, Bradley, Jackson, Brackenridge, Logan, Brown, Maclay, Cocke, Nicholas, Ellery, Pickering, Worthington— -19. T racy. Wells, White, ^W right.—12. " Potter, Israel Smith, John Smith, Sami. Smith, Stone, T aylor, The question on the insertion of the number three being inserted was then put, and the yeas and nays being demanded by one fifth of the members present—-they were as follows: 4 ( 60 ) Messrs. Bailey, Baldwin, Bradley, Brackenridge, Brown, C ocKe, Ellery, YEAS. Fran kIih, Jackson, Logan, Maclay, Nicholas, - Israel Smith John Smith, Sami. Smith, Stone, Taylor, Pickering, Potter, NAYS. W orthington, Wright-21. Messrs. Adams, Hillhouse, Tracy, W ells, White-10. Butler, Condit, Dayton, Olcott, Plumer The house then ad Ijourned. NOVEMBER 30. The senate resumed the consideration of the report on the amendment to the constitution as amended yes¬ terday, which was read as follows. 1 Resolved, by the senate and house of representatives of the 2 United States of America, in congress assembled, two thirds 3 of both houses concurring, .hat the following amendment be 4 proposed to the legislatures of the several states as an amend- 5 ment to the constitution of «he United States which when ra- 6 tilled by three fourths of the said legislatures, shall be valid to 7 all intents and purposes as a part of the said constitution, viz. 8 In all future elections of president and vice president, the 9 electors shall name in their ballots the person voted for as presi- 10 dent, and in distinct ballots, the person voted for as vice presi¬ ll dent, of whom 1 at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same 12 state with themselves. The person voted for as president having 13 a majority of the votes of all the electors appointed, shall be 14 the president; and if no person have such majority, then from 15 the 3 highest on the list of those voted for as president, the 16 house of representatives shall choose the president. But in 17 choosing the president, the votes shall betaken by states the 18 representation from each state having one vote a quorum for 19 this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two 20 thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be ne- 21 cessary to a choice. 22 The person having the greatest number of votes as v. pre- 23 sident, shall be the v. president if such number be a majority 24 of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have 25 a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the 26 senate shall choose the vice president ;a quorum for the pur- 27 pose shall consist of two thirds of the whole number of senators 28 and a maj crity of the whole number shall be necessary to a 29 choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office 30 of president, shall be eligible to that of vice president of the 31 United States. Mr. Bradley thought some provision should be made against the difficulties which might arise upon an equality of votes between several candidates. For exam- ( 61 ) p!e> tho’ the amendment as it stands contemplates a choice from the three highest, there may be four who have equal numbers. Mr. Wright said it was not possible under the desig¬ nating principle for four persons to have an equal num¬ ber and have a majority of the whole of the votes like¬ wise. Mr. Adams thought that some explanation should be given oi tr.e principle upon which the votes were to be counted; and if it were to go to the house of representa¬ tives whether the choice was to be made from the three highest numbers, even if three were unequal, or if only two were equal in numoers and the third being one of the highest were stiil less in number than the other two. Mr. Bradley said that under the amendment as it new stood a candidate with one vote may be chosen ; for there had been single votes, and there being two can¬ didates equal in votes, then the house of representatives wouid have the power to cause the third—he would offer an amendment. Gen. Smith wished the gentleman 'would let his amendment lie over for the present—or it mignt be printed. Mr. Taylor thought that the word highest in the 15th iine should be changed. Mr. Butler —it is evident gentlemen cannot agree among themselves; now if one side proposes one mea¬ sure and another a second measure, and so on to a third and a fourth, all of which appeared to him objectionable there was little prospect of arriving at any useful conclu¬ sion. \ esterday we had heard of objections to extreme cases; and yet all the arguments used were drawn from extreme cases; if they were data then they must be data now. But it was very clear that the real object was to take away from a portion of society every share of participation in the choice of vice president. If the people could but have heard their representatives yes¬ terday, they could not but smile at them. Notwithstand¬ ing the respect which he personally bore for the gentle¬ man from V irginia (Mr. Taylor) he did not completely explain to his satisfaction the menace against the smaller states. As to those arguments which were employed against the election devolving on the other house, he thought it was paying the people a poor compliment to *uy they make a selection of representatives for that ( 62 ) house in whom trust cannot be placed; and that their delegates resemble the representatives of rotten English boroughs; this he thought an extreme case, an extremely hard case. We had been told also that the people wish- ed for the number 3. lie should like to hat e some other evidence than the bare opinion of gentlemen. The president called to order. Mr. Butler was willing to reserve what he had to s&v to a future time. Xhb President observed the house was no v ready to receive amendments proposed by gentlemen. Mr. Butler thought the member from \ crmonts amendment should have the preference as it was first oS'crcd. ' - Mr. Bradley’s amendment was called up read and lost, ayes 10, noes 20. . . J A desultory presentation of amendments, . wit.iput o-oinp* into detailed argument, now took place-in w men general Jackson, Messrs. Taylor, Nicholas, Wright and Tracy took part ; When . , r m Mr. Adams observed from the multitude ot ameuo meats, it now became difficult to comprehend it he sug¬ gested the propriety of adjourning so that the amend¬ ments might be all printed which was agreed to. Thursday, dec. 1, 1803. He house took up the amended report, as amended the preceding day, which was as follows : 1 Reached, by the senate and house of representatives of dw 2 United States of America, in congress assembled, 3 of bothhouses concurring, that in lieu of the Paragraph of 4 the first section of the second article of the ^nstitution of he 5 United States,fhe following be proposed as an . 6 constitution of the United States, which v\ en r valid to all 7 fourths e f the legislatures of the several states^haU he valid to al 8 intents and purposes, as part of the saiu consti u l , 9 The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote b 10 ballot for president and vice president, one of whom, at least, 11 shall not be an inhabitantof the same state with themselv es, they 12 shall name in their ballots, the person voted tor as P residc ’ 13 in distinct ballots the person voted for as vice president and they 14 shall make distinc. lists of all persons voted for as preside* , 15 of all persons voted for as vice president, and ofThe nui b 16 votes fer each, which lists they shall sign an ^ cri1 _ 17 mic sealed to the seat of the government ©f the Uwttdi b » 18 directed to the president of the senate- The p 19 senate shall, in tlip presence cf the senate and hoUoe of i I ^ 20 tauve§, open ali the certificates, ana the voi s “T 4 ^ 21 counted. The person having the greatest number >f ( 63 ) 22 president, shall he the president, if such number be a majority of 23 the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person hare 24 such majority,then from the persons having the highest numbers 25 not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as president, 26 the house of representatives shall choose immediately, by bal- 27 lot, the president. But in choosing the president, the votes 28 shall be taken by states, the representation from each state hav- 29 ing one vote ; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a mem- 30 ber or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of 31 all the states must be necessary to a choice. 32 The person having the greatest number of votes as vide pre- 33 sident, shall be the vice president, if such number be a majority 34 of the whole number of electors appointed,and if no person have 35 a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the 26 senate shall choose the vice president; a quorum for the pur- 37 pose shall consist of two thirds of the whole number of se- 38 nators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary 39 to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the 40 office of President, shall be eligible to that of vice president of 41 the United States. Mr. Dayton moved to strike out from the words u and vice president” in the 10th line, and all that con¬ cerned the vice president in that paragraph. The President said it was notin order to strike out. Mr. Dayton then moved to strike out, all that related to a vice president in the 32d line and to the end of the pa¬ ragraph. The President said that it was not in order in that stage of the business to strike out any part. Mr. Dayton —If there is no way to come at the abo¬ lition of that office, when the majority of the senate have it so much at heart, he must even give it up as a fruitless attempt. Mr. Tracy concurred in the decision of the chair.— The motion however arose from not reading the reso¬ lution three times, as was the usage with bills; in which cases having amended them on a second reading, you cannot amend on a third without the consent ol the whole. Here you have amended, and the resolution is taken up amended; if the senate is determined it shall have but the one reading, there is no remedy ; but the form of proceeding is so different from parliamentary rules, that some correction of it should take place. He asked what would now be the regular question? The president— on inserting the amendments adopted in committee of the whole, in the report ox the select committee. . » ( 64 ) t Mr. Nicholas said, the object of the gentleman from N. Jersey was to abolish the office of vice president; but the sense of the senate had been already expressed on that subject; he hoped the time of the house would not be lost on a subject alrealy decided. Mr. Dayton would not ask any favor. Mr. Adams If an amendment cannot be inserted now, he thought the mode of proceeding inconsistent with order ; he understood originally, it was decided that j^o^hing should be considered as tinal wincn has not the sanction of two thirds; and he had held back some amend¬ ments under the impression that it was stiil open. If the rules of the senate determine that a resolution shall have but one reading, there was a palpable contradiction between them and the rules of the otner house. The President entered into a circumstantial detail of the progress of the proceedings on the amendment ; and concluded by stating that the proceedings had been perfectly regular and according to order ; that in the present stage, all that had been adopted must be consi¬ dered as ready for the final vote; that no amendment could be made inconsistent with what had been already agreed to in the detail ; but that it was stiil open to any amendment not incompatible with what was already adopted. . Mr. Pickering offered an amendment in addition ; and not incompatible with what had passed ; it was to insert after the word u president” in the 27th line the following words. “ But. if within 24 hours no election shall u / iave taken place then the president shall be chosen by law.” This amendment he offered * a remedy by which we could avoid that civil war threatened on a former occasion. Mr. Adams wished the motion to be varied so as to come in after the 31st line. The motion he considered as embracing an object extremely important; and tho’ the case was an extreme one, of no election being made it was not unprecedented, for it had very recently hap¬ pened in Jersey, where no governor had existed lor a whole year. He did not approve of the precipitation with which the senate was carrying this amendment forward; he considered it as intending to prevent a fe¬ deral vice president being chosen; he hoped that the house would proceed with more deliberation. Mr. Pickering consented to the alteration proposed by his colleague. ( 65 ) Mr. Tracy thought the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts like a great many others, it would require a dozen more amendments to explain it; How was the choice to be made of a person to be chosen bv law ? Mr. Pickering. The states might chuse by lot ; or by ballots in a box, which the-president might col¬ lect ; or a number of names might be put in a box from which the speaker might draw one. Gen. Smith admired the ingenuity of gentlemen ; as they left ail consideration of what the people would wish or think about such a proceeding out of the question —suppose they were to throw the dice for the executive chair ! It would be equally wise with any of the expedi¬ ents offered, the gentlemen could serve their friends — the candidates’ names might be written—and the highest throw have it ! ! ? Mr. Tracy— however gentlemen mav ridicule the ballot it has a precedent, by the constitution of Kentucky it is provided that when two candidates are equal in votes the choice shall be made by lot. Mr. Brackenridce —-that practice has been long exploded. THURSDAY, DEC. 1. Mr. Hillhouse. We had been told some days ago that a candidate, proposed to be chosen by law, was near having his head cut off; such a process would be rather disagreeable to him ; he wished to avoid it him¬ self, and to prevent others getting into such a critical situation, and if the amendment were to be adopted, he had no doubt that 19 times out of 20, the choice would devol ve on the house of representatives. It was certain¬ ly not an unusual practice in elective governments, to choose persons for eminent stations by lot; it was very common at Athens ; and they were a very wise and prosperous people, and had an orderly and well regulated government. It would certainly be a preferable mode to the choice at the point of the bayonet. If he had'any conception of the operation of the proposed amend¬ ment, it would be to produce no election. The com¬ plex mode provided by the constitution, was conceived in great wisdom ; it was necessary when the country was agitated to operate as a check upon party, and irre¬ gular passions. Parties will always have their cham¬ pions, and they will be always well known ; to attack I ( 66 ) another champion is to restrain the passions by some de¬ gree of uncertainty, during the contest. But by the new amendment, it would be every man to his own book , and every demagogue would be a leader and a champion, and in the contest parties would be divided between the two principal champions, and a third would come in and win the race. If every man were to act correctly, no party passions would prevail on an occasion so important; but cair) the champions of two opposite parties to the house of repre¬ sentatives, and instead of voting 37 times before they decide, as on the last occasion; they will vote thirty hundred times. You are told that at the last election one was intended by the people for president, and the other for vice president; but the constitution knows no vote for vice president. Alter it as you now propose, and let two candidates be equal, and then you will be told that they were both intended for president. What will be the consequence ; on the third day of March, neither party will give out, and it will end in the choice oi a third man, who will not be the choice of the people, but one who will by artful contrivances, bring himself to that place with'the sole intention of getting in between them. Choice by lot would certainly be better than this. Would not any man prefer a choice by lot, rather than such a course as it would break up the constitution, and leave the people without a president in whom they would confide. . . _ , . . . The principle of the constitution, of electing by elec¬ tors, is certainly preferable to all others. One of the greatest evils that can happen is the throwing of the elec¬ tion into the house of representatives. There Penn- sylvania, Virginia, Massachusetts and New York may combine; they may say to the other states—we will not vote for your man, for either of those states giving their whole votes to a third character may bring him in; we see the practice daily in congressional elections, when both parties obstinately adhere to their candidate, a third is set up and carried in to the rejection of both. By the new mode proposed every man will have an in¬ terest to intrigue for himself to obtain the eminent sta¬ tion. Gentlemen may suppose that such is the predo¬ minancy of their party, they may carry in any president. But no party pan long hold an ascendancy in power; they will ill treat each other—or some of them will ( 67 ) disagree, and from the fragments new parties will arise, who will gain power, and forget themselves, and again disagree to make way for new parties. The constitution was "predicated upon the existence of parties; they will always exist, and names will not be wanting to rally under, and difference of interests will not be wanting for pretexts—the agricultural will be arrayed against the the mercantile—the south against the east—the seaboard against the inland. As to what he had heard about cut¬ ting off heads, he supposed that could not have been meant as a threat; in his part of the country such a crime could not take place ; the gentleman however, must be supposed to know his neighbours better than he did, but he could not suspect such danger from a valliant ^ Mr. Pickering said the amendment he had offered was suggested to him by the alarming picture of danger drawn by the gentleman from Maryland. He thought the dangers indeed exaggerated ; tho’ possibly they might not be ; but he thought it proper to provide how elections should be conducted and to determine between tumult or civil war and law. Gen. Smith did say, that at the last presidential election, the party opposed to the present chief magis¬ trate did contemplate laying aside the popular choice and electing a president by a law to be passed for the occasion at the time; he had also said that had the measure been carried into effect, the person whoever he might have been would have met the fate of anusurper- and his head would not have remained on his shoulders 24 hours. Mr. Wright— it had been said that we meant to precipitate this amendment of the constitution—to make the minority swallow it; he hoped the gentlemen in their eagerness to render it insipid would not make it totally unpalatable to us, as they had proceeded, the modes which they had proposed, struck him at least by their novelty—since what was offered was not satisfactory, and they were willing to commit it to chance, why did they not take up the ancient mode of grande battaile , we should have no objection to have it decided by the champions of both parties armed with tomahawks ! Gentlemen talk ofthe danger and of the rights of the small states, do they expect that any man can think their professions serious, when they are at the same time willing to commit their c 68 )' rights to the chance of a lottery; the rights of freemen are not to oe gambled away, or committed to chance, or sorcery, or witchcraft; we look to reason and experience for our guides; we seek for the means most conducive to the general happiness, to this reason conducts us ; by experience we correct wnat may have escaped our sa¬ gacity at first, or may have been found defecti ve or erro¬ neous in practice ; it is upon these principles our c onsti¬ tution is founded, it is for these words that the provision is made in the constitution itself for its own amendment ; and it is not compatible with reason or with the princi¬ ples of the constitution to commit any thing to capri¬ cious fortune, in which reason and human rights are concerned. Gentlemen charge us now with a wish to press this amendment forward with precipitation, what do gentlemen mean by this ; a few days onjy have passed when the same gentlemen were eager for an immediate decision, they declared their readiness t© decide imme- diately, that the subject was as well understood then as ever it would be, and that we delayed the decision to the exhaustion of their patience ; the subject has neverthe¬ less undergone a long discussion, and the time has only served to prove that tne gentlemen were at first mistaken, or that the numerous amendments which they have brought forward have their origin in other consid¬ erations. Mr. Adams had declared that he was ready to give his vote upon the amendment in the first stage ; but it did not therefore follow that when his opinion on the whole was not likely to prevail, that he should endeavour to ren- d er it as palatable as possible. He was totally adverse to any decision by lot, and agreed perfectly with the gentle¬ man from Maryland that it was not a mode suited to the principles of our government. But gentlemen say there is a defect, and wish to provide a remedy. He had drawn up an amendment which Jhe should offer to the house, if that of his colleague should not be approved. He con¬ fessed he did approve cf the designating principle, and for one among other reasons, that the present mode is too much like choice by lot. For instance, A. may be in¬ tended by a large majority of the people for president, and B. as vice-president; yet the votes might be so disposed, or chance might operate so contrary to intention, that the votes for B. should exceed by a vote those for A. This was a defect in the constitution ; and there was a further C 69 ) reason why he was in favor of the designating principle, and that was, that it appeared to be called for from all parts of the United States. It was very true as had been observed, that sometime ago the opposers of the amend¬ ment did press for a decision; but he had seen those dis¬ positions prevail alternately ; but the minority had not so much pressed for a decision, as for the discussion of the question. Mr. Pickering suggested his wish to substitute 48 hours for 24, in his amendment; and if the election should not then take place, a choice to be made in such manner as the house should direct. The question on Mr. Pickering’s motion was then put and negatived without a division. Mr. Adams then moved tne following amendment. In the 31st line after the word “choice” insert 1 “And in case the house of representatives shall not within. 2 ays en^ct he choice in manner aforesaid, ana there be a vice- 3 president dul elec ed, .he said vice-p resident .shall discharge the 4 powers and duties of the president of ihe U. States. Eu'c if 5 the office of vice-president be also vacant, then the said power, 6 and duties of president of the Uni ed Srates, shall be discharged 7b_ such personas congress may b. laW direct; un.il a new elec- 8 tioli shall be had in manner already prescribed by law,” Mr. HillhousE thought that there should be provision made for the choice so made to remain only until such period as the electors could be called again. Mr. Dayton hoped the gentlemen did not mean to lay a larger patch upon the constitution than the hole they make in it required. Had gentlemen considered that when there is a vice president, that in the case of absence, death or inability, he alone dan exercise the powers of the executive, and that you cannot place any person over his head. Mr. Adams —the gentleman is certainly right, he had offered his proposition hastily. The observations which arise in this discussion evidently prove that we have not had as full a consideration of the subject as it is susceptible of. Mr. Wright — gentlemen did not perceive that the house of representatives are constitutionally bound and impelled to chuse when it devolves upon them ; they are sworn to do their duty. The amendments offer¬ ed are wholly founded on the presumed corruption ofthe house of representatives. You may as well make pro¬ visions against the corruption of a jury. ( 70 ) Ms. Hillhoxjse —there is another point which gen¬ tlemen appear not to have taken into view, how the ob¬ jections of their oaths are to operate or be enforced, when the functions themselves expire on the 3d of March. There is another view of the subject, which ought not to be passed over. The members are sworn to be sure, but one half of the house may sincerely be¬ lieve that A. is the popular choice ; while the other half may as sincerely believe, that the wishes of the ma¬ jority are with B. and how are we to compel them by moral obligations, when the obligation rests wholly on the consciences of the individuals. 1 he true principle then would be to make provision for the appointment of a person who should carry on the functions of government till the electors may again meet and choose a president. A provision vesting in the senate the right ol choice even for one year, may be a motive for the other house to perform their duty promptly. It was not pleasant to riiacuss some topics, but we must discuss them, if we mean to avoid evil. We must suppose the existence of- faction, of party, and even corruption, for we know that evil passions do and will exist, and that by discussing we guard against them. An house of representatives elec¬ ted two years before your presidential election, may hold sentiments very different from him ; the public mind may change in the time ; and a party losing power may be led away by passion to conspire and throw every dif¬ ficulty in the way. Mr. Bradley thought the sentiments cf the gen¬ tleman last up perfectly correct. Ke was satisfied that if the house made no choice the vice president would administer the government Mr. Wright said that although the functions of tue^ house of representatives would expire with the od of March, yet there was assuredly time enough between the 2d Wednesday in February, and the 3d of March to make a proper choice ; nothing but obstinacy or worse would prevent an election ; he would shut them up like a jury until they had made a choice ; he could not con¬ ceive a case wherein, any number of men in congress would dare to set themselves up against the country, and put its happiness and their own lives at hazaru, in such a way as-the gentleman supposed. Oen. Smith. The gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Adams) appears not to be perfectly satisfied with his ( 71 ) own amendment; and certainly the gentleman from Connecticut had shewn that the amendment was defec¬ tive ; the candor of that gentleman he must acknowiege, he had taken the strongest hold possible of the subject; he had laid the fruits of experience before you, and point¬ ed out the weakness which you had to protect. He would recommend it to the gentleman from Massachu¬ setts to alter his amendment, so as to make it, that in case the house should fail to chuse, then in four days after the vice-president shall be president. Mr. Adams saw a new difficulty there also ; for there may not be a majority for both; and provision will be ne¬ cessary for the vacancy of the vice-presidency. Mr. Hillhouse thought there would be no danger of the senate omitting to elect their president, who is on a vacancy the vice-president in fact. As to shutting the house up like a jury in a dark room, depriving them ol fire, light and food, he thought the measure too strong ; he did not wish to see them at the mercy of a sheriff, who upon their laches might call in the jiosse committatus , and trundle them out of the district, or send them to Coven¬ try. If the house of representatives should not make a choice, he saw no reason why the government should not go on, until an election should take place. Mr. Cocke was astonished to see gentlemen going over so much unnecessary ground. Could they suppose the people so indifferent to their own rights as not to make an election ? Or do gentlemen mean all these cavall'ings for amusement, to display their ingenuity at finding fault. If there should be any failure of choice, why could not the secretary of state arrange and carry on the executive business until an election should again take place ? Mr. Tracy rose.... Mr. Cocke called for the question—the question. Mr. Tracy —does the gentleman mean to call for the question while I am on the floor—I will not sit down upon such a call—what is the question sir ? Mr. Dayton hoped the gentleman from Massachu¬ setts (Mr. Adams) would withdraw his amendment. Mr. Adams thought the deliberation of one or two hours could not be thrown away. Mr. Wright hoped the decision on the amendment would not be pressed upon the house. What! is it proposed to take the choice of president out ol the hands of the electors, and place it wholly in the house ol re- ( 72 ) presentatives and tell them, hold out only four days, and you will then have the whole power in your hands, you mav set aside ail consideration for the wishes of your constituents, set popular opinion at defiance, and please yourselves by cruising a president of whom the popple never thought. Gentlemen should avoid this dangerous path which they wish to prepare, the people will not bear to be frowned upon by those whom their breath has made and can unmake. 1 . ■ : Sir, it is our wish to prevent all these dangerous or fatal courses and consequences—and we should keep in mind, that whatever we may conclude upon here, is completely guarded not alone by the necessary consent of the other house, but that of three-fourths of the states The constitution, sir, would be preferable as it is without, the odious and anti-republican forms which gentlemen propose to engross upon it—What sir, determine a most important principle of effective government by a non-effective act—determine an election by holding out a temptation to non-election ! He should prefer, having the choice open to the representatives bound by oath, by duty, and by the constisution, to such an alternative \ if men so placed would be so blind to the calls of duty, the public indignation would bring them to their senses before the 4th of March. Honor and their oaths, sir, would bind them ; he had too much confidence in the choice of his countrymen, and of the virtue and morality of those who are sent to the important stations of repre¬ sentatives, to think they disregard their oaths or their duty. Some gentlemen tell us indeed they know of no persons who would raise their hands against an usurper, if he had been set up, and insinuate that it would be a crime ; but they find ready belief for acts ten thousand degrees more base and heinous in them¬ selves \ they can believe their countrymen capable of the breach of every tie of honor, of oaths and of duty ; gentlemen must speak from their own knowlege ; for his part he was happy to say there were no such men among his acquaintance nor in his neighbourhood. . The arguments which gentlemen draw from their ex¬ perience, would be with him powerful ones for opposing the measure which they are brought forth to sustain.— For if men elected to sucli stations as seats in congress are capable of the breach of every obligation of honor and oath, the greatest care should be taken to keep the ( 73 ) power of election forever out of their hands, by render¬ ing- it impossible for the people not to elect; nay he would prefer carrying the election to the individual vote of every citizen, without the intervention of electors, to suffering it to go into any body liable to such dishonor. An observation of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Adams) produced a sensation which at once shewed that something besides the care of the people’s rights had an influence here ; he proposes that the proper offi¬ cer, the vice president, should succeed to the presiden¬ tial chair upon a failure of election or vacancy after a few- short months; whence arose the agitation and interest excited by this proposition ?—is it because we wish not to see a man seated in the executive chair whom the people never contemplated to place there, and who never had a vote. Mr. Dayton —You are about to designate who shall be president and who vice president; and some gentle¬ men have gone so far as to favor the choice of one who had not even a vote for either office, The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Adams) indeed professes to have in view the succession of the vice president to the executive chair when vacant. But gentlemen should perceive that if you designate, the principle will be totally changed. He could not assent to the conclusion of some gentlemen on another point, if any thing could be understood from the constitution more clearly than another, it was that the voces are given to two persons for president, and that, as has been observed before, the constitution never notices a vote for the office of vice president. How then can it be said which was the person intended ? The gentleman from Maryland (Mr, Wright) had said, that one of the candidates at the late election had not a single vote for president, while the official returns shew, that each and every vote was the same for both candidates as president. Mr. Taylor— that matter appears susceptible of a very simple explanation; there can be no question that hi form, the votes for each candidate were equal; but that is not the question, the quo unimo must be taken into view; would any gentleman say that no preference was intended. It is very true that such was the form, but looking to the well known intention, have you not in the very fact stated an evidence that the principle of designa- ( 74 ) tion is essential, were it omy to pre^ ent the consumma¬ tion of an act never contemplated or expected. Mr. Dayton was for a postponement of the amendment. Gen. Jackson was for postponement also. Mr. Adams’s amendment was postponed and ordered to be printed. Mr. Taylor wished to offer an amendment as an ad¬ dition to the report—• u Provided, that whenever the right of choosing a pre¬ sident shall devolve upon the house of representatives, the vice president shall act as president, in case they fail to make such choice, in like manner as in case of the death or resignation of the president.” It was moved that this, with the other amendment, be printed—and the house adjourned. DECEMBER 2. The order of the day being the amendment proposed in the house of representatives, to be made to the con¬ stitution of the United States, and the report of the com¬ mittee being under consideration. Mr. Taylor of Virginia, desired to withdraw his motion of the preceding day, in order to accommodate the terms of his proposition to the wishes of gentlemen. His only object was to obtain the principle, and provided that was obtained in such a manner as to promise an ac¬ complishment of the good intended thereby, he should consider the words in which the provision was to be couched of inferior moment; in lieu of the addition which he offered before, he now proposed to insert after the word choose in the 32d line the following words u a nd if the house of representatives shall not choose a u president whenever the right of choice shall devolve u U pon them, before the 4th day of March next follow- “ ing, then the vice president shall act as president, as “ in case of the death or other constitutional disability “ of the president.” Mr. Adams had no sort of objection to this addition to the paragraph; it reached his ideas as far as it tvent; but he conceived that though this made a very necessa¬ ry provision for the case of the president, it did not go far enough, inasmuch as no provision was made in case there should be no vice president. He would submit this case to gentlemen, that if there v r as no vice presi¬ dent existing nor any more than a president chosen, in the event of a high state of party spirit, would it be dif- ( 75 ) ficult to foresee, that there would be much room left for contention and evil ; unless provision should be made against the contingency, therefore, the amendment would be imperfect, in his mind; like the gentleman from Vir¬ ginia, he was not tied to words, but he thought it worth while to employ two lilies to provide against the danger. Mr. Hillhouse concurred in the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia, but he hoped the idea of the gentleman from Massachusetts would also he adopted. Mr. Pickering objected to the length of time allow¬ ed for the house of representatives to decide. We have been told that the small states from their smaller num¬ ber of votes are exposed to corruption; he wished no time to be left for corruption to operate, and he therefore desired that the period for the house of representatives to decide should be limited to forty-eight hours or three days. Mr. Wright approved of the amendment that had been offered in all its parts ; and the more so as it in effect supplies a deficiency which exists in the constitu¬ tion even as it now stands. The amendment was agreed to 22 being in the affir¬ mative. Mr. Adams offered another amendment of the follow¬ ing effect, to be added to the provision concerning the election of vice president—“and if there shall be no vice “ president duly elected within ten days after the 4th of “ March, then the power and duties of the president of “ the United States shall be discharged by such person “ as shall be by law invested with that power, until such “ time as a new election by electors shall take place.” Mr. Tracy wished to know why ten days was the period fixed ? Mr. Adams —because the amendment proposed gives the house of representatives until the 4th of March, du¬ ring which time the old vice president continues in office ; and ten days appeared to him a reasonable pe¬ riod ; but he was not tied to any particular number of days. Mr. Tracy' would prefer the word vacant suggested Yesterday, to the not duly elected. Mr. H ill house was not disposed to concur with the proposed amendment; he did not think a period of agi¬ tation a proper one to make choice of an officer of so much power; he would prefer making provision by law ! ( 76 ) before the happening of . the event; for in a high state of party, he coukl see no likelihood of an agreement, and out of disagreement confusion might arise. His wish was to have some person designated who should dis¬ charge the executive duties until an election should take place; and that this officer should be previously fixed upon, so that party spirit should have no room for agi¬ tation. Gen. Jackson could.not discern the necessity of the proposition now offered ; the case proposed to be proyided against, he thought so extreme as likely never to hap¬ pen. Besides the mover appeared not to have taken it into consideration that one third of the senate go out at the close of the second session of every congress by rotation, and would he have only two thirds to make the law which was to provide for this choice. Upon the principle of the general amendment, he had not at first made up his convictions, but the amendment adopted had removed his doubts, and he thought this addition to the amendment unnecessary. He hoped the senate would abide by that they had already agreed to, and preserve the right of choice to the people. Mr. Wright —there was another difficulty which the gentleman from Massachusetts appears not to have foreseen. To make a law it is not enough that the Se¬ nate are present even if complete ; the house of repre¬ sentatives is necessary to an act of legislation, and that body can have no existence after the 4th day of March, nor within the ten days suggested, for they could not if all elected, be called even by proclamation within that time ; and further if there should ben© election of president, there would be no power to convene congress —so that the proposed addition is improper altogether. Mr. Adams did not feel extremely solicitous for the proposition ; when the constitution is proposed to be amended, however, he was disposed to offer every sug¬ gestion which might appear to him calculated to render it more perfect. The objections offered by the gentle¬ man from Georgia, high as he respected his opinion,.did not appear to him conclusive ; for his calculations of time and circumstance do not entirely correspond with experience past; the president has at all times hereto¬ fore been inaugurated, after the house of representa¬ tives had closed its session by limitation, and the senate had been uniformly assembled for the purpose of the m- ( 77 ) auguration. Here then is a body in session, and if there shall not be a vice president chosen, they can and must proceed to choose one, and that choice would of course fall as proposed, upon one of the candidates.— The gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. Hillhouse) had mistaken his view, concerning the choice of a person by law; his intention certainly w r as to provide for the future contingency by a previous law. Gen. Jackson still conceived the gentleman’s propo¬ sition founded in mistake ; for it would be impracticable for the senate to act, since according to the rules of the senate two thirds of the whole are necessary to form a quorum ; one third must constitutionally go out of that body at the time, and the absence of a single member would disable the senate from business. Mr. Adams —there would remain still two thirds of the senate, and it would be the duty of the executive to call them together, as had been done in some cases ; and as to the deduction of the third by rotation ; there are several of the small states that elected their senators several months before the period. To argue that they would neglect it would be to argue that the states are indifferent to their representation on this floor. Gen. Jackson— we know that vacancies do occur from other causes than indifference or neglect of states ; we know that at this moment New York has but one representative on this floor—and that Jersey had but very lately been so much embarrased by a faction as to leave her for sometime w ithout more than one senator. The question on the amendment of Mr. Adams was then put and lost without a division. Mr. Pickering, The case which the gentleman from Georgia founded his arguments upon applies to a non-election , and thought such a case an extreme one ; he thought differently, and the constitution as it now stands has made a provision for such an exigency.— Some provision should be made for such a case, he would therefore move an amendment, which would provide for the event of a wow-election—to insert after the words president: “ But if on the 4th of March “ the office ol vice president shall be vacant, then the A ‘ powers which devolve by the constitution on the vice u president, shall be exercised by such persons as the “ law shall direct until a new election.” Mr. Hillhouse. This amendment would supply «I1 that was proposed by the allowance of ten days in a ( 78 ) Former amendment, and it seemed to him indispensable, localise as the non-election of both president and vice president may happen, there should be some organ to keep the wheels of government in motion. It appeared to him to be as necessary to provide for this contingency as for that of the death of the president or vice presi¬ dent. The amendment was lost without a division. The main question of the whole resolution then re¬ curring. Mr. White, of Delaware— Mr. President : It may be expected that we, who oppose the present mea¬ sure, and especially those of us who belong to the smaller states, and who think the interests of those states will be most injuriously affected by its adoption, shall assign some reasons for our opinion, and for the resistance we give it—I will for myself endeavor to do so. I know well the prejudices of many in favor ol this proposed amend¬ ment to the constitution—I know too and acknowledge with pleasure, the weight of abilities on the other side of the house by which those prejudices, if I may so be permitted to call them, will be sustained— this might perhaps be sufficient to create embarrassment or even silence on my part, but lor the consciousness I feel m the rectitude of my views, and my full reliance on the talents of those with whom I have the honor gen¬ erally to think and act. Upon a subject oi tne nature and importance of the one before us ci great diversity of sentiment must be expected, and is perhaps necessary to the due and proper investigation ol it. V ithout de¬ taining the senate with further preliminary remarks, presuming upon that patience and polite indulgence that are at ail times extended by this honorable body to gen¬ tlemen who claim their attention, I will proceed imme¬ diately to the subject of the resolution—barely premising that notwithstanding the opinions of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Georgia (Gen. Jackson) whose opinions I highly respect, I must vet think with my honourable friend from Jersey (Mr. Dayton) that the constitution of the United States bears upon the face of it the strongest marks of its hav ing been made under the influence of state classifications, —it was a work of compromise, though not form¬ ed, as stated by the gentleman from Virginia, by the large states yielding most, but by the smaller states ) ( 79 ) yielding' much more to the general good. It will be recollected that previous to the adoption of the consti¬ tution on all legislative subjects, in fact on every measure of the constitution, each state had an equal voice; but very different is the case now when in the popular branch of your government, you see one state represented by twenty two members, and another by but one, voting ac¬ cording to numbers. So that notwithstanding the ideas of those gentlemen, and the declaration of an honorable member from Maryland on my right (Gen. Smith) that during his ten years service in congress, he had never seen any thing like state jealousies, state divisions or state classification, I must be permitted to predicate part of my argument upon this business. Should any gentleman be abie to shew that the foundation is unsound, the superstructure of course will be easily demolished. Admitting then, sir, for the sake of argument, that there were no very great objections to this proposed alteration in the mode of elec¬ ting a president and vice president, and that it were now part of the constitution, it might be unwise to strike it out; unless much stronger arguments had been urged against than I have heard in favor of it, yet I would not now vote for its adoption. What appears specious in theory may prove very inconvenient and embarrassing in prac¬ tice, and my objections go to any alteration of the cons¬ titution at this time ; we have not given it a fair experi¬ ment, and it augurs not well to the peace 8c happiness ofthe United States to see so much increasing discontent upon this subject, so many projected alterations to the great char¬ ter of our union and our liberties ; not less than four are now upon our tables, and which if adopted will materi¬ ally change the most valuable features of the constitution. The first alters the mode of electing the president and vice president—the second changes the ground upon which the vice president is to be appointed by the senate, in case one is not ele tecl by the electors according to the constitution—tne third extends the powers of the senate in the choice of this latter officer beyond what was ever contemplated by the people ot this country—and the fourth which is not now immediately before us, goes to incapacitate any citizen from being eligible to the office of president more than a certain number of years. All these important changes we are about tc. introduce into the constitution at once, and indeed, were attempted to be forced into a final vote upon them, in little more / ( 80 ) than the space of one day from the moment they tvere submitted to us. Are we aware of what we are about ? Is this the way in which the constitution was formed ? Was it put together with as much facility and as little reflection as we are tearing it to pieces ? No, Mr. Pre¬ sident, it was constructed after much thought, after long and mature deliberation, by the collected wisdom and patriotism of America,^ by such a set ol men as I fear this country will never again see assembled ; and we should be cautious how we touch it. The fewer changes we make in it, the longer it remains—the older it grows the higher veneration will every American entertain for _the man born to its blessings will respect it more than him who saw jts birth; he will regard it not only as the great bulwark of his liberties but as the price ot the blood of his ancestors—as a sacred legacy from his father, deoosited with him for the benefit of himself, and in trust for his posterity. But if in this wav every succeed¬ ing congress, every party enjoying the short lived triumph of a day, shall be mutilating it with alterations from whatever motives, either to thwart their political opponents, or to answer particular purposes, ere long no trace of the original instrument will remain, it will be kept in a state of tottering infancy, until some Gallic Caesar, turning to his advantage an unhappy moment of popular phrenzy may make the last change, by trampling upon its ruins, and substituting the strong arm of power in its place. What sir, let me ask, are the objects of these propo¬ sed amendments ? The first we are told will so mark, so designate the man to be president as to close forever doors upon that subject ! coulci tms be tne e±i^*-i., LuC adoption of it would indeed be wise and provided, but - I fear a directly contrary tendency, that it will open a new and an immense field for intrigue.-The United States are now divided, and will probably continue so, into two great political parties—whenever, under this amendment, a presidential election shall come round, and the four rival candidates be proposed, two of them only will be voted for as president, one of these two must be the man ; the chances in favor of each will be equal. Will not this increased probability of success, afford more than double the inducement to those candidates, and their friends, to tamper with the electors, to exercise intrigue, bribery and corruption as in an election upon ( 81 ) the present plan, where the whole four would be voted for alike, where the chances against each are as three to one, and it is totally uncertain which of the gentlemen may succeed to the high office ? And there must indeed be a great scarcity of character in the United States, when in so extensive and populous a country, four citi¬ zens cannot be found either of them worthy even of the chief magistracy of the nation. But Mr. President, I have never yet seen the great inconvenience that has been so much clamored about* and that will be futurely provided against by substituting this amendment. There was indeed a time when it became necessary for the house of representatives to elect by ballot a presi¬ dent of the United States from the two highest in vote, and they were engaged here some days, as I have been told in a very good humored way, in the exercise of that constitutional right, they at length decided—• and what was the consequence ? The people were satisfied, and here the thing ended. What does this prove, that the constitution is defective ? No sir, but rather the wis¬ dom and efficiency of the very provision intended to be stricken out ; and that the people are acquainted with the nature of their government—and give me leave to say if fortune had smiled upon another man, and that election had eventuated in another way, the consequence would ’nave been precisely the same; the great mas*; of the people would have been content and quiet; and those factions restless disorganizes, that are the eternal dis¬ turbers of all well administered governments and Avho then talked of resistance, would have had too much pru¬ dence to hazard their necks in so dangerous an enter¬ prise. I will not undertake to say that there was no danger apprehended on that occasion. I know many of the friends of the constitution had their fears, the experi¬ ment no vvever proved them groundless; but what was the danger apprehended, pending the election in the house of representatives? Was it that they might choose Colonel Burr or Mr. Jefferson president? Not at all—> they had, notwithstanding what had been said on this subject by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wright) a clear constitutional right to choose either of them, as much so as the electors in the several state had to vote for them in the first instance—the particular man was a consideration of but secondary importance to the country ; the only ground of alarm was lest the house should separate L ( 82 ) Without making any choice and the government be without a head, the consequences of which no man could weh cal¬ culate. The present attempt, to say the least of it, as has been well observed by my honourable friend from Jersey, (Mr. Dayton) is taking advantages of a casualty to alter the constitution that astonished every one when it happened, and that no man can imagine in the ordinary course of events will ever arise again; sir, every hour that is added to the age of our government, every day’s increasing popu¬ lation of our country, every state admitted into the union, renders still more remote even this improbable contin¬ gency. Gentlemen have urged with exulting confidence and particularly the honorable gentleman from Maryland (gen Smith) that the people have long thought on this subject, and prepared for the amendment and expect its adoption. I respect the sentiments of the people as highly as any man when they are well digested and clearly expressed—but in my mind this is a dangerous ground to advance far upon without examining it well for ourselves : it is an argument that will apply alike to almost every question of importance and goes to preclude debate upon them—for it is well known that there are few such submitted to us that have not been previously the subject of thought and speculative conversation out of doors. Ours is a country of politicians and from the nature of our government must continue so, every mem¬ ber of society, feels such a portion of interest in the affairs of the nation, as to excite enquiry, be his lot humble or exalted, be his sentiments right or wrong, he expresses them as he is entitled to do with freedom—but is it abroad in the country that the most important measures of the government are to be matured and decided upon . Is it in private circles, in caucuses, in clubs, in coffee houses, streets and bar rooms that great constitutional questions are to be settled ? And are we convened here but to register the crude decrees of such assemblages, or only for the humble purpose of answering to the call of our secretary with a yea or nay ? If the argument proves any thing it amounts to this—Would the gentle¬ man from Maryland or any other honorable member, be content to hold his seat upon such terms ? If so he may indulge himself in one consolation that no private citizen wouid envy him the place ;—but for myself I claim the exercise of higher and more responsible privileges oi thinking and acting for myself; holding it my duty, so ( 83 ) far as I am capable, to assign to my constituents the rea¬ sons that govern my public conduct. It has of late, Mr. President, become fashionable to at¬ tach very little importance to the office of vice president, to consider it a matter but of small consequence who the man may be ; to view his post merely as an idle post of of honor, and the incumbent as a cypher in the govern¬ ment ; or according to the idea expressed by an honora¬ ble member from Georgia, (Gen. Jackson) quoting, I believe, the language of some eastern politician, as a fifth wheel to a coach ; but in my humble opinion this doc¬ trine is both incorrect and dangerous. The vice presi¬ dent is not only the second officer of government in point of rank, but of importance, and should be a man possessing and worthy of the confidence of the nation. I grant, sir, should this designating mode of election succeed, it will go very far to destroy, not the certain or contingent duties of the office, for the latter by this re¬ solution arc considerably extended, but what may be much more dangerous, the personal consequence and worth of the officer; by rendering the electors more in¬ different about the reputation and qualification of the candidate, seeing they vote for him but as a secondary character ; and which may occasion this high and im¬ portant trust to be deposited in very unsafe hands. By a provision in the 1 st sect, of the 2d art. of the constitu¬ tion “in case of the removal of the president from office, or of his death,resignation or inability to discharge the pow¬ ers £t duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the vice president”—and he is constitutionally the president, not until another can be made only, but for the residue ol the term, which may be neariy four years; and this is not to be supposed a remote or improbable case. In the state to which I have the honor to belong, within a few years past two instances have happened of the place of governor becoming vacant, and the duties of the office, according to the constitution of that state, devolving upon the speaker of the senate. We knew welltoo, generally speaking, that before any man can acquire a sufficient share of the public confidence to be elected president, the people must have long been acquainted with his cha¬ racter and his merit; he must have proved himself a good and faithful servant, and will of course be far advanced in years, when the chances of life will be much against him —It may indeed, owing to popular iniatuation, or some / ( 34 X other extraordinary causes, be the ill fate of the country that an unworthy, designing man, grown old and gre y in the wavs of vice and hypocrisy, shad for a time dis- honor the presidential chair, or it may be the fortune oi some young man to be elected, but those will rarely happen. The convention in constructing this part of tiie constitution, in settling the first and second offices of die government, and pointing out the mode of filling, aware cf the probability of the V. P. succeeding to the office of president, endeavoured to attach as much importance and respectability to his office as possible, by making it uncertain at the time of voting which of the persons voted for should be president and which vice president'; so as to secure the election of the best men in the country, or at least those in whom the people reposed the highest con¬ fidence, to the two offices—thus filling .the office of vice president w itfc one of our most distinguished citizens, who would give respectability to the government, and in case of the presidency becoming vacant, having at his post a man constitutionally entitled to succeed, who had been honored with the second largest number of the suf¬ frages oi the people for the same office, and who oi con¬ sequence would be probably worthy of the place, and competent to its duties. Let us now, Mr. President, examine for a moment the certain effect of the change about to be made, or what must be the operation of this designating principle, if you introduce it into the consti¬ tution ; now the elector cannot designate, but must vote for two persons as president, leaving it to circumstances not within his power to control which shall be the man : of course he will select two characters, each suitable lor tlvat office, and the second highest in vote must be the vice president; but upon this designating plan the pub¬ lic attention will be entirely engrossed in the election of the president, in making one great man. The eyes of each contending party will be fixed”exclusively upon their can¬ didate for this first and highest office, no surrounding ob¬ ject can be viewed at the same time, they will be lost in his disk. The office of president, is in point of honor, profit, trust, and influential patronage so infinitely supe¬ rior to any ether place attainable in this government, that in the pursuit and disposal of it, all minor considerations will be forgotten, every thing will be made to bend in order to subserve the ambitious views of the candidates and their friends. In this angry conflict of parties, ('«* ): amidst the heat and anxiety of this political warfare, the vice presidency will cither be left to chance, or what will be much worse, prostituted to the basest purposes, character, talents, virtue, and merit will not be sought after in the candidate—the question will not be asked, is he capable ? is he honest ? But can he by his name, by his connexions, by his wealth, by his local situation, by his influence, or his intrigues, best promote the elec¬ tion oi a president ? He will be* made the mere stepping stone of ambition. Thus by the death or other consti¬ tutional inability of the president to do the duties of the office, you may find at the head of your government the first magistrate of the nation, a man who has either smuggled or bought him himself into office. Who, not having the confidence oi the people, or feeling the constitutional responsibility of his place ; but attributing his elevation merely to accident, and conscious of the superior claims of others, will be without restraint upon his conduct, without that strong inducement to consult the wishes of the peo¬ ple, and to pursue the true interests of the nation, that the hope of popular applause, and the prospect of re-election would offer. Such a state of things might be productive of incalculable evils ; for it is, as I fear time will shew, in the power of a president of the United States to bring this government into contempt and this country to digrace, if not to ruin. Again Sir, if this amendment succeeds, if you designate the person voted for as president, and the person voted for as vice presi¬ dent, you hold out an irresistible temptation to contracts and compromises among the larger states for these offi¬ ces ; it will be placing the choice of the two highest offi¬ cers in the government so completely within their power, that the five largest states, viz. Massachusetts, New York Pennsylvania, Virginia and N. Carolina, may not only act in every previous arrangement relative to the appoint¬ ment of these officers without the necessity of consulting the other twelve, but may totally exclude them from any participation in the election. The whole number of electors, according to the present representation in con¬ gress will be one hundred and seventy seven, these five states will have ninety six of them, a clear majority of eight, and should they agree among themselves, they can say absolutely who shall be the president, and who the vice president; and other twelve states will not have ( 86 ) even the humble privilege of choosing between their can¬ didates ; for their whole number of votes being but eighty one given to the candidate for the vice presidency as pre¬ sident, would be but thrown away, since the other would still have his designated majority of eight for that place. Should it be said that such a coalition is improbable, I an¬ swer that my opinion is different and i ;s enough ior me tnat it is possible. Again, sir, counting only the states of Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and \ irginia, these four will be found to be entitled to eighty-two elec¬ tors, wanting seven of a majority of the whole number, so that leaving North Carolina among the smaller states, if they unite, and can by any species of influence, by promi¬ ses of offices, bribery or corruption gain over to their in¬ terest but seven of the electors belonging to the other states, they can in like manner appoint whom they please —I might go on to shew that lopping even Massachu¬ setts from this list, the other four, viz. New York, Penn¬ sylvania, Virginia and North Carolina could with very little difficulty effect the same object, since they are entitled to seventy-seven electors. And now let me ask gentlemen representing the twelve smaller states, if they are prepared to yield up not oniy the high and honorable "■round upon which the constitution has placed them in the house of representatives in case of an election for a president to be bad there ; but to vest in the five larger states, or even in a smaller number of them, whenever they shall be pleased to exercise it, the exclusive power of appointing the president and vice president of the C. States. Mr. Cocke —the gentleman last up has,to be sure, in a well studied speech, as often times before, sounded the tocsin of alarm, and called in even the aid of prophe¬ cy to enforce his fears. But, Sir, this senate has been so much accustomed to these false alarms, that it ap¬ pears to me the only danger we are in is that of going wide of the subject, and taking up our time with mat¬ ters of imagination, instead of sticking to matter of fact. 'Plie object of this amendment to the constitution is only one thing, one plain and simple principle, to enable the people to discriminate in the choice of their fellow citi¬ zens for the offices of president and vice president. Gen¬ tlemen tell us of large and small states, but is this amend¬ ment more in favor of the large than small; is this not $uch an amendment as will induce the large states to ( 87 ) ✓ promote the election by the people ? Is it not such an amendment as will prevent that corruption which so many gentlemen on all sides apprehend, if it goes into the house of representatives ? Where is the use of gen¬ tlemen sounding an alarm of danger which they do not really believe themselves ? Why will gentlemen talk of the danger of confusion, threaten us with it, when the whole confusion arises from the acts of gentlemen them¬ selves? We have listened here with patience for weeks together to the arguments of gentlemen ; they have had every fair opportunity to give their opinions, and it is now time to come to a conclusive vote. We hear no¬ thing now but a repetition in fine dressed words of what we have heard from day to day for weeks; and all for what purpose, to excite our fears, fears which it is our wish to guard against in reality. Gentlemen tell us—first—they suppose the people may not elect a president and vice president. Upon what ground do they pretend to believe this possible ; are the people so disgusted with their liberties ; are they so little attentive to their rights—-are they tired of a government that every day makes them more happy. No, sir. They then tell us that they do not wish that the elec¬ tion should go into the house of representatives; and then that that house may not elect; and then our very honorable selves are recommended to make up all defi¬ ciencies 1 Do gentlemen doubt themselves, or can they compel congress to pass such a law as they require for the election of a dictator, without a voice from the peo¬ ple. If gentlemen fear that the people will not elect, and that the other house will not elect, with equal reason they may fear that the other house would not make the law they wish for. But it is said that some of us are governed by a fear that the people may not have a choice in the election of vice president. If it will afford gentlemen any satisfac¬ tion, I tell them that it is my wish that the people should elect the vice president as well as the president. I say I do not understand the principle of minorities govern¬ ing majorities. The law of the minority is not the law of the constitution, and it is not the law for me. How gentlemen can pretend to advocate the constitution, and talk of the minority giving law, is to me, very surpris¬ ing ; they say too the constitution is very sacred to them, ( 88 ) a nd it should not be altered ; so it is too, every word sa¬ cred to me; but among its most sacred parts, I hncl that the constitution provides for its own alteration and amendment ; not indeed by a minority, by a very large majority in both houses, and by a much larger majority of states. Gentlemen are willing that a minority should elect a vice president, but they are not willing that three fourths of the states should amend the constitution ; they pass by the open door on the right hand to get m at a private passage. . , Mr. White —to order—the gentleman is not surety using any arguments of mine—they are of his own mak- 111 Cocke— the gentleman from Delaware thinks the minority should govern—that is his argument, how¬ ever he may disguise it; I think the majority snould govern; I like to speak out—I do not wish to have a man put upon us contrary to our wishes— what, shall the majority abandon the right of choosing a man whose opi¬ nions are conformable to theirs, and suffer a man ot prin¬ ciples hostile to theirs to be put upon them. I am, sir, for a government of the people, whether well born or born by accident; lam for a government not of cheats and balances, but one that will not suffer a bad check upon er»od principles. . , But we are once more told of a Gallic Cxsar, and our fears are to be provoked this way too—but this more than the rest of alarms will not do ; we fear no Cxsar foreign or domestic. We have indeed seen the day when we were near getting a president not of our choice r but because we have escaped from the danger and the intrigue of that day, are we to take no precaution against such" measures again. It is to guard against such dan¬ gers we wish to amend this constitution. But gun - men tell us we have not given it a fair trial. think we have and found .it defective ; here we have been a week and upwards, labouring and bewildered in every kind of discussion, and what have we come to, exactly where we set out—Not one ol us has altered our opin¬ ions—we have argued and listened and done nothmg— whv, because gentlemen have been attempting impos¬ sibilities, there is no such thing as moving either side from their principles; one side thinks the minoriy. should give the law—we think with the constitution the SttsTn the majority-and we will submit to no other law. I am for the amendment and for a discrimination. ( 89 ) Mr. Plume a ha. cl generally contented himself with a silent vote on public questions ; on the present occasion he could not as the representative of a small state oass the question without delivering- his reasons for his vote. He agreed with gentlemen that the constitution had nro- vided for its amendment ; but there was a feat-ire equally strong, and principles more generally diffused, thro’ that instrument, a strong guard against' encroach¬ ments and innovations. There are two modes by which the constitution may be amended. The first is that when two thirds of the states think proper to call a convention, and when such amendments as this convention may propose attain the subsequent ratification of three-fourths of the states._ In this case congress has no other right of interference than to enquire whether three-fourths of the states have given their due concurrence*to the amendment proposed. The other mode of amendment is that which we are called upon to perform in the manner proposed by the report now under discussion ; it is an amendment to which consent of tztn thirds of both houses of congress is in the first instance necessary, and to render it obliga¬ tory must have the subsequent ratification of three fourths of the states. The latter mode of amendment was now to be con¬ sidered, and on the first view he thought it proper to state, that according to his judgement of the constitution two thirds of both houses meant not simply two thirds of all the members present in each house, but of all the members elected . By a reference to similar principles in other parts of the constitution this opinion was greatlv strengthened ; as in the case of a law which the president may object to, he may return the bill to both houses with his reasons for refusing his assent to it, and if after reconsideration two thirds of one house shall repass it, and two thirds of the other house shall re-approve, then it shall become law—another case wherein large propor¬ tions or majorities are resorted to is when the election >f a president devolves on the house of representatives where the votes are to be taken by states, each state having one vote; but though a quorum of two thirds mly may be present, a majority of all the states shall be lecessary to a choice. In like manner in cases of im¬ peachment the concurrence of two thirds of the mem* >ers pres* nt is required; so treaties are ratified with M ( 90 ) the concurrence of two thirds of the members lireunt; members of either house may be expelled with the con- currence of two thirds. . . Here in all these various cases there are distinctions made in the proportions applicable to the particular na¬ ture of the cases ; in some the proportions are two-tmr s of the members present ; in others two-thirds of the several houses. In the case of the amendment to the constitution it is in the latter terms, and evidently means two-thirds of the whole number elected. Indeed the reason of the case proves that it must be so construed, for if two-thirds of the members present could aitei the constitution, at the present time twelve members being little more than a third of the whole house may loim two-thirds ofaquorom. He thought it necessary to go into those observations, that the senate might guard ai-ainst party innovations, and to draw their attention to t h e principles of the constitution from which he did no wish to deviate. In the case of amendment it was evi¬ dent to him that two-thirds of the whole number ol each house was requisite to validate an amendment. ' Instructions from the legislatures 01 some states to their representatives have been mentioned. I us ie considered as altogether irregular. The state legisla¬ tures were intended as a check upon the propositions which might be offered by congress, but here they be¬ come their counsellors and guides ; this he considered as an usurpation of authority. Instructions may oe nroper in some cases, but in that of amendments they are improper, because it is an interference or an attempt to deprive congress of its own right of judgment on wha comes before them—in a case where the tinal decisioi rests with the adviser. \s to the doctrine of amendments generally, gentle, men go too far. There are certain rights preserve! which cannot be changed, and which no amendment cai reach. Tor example, no state can be deprived ol it equal representation in this house by two thir * nor any other number without its own consent , >° cannot make any alteration in the uniformity of taxatio on states; nor in the uniformity of naturalizat on, nc concerning the importation of slaves before the y?* 1808 ; neither can you by any numbers countenance c establish any other form of government, or sutler it to established, than a republican form of government, t< - ' ( 91 ) the constitution guarantees that form to each state.—* This is a fundamental principle which you have no pow¬ er to alter, and the authority to amend in the cases ad¬ mitted cannot be construed to go to the alteration of a fundamental principle, it goes only to the forms. The amendment now before you appears to be fundamental ; the election of president and vice president was purposely rendered complex, for wise and wholesome ends ; and whoever will advert to the fate of countries where free government has prevailed, will perceive that the com¬ plexity of election was intended to guard against the evils which produced their destruction. This doctrine of amendment is specious, but see the effects of it in another country. How many new constitutions and amendments have been introduced in France, each pro¬ fessedly more perfect than the other, till the people wea¬ ried by frequent change established a despotism. Shall we not be warned by their fate ? But we are told the people of the United States desire this amendment ; we should be glad to hear how this has been manifested ?—.have conventions been called ?— have the state legislatures declared it ?—No ; we have heard no such things. The people are not in favor of a measure calculated to give strength to the powerful and to weaken the already weak ; it has a tendency to throw the choice perpetually into the hands of the large states ; four and a half states may by this amendment perpetu¬ ally elect the president; under the present form the large states cannot so easily unite. Can this measure then have a tendency to conciliate and harmonize the several states? No, jealousy must be the result, and the evil will be greater as it relates to the choice of a vice president ; inferior men will be chosen to that office ; men unfit for superior command ; the office will be car¬ ried to market; the friends of an ambitious candidate for the president will barter their votes to him who will con¬ sent not to be a rival ; and this is not the only evil, for the four large states in the vice president chosen will give themselves a third senator on this lloor. There was one defect already in the constitution, which this amendment would render worse. The hold¬ ers of slaves in the different states elect eighteen electors of president and vice president by means of that popu¬ lation. This operates injuriously on those states which have not that species of property. You now destroy the ( 92 ) complex system of election, and yet leave this dispropor¬ tionate influence of eighteen electors to exist. Beside however gentlemen may flatter themselves, the amendment is not adequate to the correction ot the sup¬ posed evil. It would no doubt be desirable to prevent the election horn going to the house of representatives ; but the proposition now under consideration renders it even worse, for it renders it probable that no choice what¬ ever may be made ; and will not the same or greater difficulties then exist? It is true that they will have nothing to do with the choice of vice president. But will they agree on the president in such a case with more facility when they have equal numbers upon a discrimi¬ nating ballot, than when there are two candidates upon the same banot; he conceived the difficulty would be greater. Gen. Jackson. The gentleman last up arid another who preceded him from Massachusetts (Mr. Pickering) had taken a ground which he did not expect to hear in the elective senate of a free people. They questioned not only the propriety of the present amendment, but of all amendments. Ibis he considered as of no great con¬ sequence, but he thought it merited notice, because the dislike of amendments is expressed by gentlemen who wish to have it believed that they are more strongly attached to the constitution than others ; and though the constitution which they so ardently admire provides ex¬ pressly for its own amendment. Gentlemen liked the constitution, but they disliked all amendment, forgetting that as long as human society exists, it must be subject to human fraiities ; nothing that comes from the head ot man can be perfect ; and though we may faii to correct in,perfections in human institutions, it is our duty to per¬ severe ana employ every means which time and experi¬ ence point out to us, to render our state as secure from evil as possible. Wire is it that gentlemen constantly refer us to France —do gentlemen by referring us to that unfortunate coun¬ try, expect to impress a belief on us that there is any resemblance of situation or circumstances between the two countries ; or are they so blind as not to see that the state of liberty in that country should be a most earnest motive "with us toprowde such amendments to our con¬ stitution as may secure us against the danger of usurpa¬ tion. Our situation has never resembled that of France? ( 93 ) but during our revolution. That nation had not theop- portunity of sitting clown after the overtht ow of her ene¬ mies, and forming a free constitution in peace, as we had. It was in the conflicts of faction excited by foreign enemies, that the state of France was changed ; but she had been always different from us. France was always one and indivisible. In that country we have seen the conflicts of faction, and the frantic zeal of adherents con¬ vulsing the nation; have we not had any similar transac¬ tions during our own revolution? Were there no fac¬ tions even in our revolutionary councils ? Have we had no ambitious men since seeking to destroy our liberties ? Are there none now who would, if they could hope for success, attempt it? Thanks to our better fortune, tho* we have encountered many a storm, and though bad pi¬ lots had nearly foundered us, the vessel of state is still safe, and her liberties are not gone by the board. Thanks to the sound sense of the people, unbounded thanks to the able pilot who now holds the helm, we have escaped a wreck, and are now more prosperous and happy than at any former period. The exalted character who is now at the head of aiiairs defies the shallow railings and little minded attacks of his enemies; his character stands too high above their reach to be affected by the insects that crawl beneath him ; his conduct is above their censure, and his good deeds have rendered him dear to his fellow citizens. His countrymen had fixed their eyes upon him, but arts had been employed to frustrate their wishes. The effect, however, had been fortunate ; and if it had not been for accidental circumstances, there never would have been room for the alarming contest which took place in the house of representatives. He had the best reason to know, that it never was intended to make any other man president. He was at that period at the head of the government of Georgia, and happened to be pre¬ sent when a letter was received, directed to some of the electors, the contents of which were communicated to him. The electors of Georgia had determined to give two of their votes to Governor Clinton. The letter was from an influential gentleman in South Carolina, press¬ ing them to give all their votes equal, as it was alleged that if they were not given a character not acceptable to the people would be vice president. It was therefore to secure for Mr. Burr the vice presidency that those two votes were given, which would not have been given if ( 94 ) the least suspicion had been entertained of what subse¬ quently happened. But it is asserted that there may be a coalition of the large states, and thus this amendment is intended to depress the small states. These things gentlemen said only because they could say nothing to the purpose. Will any gentleman say that Massachusetts and Virginia have united. Look to their representatives* and ask them if such is the case. Will those states be ever likely to coalesce in party views ? never—there is one point only upon which they could be united—the defence of common country. Tear a leaf from the constitution and they will rally together and the small states will cling around them. But why is this jealousy of Virginia excited-—when and where has she domineered over her sister states—she is as incapable of the attempt as of submission to an insul¬ ting: and insidious domination. From whence do you derive your constitution? From Virginia. When your small states refused to submit to a paltry 5 per cent, im¬ post on foreign goods—what was then your situation ? Who stood forward? Virginia; she saw the situation of their common country, she saw the glories of the revolu¬ tion and the liberties of the people endangered by the blind and selfish policy of the small states ; and she with her accustomed sagacity found out the remedy, by pro¬ posing a convention—in which ycur constitution origin¬ ated. To whom are you indebted for the revolution ! To the brave state of Massachusetts, the gratitude of America is due for her valour, her constancy, and her sufferings. But it is to Virginia you owe the instructive spirit and the manful determination of the first resolve, and first determination to be free, sovereign, and independent.— Why then is this, jealousy attempted ? Is it because she had given us Washington in our revolution, and Jef¬ ferson now ? Is it to the superiority of her patriots and statesmen we must attribute this unworthy envy? It had been asked why we do not resort to a conven¬ tion, if we wish to amend the constitution. For his part he w 7 as averse to calling conventions, but when no other remedy was provided ; bodies of that description are invested with boundless power; the physical and politic * Messrs. Adams and Pickering ( 95 ) cal powers of the state are in their hands; and they are therefore more exposed to the zeal and the intrigues of the ardent and ambitious. The constitution has provided means more simple, and fully adequate ; and even though we might err in our determinations, the check of three fourths of the legislatures will be an adequate protection against the invasion of the public rights. We are told we shall give up every thing if we pass this amendment; shall we really have more or less power than before—-or has there been any coalition which is under an apprehension of losmg every thing by its pas¬ sage ? We are told that the candidates on a former occasion had an equal claim and equal pretensions to the office of president. He did not wkh to make comparisons; but he could not but recollect that the attempt to supersede one of the candidates and to place the other in his station had endangered the government; and from what he had already said, he believed it would not be questioned, that so far as concerned Georgia, it never was intended to give them an equal chance ; and small and obscure as that little corner called Georgia is, had the measure been pursued to consummation which had been attempted on that occasion, she would have flown to arms, and South Carolina would have joined her to do justice to the in¬ terest of the nation. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. White) had talked of intrigues. The days of intrigue are past, they are gene, and the intriguers with them ; the people have got the man of their choice; Mr. Jefferson has no occasion for intrigue were he disposed to employ it; the admin¬ istration has none; the policy of the executive is above all intrigues ; the affections of the people are his, and justiy for under his administration they are the happiest people that ever existed. Never Will there be a federal president or vice president again elected to the end of time; if there should ever be any other chosen out of the line of the present politics, it must be from some new sect, which assuming the principles of the repub¬ licans may succeed by carrying their zeal for liberty farther. He did not wish to discuss largely the allusion of the gentleman to a fifth wheel. Were the subject to be confined to our own country he should go fully into that subject—-he wished not to afford any handle for the dis- ( 96 ) respect of foreign nations towards any part of our insti¬ tutions. But he would spurn the insinuations of those who would suggest that we shall not choose a man of in¬ tegrity for the office of vice-president. The people, sir, will solicit a man worthy of their confidence, and honor¬ ed abroad and at home. The amendment to the constitution he considered ne¬ cessary and salutary ; and he was in hopes when gentle¬ men saw the benefits they would come forward and thank us for it. Mr. Tracy hoped the senate would now adjourn ;— on the question being put, it was lost. The motion of Mr. Tracy for an adjournment, hav¬ ing been negatived, he then addressed ihe president.— *Mr. Tracy —moved an adjournment, because he thought a more full and fair discussion was due to this important question, than could be had after this late hour. The merits have never, until now, been before us, for although considerable time has been consumed in debate, it has chiefly been directed to the subordinate amendments, and not to the main resolution. But since the senate have refused to adjourn, I will now offer some observations on the merits, in doing which, I will study brevity, as much as the importance of the subject will permit. I shall attempt to prove, sir, that the resolution before us, contains principles which have a manifest tendency to deprive the small states of an important right, se¬ cured to them by a solemn and constitutional compact, and to vest an overwhelming power in the great states. And, further, I shall attempt to show, that in many ether points the resolution is objectionable, and for a variety of causes, ought not to be adopted. As I shall be obliged in delineating the main features of this resolution to mention the great states in the union as objects of jealousy, I wish it to be understood, that no special stigma is intended. “ Man is man” was the * The editor thinks it due to himself, that this speech was not reported by him, but copied from a printed pamphlet. He has preferred giving this report to that from his own notes, be¬ cause it might be considered as an indication of apprehension that it might have greater weight than the original; and as it is but reasonable that the public should know ail that can be said •« the subject. Without this explanation many who heard the debate might think the reporter had taken too great liberties with the speech. maxim expressed in an early part of this debate, by the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Butler) and in application to the subject of government, the maxim is worthy to be written in letters of gold. Yes, sir, “ man is man ” and the melancholy truth that he is always im¬ perfect and frequently wicked, induces us to fear his power, and guard against his rapacity, by the establish¬ ment and preservation of laws, and well regulated con¬ stitutions of government. Man, when connected with very many of his teiiow men, in a great state, derives power from the circumstance of this numerous'comoi- nation ; and from every circumstance which clothes him with additional power, he will generally derive some additional force to his passions. Having premised this, I shall not deem it requisite to make any apology when I attempt to excite the at¬ tention, the vigilance, and even the jealousy of the small, in reference to the conduct of the great states. The caution is meant to apply against the imperfections and passions of man, generally, and not against any state, or description of men, particularly . It may be proper in this place to explain my mean¬ ing when I make use of the words small and great as ap¬ plicable to states. Massachusetts has been usually called a great state ; but in respect to all the operations of this resolution, she must, I think, be ranked among the small states. The district of Maine is i increasing rapidly, and must, in the nature of things, soon become, a state. To which event, its location, being" divided from what was the ancient colony of Massachusetts, by the intervention of New Hampshire, will very much contribute. I believe there is a legislative provision of some years standing, author¬ ising a division at the option of Maine. When this event shall occur, Massachusetts, although in compari¬ son with Connecticut and Rhode Island, will not be a small state ; yet in comparison with many others, must be so considered. I think myself justifiable then, for my present purposes, in calling Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and South Carolina, small states. They are limited in point of territory, and cannot reasonably expect any great increase of population for many years, not indeed until the other states shall become so populous as to discourage emigration, with • N ( 93 ) agricultural views ; which may retain the population of the small states as seamen or manufacturers. This event, if it ever arrives, must be distant. A possible ex¬ ecution only, may exist in favor of Maine ; but when we consider its climate, and a variety of other circumstances, it is believed to form no solid exception to this state¬ ment. Bv the same rule of deciding, the residue of the states must be called great; for although Georgia and several others are not sufficiently populous, at to is time, to be considered relatively great states; yet their prospect of increase, with other circumstances, fairly bring them within the description, in respect to the operation of the measure now under consideration. It will be recollected that in the various turns which this debate has taken, gentlemen have repeatedly said that the constitution was formed for the people, that the good of the whole was its object, that nothing was dis¬ cernible in it like a contest of states, nothing like jealousy of small states against the great; and although such dis¬ tinctions and jealousies might have existed under the first confederation ; yet they could have no existence un¬ der the last. And one gentleman (Mr. Smith of Mary¬ land) has said that he has been a member of this govern¬ ment ten years, and has heard nothing of great and small states, as 'in the least affecting the operations of go¬ vernment, or the feelings of those ’wno aumimstci ed it. Propriety, therefore, requires tnatwe attentive*) ex¬ amine the constitution itself, not only to obtain correct ideas upon these observations, so repeatedly urged; but to place in the proper light the operations and effects ol the resolution in debate. If we attend to the constitution, we shall immediately hud evident marks of concession and compromise, and that the parties to these concessions were the great and small states. And the members of the convention who formed the instrument have, in private information and public communications, united in the declaration, that the constitution was the result of concession and com¬ promise between the great and small states. In this ex¬ amination of the constitution it will be impossible to keep out of view our political relations under the first confe¬ deration. We primarily united upon the footing of com¬ plete state equality, each state had one, and no state had more than one vote in the federal council or congress.— ( 99 ) With such a confederation we successfully waged war, and became an independent nation. When we were re¬ lieved from the pressure of war, that confederation, both in structure and power, was found inadequate to the purposes for which it was established. Under these circumstances, the states, by their convention entered into a new agreement upon principles better adapted to promote their mutual security and happiness. But this last agreement or constitution, under whicn we are now united, was manifestly carved out of the hrst confederation. The small states adhered tenaciously to the principles of state equality ; and gave up only a part of this federative principle, complete state equality, and that, with evident caution and reluctance. To this, fede¬ rative principle they were attached by habit; and their attachment was sanctioned and corroborated by the ex¬ ample of most if not all the ancient and the modern con¬ federacies. And when the great states claimed a weight in the councils of.the nation proportionate to their num¬ bers and wealth, the novelty oi the claim, as well as its obvious tendency to reduce the sovereignty of the small states, must have produced serious obstacles to its admis¬ sion. Hence it is, that we find in tne constitution but one entire departure from the federal principle. I he house of representatives is established upon the popular principle and given to numbers and wealth, or to the great states, which in this view ot the subject are syno- nimous. It was thought by the convention, that a con¬ solidation of the states into one simple republic, would be improper. And the local feelings and jealousies ol all, but more especially of the small states, rendered a con¬ solidation impracticable. The senate, who have the power of a legislative check upon the house of representatives, and many other ex¬ tensive and important powers, is preserved as an entire federative feature of government as it wasenjoyed, by tne small states, under the first confederacy. In the article which obliges the electors of president to vote for one person not an inhabitant ol the same state with themselves, is discovered state jealousy. In the majorities required for many purposes by the con¬ stitution ; although there were other motives for the regulations ; yet the jealousy ol the small states is clearly discernible. Indeed, sir, if we peruse the consti¬ tution with attention, we shall find the small states are, ( 100 ) perpetually guarding the federative principle, that is, state equality. And this, in every part of it, except in the choice of the house of representatives, and in their ordinary legislative proceedings. They gc so far as to prohibit any amendment which may affect the equality of states in the senate. This is guarding against almost an impossibility; be¬ cause the senators of small states must be criminally re¬ miss in their attendance, and the legislatures extremely off their guard, if they permit such alterations, which aim at their own existence. But lest some accident, some unaccountable blindness or perfidy should put in jeopardy the federative principle in the senate, they totally and forever prohibit all attempts at such a mea¬ sure. In the choice of president, the mutual caution and concession of the great and small states is, if possible, more conspicuous than in any other part of the consti¬ tution. He is to be chosen by electors appointed as the state legislatures shall direct, not according to numbers en¬ tirely, but adding two electors in each state as represen¬ tatives of state sovereignty. I bus Delaware obtains three votes for president, whereas she could have but one in rkdit of numbers. Yet mixed at this mode of O m choice is, with both popular and federative principles;— we see the small states watching its motions and cir¬ cumscribing it to one attempt only, and on failure of an electoral choice they instantly seize upon the right of a federal election, and select from the candidates a president, by states, and not by numbers. In confirma¬ tion of my assertion, that this part of the constitution was peculiarly the effect of compromise between the great and small states; permit me to quote an authority which will certainly have great weight, not only in the senate, but through the union, I mean that of the pre¬ sent secretary of state (Mr. Madison) who was a leading member of the federal contention who formed, and of the Virginia convention who adopted the constitution.— In the debates of the Virginia convention, vol. 3, page 77 he says, (speaking ot the mode of electing the president,) “ as to the eventual voting by states it has my approba¬ tion. The lesser states and some larger states will be generally pleased by that mode. The deputies from the wall states argued,-and there is some force in their re a- A ( 101 ) soning, that when the people voted, the large states evi¬ dently had the advantage over the rest, and without varying the mode, the interests of the little states might he neglected or sacrificed. Here is a compromise.— for in t e eventual election, the small states will have the advantage:” After this view of the constitution, let us enquire, what is the direct object of the proposed alteration in the choice of president ? To render more practicable and certain the choice by electors :—-and for this reason ; that the people at large, or in other words, that the great states, ought to have more weight and influence in the choice. That it should be brought nearer to the popular and carried further from the federative principle. This claim we find was made at the formation of the constitution.—. 1 he great states naturally wished for a popular choice of first magistrate: This mode was sanctioned by the example ol many of the states in the choice of governor. 1 he small states claimed a choice on the federative prin¬ ciple, by the legislatures, and to vote by states ; analo¬ gies and examples were not wanting to sanction this mode of election. A consideration of the weight and influence of a president of this union, must have multi¬ plied the difficulties of agreeing upon the mode of choice. But, as I have before said, by mutual concession, they agreed upon the present mode, combining both principles and dividing between the two parties, thus mutually jealous, as they could, this important privilege of electing a chief magistrate. This mode then became established, and the right of the small states to elect upon the federative principle, or by states, in case of contingency of electoral failure of choice, cannot with reason and fairness be taken from them, without their consent, and on a full understanding of its operation ; since it was meant to be secured to them by the constitution,’and was one of the terms upon which they b came members of the present confederacy; and for which privilege they gave an equivalent to the great states, in sacrificing so much of the federative prin¬ ciple, or state equality. ’1 he constitution is nicely balanced, with the federa¬ tive and popular principles ; the senate are the guardians of the former and the house of representatives of the latter; and any attempts to destroy this balance, under ✓ ( 102 : ) whatever specious names or pretences tney ma) be presented, should be watched with a jealous eye. Per¬ haps a fair definition of the constitutional power of amending is, that you may upon experiment so modify the constitution in its practice and operation, as to give it, upon its own principles, a more complete effect. ■ But this is an attack upon a fundamental principle es¬ tablished after a long deliberation, and by mutual con¬ cession, a principle of essential importance to the in¬ strument itself, and an attempt to arrest from the smad states, a vested right ; and, by it, to increase the power and influence of the large states. I shah not pietend, sir, that the parties to this constitutional compact, cannot alter its original essential principles ; and that such al¬ terations may not be effected under the name of amend¬ ment ; but, let a proposal of that kind come forward in its own proper and undisguised shape ; let it be fail ly stated to congress, to the state legislatures, to the people at large that the intention is to change an important federative feature in the constitution, which change in itself and all its consequences, will tend to a consolida¬ tion of this union, into a simple republic ; let it be fairly stated, that the small states have too much agency in the important article of electing a chief magistrate , and that the preat states claim the choice ; and w e shall tnen have a fair decision. If the senators of the small states, and if their states legislatures will then quietly part w ith. the right they have, no person can reasonably complain. Nothing can be more obvious, than the intention oi t..e plan adopted by our constitution for choosing a president. The electors are to nominate two persons, of whom tney cannot know which wiii be president; this circumstance not only induces them to seiect botn from the bv.st men ; but gives a direct advantage into the hands of the small states even in the electoral choice. For they can always select from the two candidates set up by tue electors o large states, by throwing their votes upon their fat orite , and of course giving him a majerity, or, if the electors of the large states should, to prevent tins effect, scatte r their votes, for one candidate, then the electors oi the small states would have it in their power to elect a vice president So shat in any event, the small states, will have a considerable agency in the election. But it the discriminating or designating principle is carried, as contained in this resolution, the vnoie, or neail) t c whole right and agency of the small states, in the elec¬ toral choice of chief magistrate, is destroyed, and then ( 103 ) chance of obtaining a federative choice by states if not destroyed, is very much diminished. For this identical purpose is the principle of electoral discrimination and designation, introduced into the reso¬ lution before you ; for the same purpose is the number of candidates reduced from five to three,from whom the house of representatives may elect, in case of electoral failure of choice; that is, to destroy, or diminish the agency of the small states, in the choice of president. For what purpose else, are we perpetually told, and from all parts of the senate, that the public will is opposed, by the present mode, and the public wn'll cannot be gratified, without the introduction of the discriminating principle ? By the public will thus mentioned, the gentlemen mean the will of a popular majority, or, the will of the great- states, which in this case, I repeat it, are the same. How is it possible for the gentlemen to increase the chances of gratifying this description of the public will; without decreasing the agency of the small states ? The whole power of election is now vested in the two parties; numbers and states, or, great and small states, and it is demonstration itself, that if you increase the power of the one, in just such proportion you diminish that of the other. Do the gentlemen suppose that the public will, when constitutionally expressed by a majority of states, in pursuance of the federative principle of our govern¬ ment, is of less validity, or less binding upon the commu¬ nity at large, than the public nuill expressed by a popular majority ? The framers of your constitution, the people who adopted it, meant, that the public will , in the choice ol a president, should be expressed by electors, if they could agree, and if not, that the public will should be ex¬ pressed, by a majority of the states, acting in their fede¬ rative capacity, and that in both cases the expression of the public will should be equally binding. It is pretended that the public will can never, properly or constitutionally, be expressed, but by a majority of numbers, ol the people, or of the house of representa¬ tives ? Ibis may be a pleasing doctrine enough to great states; but it is certainly incorrect. Our constitution has given the expression of the public will, in a variety of instances," other than that of the choice of president, into very different hands from either the house of repre¬ sentatives or the people at large. The president and senate, and in many cases the president alone, can ex- / ( 104 ) press the public will, in appointments of high trust and responsibility, and it cannot be forgotten that the presi¬ dent sometimes expresses the public will, by removals. Treaties, highly important expressions of the public will, are made by tne president and senate ; and they are the supreme law of the land. In the several states, many great offices are filled, and even tne cniei magis¬ tracy by various modes of election. The public will is sometimes expressed by pluralities, instead of majori¬ ties, sometimes by both branches, of the legislatures, and sometimes by one, and in certain contingencies, elec¬ tions are settled by lot. The people have adopted con¬ stitutions containing such regulations, and experience has proved that tney are well calculated to preserve their liberties and promote their happiness, t rom what good, or even pardonable motive then, can it lie urged, that the present .mode of electing our president, has a tendency to counteract the public will ? To gen¬ tlemen intend to destroy every federal feature in this constitution ? And is this resolution a precursor to a complete con¬ solidation of the union, and to the establishment of a simple republic . r —Or will it suffice to break flown e^miy. federative feature which secures to one portion of the union, to the small states, their rights ? I am not without my fears, Mr. president, that this is but the beginning of evils, and that this constitution, the bulwark of the feeble members of the confederacy ; the protection of the weak against the strong ; the security of the small against the great; the last, best hope of man, with a view to stability in a free governme nt, and to the preservation of liberty in a republic; is destined to undergo changes, and suffer innovations, till there be no residue worth preserving, and nothing left, which ambition will condescend to overturn. Time will not permit me to dwell any longer on this part of my argument. But I am deceived, sir, if the view I have now taken of the constitution does not shew most obviously, that in its formation there was a strug¬ gle between the great and small states, with respect to many of its principles and leading features. And that the participation in the election of a chief magistrate, clearly secured to them by the constitution, will receive a deadly blow by the adoption of the proposed amend¬ ment. ( 105 ) It can be no contradiction to my ideas upon the sub¬ ject, if we have heard nothing of state conflicts, in the administration of this government. The great states have never, till now, directly attempted to violate the sanctuary of the small, and despoil them of their rights; had this been earlier attempted, we should have heard and seen the same jealousy awakened, and the same opposi¬ tion exerted. The conflict could happen in no other way, than by an attack from the large states. We had neither the desire nor ability to injure them, and we now ask no favors, but their permission to enjoy, in peace and safety, the rights conceded to us by themselves, and secured by a solemn constitutional compact. We have been told by a gentleman from Virginia, that it would be impolitic in us to rouse the great states. I shall, at present, take no further notice of this warning, given to us, no doubt, in the full exercise of benevolence ; but to request the small states to preserve it in constant recollection. It may induce them not hastily to part with constitutional security. There are some other points of light, in which I wish to place the subject before us. The constitution is of recent date ; it was formed by the mutual concessions of conflicting parties, and balan¬ ced with a view to the securing of all. Experience, alone can test its utility, and time and practice discover its faults. It is a sound position that you should never attempt an alteration in an instrument so complicated, and calculated to serve so many various and opposite in¬ terests, without being able, by the test of experiment, to discern clearly the necessity of alteration, and without a moral certainty, that the change shall not only remove an existing evil, but that it shall not produce any itself. The article in the constitution establishing the mode of elec¬ ting a chief magistrate ; and which is now proposed to be altered, was undoubtedly one of the most difficult parts of the whole, at its formation. I am convinced, sir, that the public mind is not sufficiently impressed with the difficulty of adopting, not only an unexcep¬ tionable, but even a tolerable and practicable mode of electing a chief magistrate ; possessing such important and extensive powers, as are constitutionally vested in the president of the United States. An attempt to de¬ tail the number and magnitude of his powers, to this O ( 106 ) senate, would be impertinent: But it must and will be acknowledged by all, that the president is vested with powers vastly extensive and important, and that he will bring with him into the government more or less of state politics and state prejudices, and these facts, to which may be added the probability that he will be taken from a large state, must have increased the difficulties of the convention, in fixing on a mode of choice. How often have contests, wars and bloodshed, the destruction of confederacies, of liberty and of vast por¬ tions of the human race, arisen from the election of chief magistrates ? When we consider that the powers vested in the president of this union, are sufficiently im¬ portant to excite the avarice and ambition of the human heart, its two most active principles, to gain possession of the office ; when we consider the difference of senti¬ ment, habit and interest in this country ; state pride and state jealousy, which could never be laid asleep ; the difficulties of fixing upon a proper mode of election, must be also infinitely multiplied. And yet this article is now selected for alteration. All the amendments which have been hitherto adopted, went to some general explana¬ tion upon very general principles,not changing but rather expounding the constitution. This, as I have before said, is taking up the most difficult and most important article in the constitution, both in relation to rights and principles. But it is said that experience has shewn us the necessity of an altera¬ tion in this article ; that an evil has been found in prac¬ tice to grow out of the constitutional provision, which calls imperiously for remedy. At the last election of president two persons had an equal number of votes, and that number was a majority of the votes of all the electors appointed, which circum¬ stance gave the house of representatives a constitutional right to select one of them for president. In exercising this constitutional right, they voted by states, and there was at first a division, no choice being made until the sixth day; when an election was effected, of the very man whom the great states, and the advocates otthis resolution, wished. It ought to be noted here, that although they voted by- states, yet it happened, in this division, that a majority- in point of numbers, voted for the person president, whc eventually became vice president. As to intrigue, by ( 107 ) cither of the candidates, or by their friends, I know of none; the sentiments and conduct of the vice president, as published, were perfectly fair and honorable, contain¬ ing a declaration of his wishes not to stand in the way of the other candidate. After the view of the constitution which we have taken, and comparing this fact, or set of facts, with the provi¬ sions for electing a president, we shall really be at a loss to find out the mighty evil, which the experience of this election has discovered, and which is said to call so im¬ periously for a remedy. But the advocates of this reso¬ lution have had the goodness to put their finger on the spot. They say, that in the certificates of the electors, Mr. Jefferson’s name stood first; this is called a sort of record testimony, and in addition, some, if not all the electors said they meant to elect Mr. Jefferson president and Mr. Burr V. President; and this is declared to be the public will, expressed by the constitutional organ, he elec¬ tors. Notwithstanding this expression of the Jiublic will , say the gentlemen, a large portion of the house of represen¬ tatives withstood and opposed the public will , for the space of six days, and wilfully voted for the man to be president, who, they knew by the evidence just men¬ tioned, wa«* meant to be vice president. One gentleman (Mr. Wright) lias said, that if he had been a member of that house, possessing such sentiments upon the sub¬ ject, as he now does ; such voting would in him have amounted to the crime of perjury, or words to the same effect ; I mean to quote his ideas, as expressed, and be¬ lieve I have given nearly his very words. And it is added, that thus there was imminent danger of a person being imposed upon the United States as chief magistrate, who was not originally intended for that high office, and that civil war must have been the consequence . And, as is common in such cases, the picture is filled: in (lie back ground, with brother raising his murderous hand against brother, father against son, and with an af¬ flicting group of et ceteras: and to avoid a repetition of this tremendous crisis , as it is called, the present resolu¬ tion, it ic said, must pass. Let this statement of facts be kept in view, while we examine the duties assigned by the constitution to the se¬ veral agents concerned. The duty of the electors is pre¬ cisely defined. They are each to bring forward two can¬ didates fully qualified for president, because they cannot ( 105 ) know at the time of giving their ballots upon which the choice will fall. The circumstance of two having a ma¬ jority, and both being equal in number of votes, is an ex¬ pression of the public will, through the only constitution¬ al organ, by which, in this case, the public will can be ex¬ pressed, that both had the requisite qualifications. The public will, then, was in this instance clearly and unequi¬ vocally expressed, by a constitutional and numerous ma¬ jority, that both candidates were worthy of the office ; but here the expression of the public will ceased, and which of these two should be president, was now to be decided by another constitutional organ that is, by the house of representatives voting by states. The framers of the constitution so intended, and the people who adopted it have so ordained, that their will in this case should be expressed by a majority of the states, acting by their representation in the house of representa¬ tives. The right of selection, is a right complete in itself, to be exercised by these second electors; uninflu¬ enced by any extraneous consideration, and governed onlv by their own sense of propriety and rectitude. The opinion of the people had been expressed, by the electors, but it only reached a certain point, and then was totally silent as to which of the two should be president, and their sense upon this point could only be collected, through their constitutional organ, the house of representatives voting by states. Any interference of the first electors, or of an individual or individuals, must be informal and improper. The advice of sensible and candid men, as in every other case, might be useful; but could have no binding force whatever. The first electors had no right to choose a vice president. To claim it was overstep¬ ping their duty, and arrogating to themselves a power, not given to them by the constitution. If there is any thing in this whole transaction, which has the most distant appearance of a breach of duty, it was in the electors, by attempting to designate, and by exercising the important office of an elector, under the influence of improper motives ; that is, by officiously at¬ tempting to decide the question, which of the two per¬ sons was proper for vice president, which they were con¬ stitutionally incompetent to decide. By this conduct they attempted to break down an important guard pro¬ vided by the constitution, and improperly to release themselves from its obligations, which made it their ( 109 ) duty to select two men qualified to be president. But if there can be a shadow of reason in this claim of the electors to designate under the present constitutional re¬ gulations, of which, to doubt, seems to be so heinous, what necessity can there be for this amendment ? The object of the amendment, or certainly its chief object, is to establish the designating principle; but why this, if it can already be effected by the simple mode of placing one name first on the ballot, which is so easy to be done, that it can scarcely be avoided ? And if done, by the doctrine of gentlemen, it is so far binding on the house of representatives that if they even doubt, they are damned ? The fact certainly was, that at the last election, the great states brought forward the two candidates ; they were both of the same political sentiments; this, they had a constitutional right to do ; but it now seems that their language to the small states was ; u because you will not give up your constitutional rights to us, and let us go on and designate, we will stir up a civil war, and lay the blame to you. And ol this improper conduct of ours we wili take the advantage, and obtain an alteration of the constitution, which will hereafter gratify us in every respect.” A gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Smith,) had said, that he heard, though he could not prove it. that the federal majority at the time of the last election, contemplated making a law, authorizing or appointing some person as president, in case no choice had been made by the house of representatives. I was then, sir, a member of the government, and know nothing of such a project, it might have been so, but supposing it was, what then ? Why says the gentleman, the person thus appointed could not have kept his head on his shoulders 24 hours ; and this would have made acivil war. If the majority now should contemplate a measure, which the constitution does not authorise, as it clearly did not au¬ thorise the measure suspected by the gentleman, though he cannot prove it; the best thing in the world for them to do, would be to give it up, without any attempt to ef¬ fect it, as it seems the federal majority did. But what argument all this can afford in favor of the amendment, or why it was mentioned, in this debate, is beyond my comprehension. In the result of the last election, the great states and the ruling political party, were certain¬ ly gratified, and there does not appear the least reason- ( no ) able ground of complaint against the small states, in the use of their constitutional rights on the occasion. All Support therefore to the amendment, drawn from that transaction, must fail. I have said, that the article fixing the mode of elec¬ ting a chief magistrate was, from its nature, attended with many difficulties. A more strict enquiry into the constitutional mode, and a comparison of it, in some other and more particular points, with the proposed al¬ teration, will be useful in forming an opinion of their relative merits. . As the constitution stands, each elector is to write the names of two persons on a piece of paper, called a ballot. Either of the two persons thus voted for may be presi¬ dent, and the elector cannot know which: this affords the most powerful inducement to vote for two, both of whom are qualified for the very important office. For it is not only uncertain upon whom the choice will fall at first, but the one remaining will certainly be president, upon any contingency which shall remove or incapacitate the first. The convention seem to have selected a mode of proceeding the most simple, the least liable to accident and the best calculated to insure the main object, that is, that both should be really worthy of the trust. If one candidate wishes to make interest with the electors, as each must vote for two, it will be impossible for bribery or intrigue to succeed ; for, without corrupting the whole or certainly many more than half, he may be defeated by the other candidate on the ballot. 1 his is, peihaps, the most effectual bar to intrigue, that was ever contrived; for, unless all, or a great proportion of the electors arc corrupted, an extreme case of depravity not probable in any country, intrigue can have no assurance of success. The danger and difficulty, which must always attend such an important election, as that of chief magistrate ol the United States, was meant to be avoided, by diminish¬ ing the chances of its frequent recurrence. So two per¬ sons are placed in condition to act as president in suc¬ cession, to prevent both the evils, of vacancy, and a re¬ currence of choice more frequently than once in four years. And it seems merely incidental to this second person, to be called vice president, and neither the first nor second description of electors can have any right to vote for him as such, indeed he can have no existence till the first character is designated and then seems to be ( in ) discovered, not elected. The senate, in case of an equal number of votes for two or more remaining persons, after the president is elected, are vested with authority to choose a vice president, for as such he is to preside over this body, and this body therefore seems to be the only constitutional organ to designate him. Both the other descriptions of electors have nothing to do with such a character or office; but are confined to act with a single reference to the character and office of president; and are trusted with no power to give any opinion of the charac¬ ter or qualifications of a vice president. And it is re¬ markable, that there are no appropriate qualifications made necessary by the constitution, for a vice president; but every qualification has reference to president. There is another important feature in this part of the constitu¬ tion. It was known by the convention, that in this coun¬ try, in common with all others, where there is freedom of opinion and of speech, there would be parties. They like¬ wise knew, that the intolerance of the major, or ruling sect and political party, was frequently exercised upon the minor party; and that the rights of the minority ought to be protected to them. As well then, to secure the rights of the minority, as to check the intolerance of the majority, they placed the majority in jeopardy, if they should attempt at grasping all the benefits of a president and vice president within themselves, to the total exclusion of the minority. This very case which happened at the last election was con¬ templated, in which the majority attempted totally to exclude the minority from any participation. The lan¬ guage of the constitution to such majorities is, “ take care that you aim not at too much, for if you do, it is put into the power of the minority to check you, and by a judicious disposition of their few votes, determine the choice of president.” To avoid this event the majori¬ ty will probably be cautious in the exercise of power ; and thus the rights, the proper weight and influence of a minority are secured against the conduct of the majori¬ ty, which is certainly liable to be intolerant and oppres¬ sive. In this respect the spirit of the constitution is, political moderation. And it is clear to my mind, that the experience of the last election has taught a lesson to all majorities, which will in future completely secure them from again incurring a similar risk. I recollect well, that it was thought probable, when the electoral ( H2 ) votes were given, that Mr. Burr would have a vote or two, in some of the eastern states. If he had received but one, he would have been by an electoral choice, the constitutional president. If the majority in future have powers of recollection, they will undoubtedly avoid the evil, if it is one, which happened at the last election., with such unfailing certainty, that there will be no need of the remedy proposed by the amendment. But the majority say, if their votes are so scattered for one can¬ didate as to avoid this danger, that another will be in¬ curred ; and that is, the minority will elect a vice presi¬ dent. The language of the constitution to them, is again, “ that this was meant as a security for the mino¬ rity against the majority.” But the majority exclaim against both these provisions, as very unreasonable in¬ deed : “ what,” say they, “ are minorities to govern ma¬ jorities ?” The answer of the constitution is “ no, but their due weight and influence shall be secured to them, and the danger of your intolerance guarded against.”— For the security of small states and minorities, there is, in the constitution a mixture of the federative with the popular principles. And as it is v r ell known that, when popular majorities alone prevail, and exercise power un¬ controlled by constitutional checks, the minorities, who generally possess their proportion of integrity and virtue, are overwhelmed, and liberty itself, by the same means, destroved ; so it is in kindness to both parties, to the country and to humanity, that these wholesome checks are constitutionally provided. Had tne majority or the great states, been willing, fairly to have submitted to the constitutional checks in the last election, no evil could have happened. And it is remarkable that the consti¬ tution completely protects them, as long as they obey its precepts, in the creation of which they had an agency, and to which they have solemnly agreed. To prove that I am correct in these ideas, I not only refer to the con- / stitution but to the secretary of state (Mr. Madison.) / In the Virginia debates, volume 1. page 96, lie says, “ But on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence and abuse of power by 7 the majority trampling on the rights oj the minority-, have produced factions and commotions which, in repub¬ lics, have more frequently than any other cause produ- 1 ced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient V and modern republics, we shall find their destructions ( 113 ) to have generally resulted from those causes. If we c sider the peculiar situation of the United States, what are the resources of that diversity of sentime which pervades its inhabitants, we shall find great C ger that the same causes may terminate here, in same fatal effects, which they produced in those rep lies. This danger ought to be wisely guarded again Perhaps, in the progress of this discussion it will app that the only possible remedy for those evils, and me of preserving and protecting the principles of republic ism, will be found in that very system, which is now claimed against as the parent of oppression.” Mr. President, it has often been said by the discern¬ ing and judicious of this and other countries, that our constitution, for its brevity, its comprehensiveness, its perspicuity, and the political skill contained in it, was the best state paper extant. I believe all this and even more is a tribute justly due to its merits ; and lam persuaded that the article which fixes a mode for the choice of a chief magistrate, stands most prominent among its excel¬ lencies. Let us now, sir, examine and compare the merits of the amendment with a special reference to this last view we have taken of the constitutional provision. The amendment authorises the electors to vote for a president, and for a vice president by specific designa¬ tion. Is ambition in your country ? Here is a direct and inviting object for its operation. Is the integrity of your electors assailable? You place it here in the most encouraging attitude for an assault_. A fear of detection, and a sense of shame, upon the ex¬ posure of an improper action, has been perhaps, a better security against political errors or crimes, than all the moral virtues united, when the temptation has been at¬ tended with an impossibility of detection. An intrigue with an elector, can be carried on without much danger of detection ; but when your election is carried into the house of representatives, besides the ordinary weight of character in favor of the members of that house a detec¬ tion of an intrigue with a candidate is almost certain. It *J will be recollected, that at the last election, two or three members held the choice perfectly in their own hands. 1 If I mistake not, three gentlemen, that is, a member from New Jersey, a member from Vermont, and one from either Maryland, Delaware, or Tennessee, could have P • 7 ( 114 - ) Q-iven a president to the United States, dhe particular gentlemen mentioned were above suspicion of bribery; but in addition to this circumstance, if they had in the contest, gone over from improper motives, or under the ' influence of bribery, a detection was certain. This will remain forever, the criterion, as it respects the relative danger of intrigue and bribery, in the two modes of choice. And the amendment is avowedly in¬ tended to secure a choice by electors, and to prevent a resort to the house; because says the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Taylor,) “ If you permit the election to p-o ffito the house, there, are small states, and minori¬ ties, and all the evils of a diet election meaning, that corruption must be the consequence. But he says, “ let there be a divided election, by the electors, meeting b\ states separately, and you lessen the tendency to corrup¬ tion.” This may look plausible in theory, but I thmn practice will shew its fallacy. It may be better for the electors to meet by states, than for all to be together, but this can never prove that they are less liable to corruption than the house of re¬ presentatives ; which is the only point in question. The manner of electing the vice president, as pro¬ posed by the amendment, not only invites ambition to an unchecked operation; but exposes us to the selection of a less important, and more unfit person, than the consti¬ tutional provision. In addition to his importance in the government arising from his incidental succession to the chief magistracy, the vice president is ex-officio, Presi¬ dent of the senate, and gives a direct influence, to the state from which he is chosen, of a third vote in this body, in all cases of equal division, which are usually the cases of most importance. Besides, his influence as presiding officer is, perhaps, more than equal to the right of a vote. It becomes therefore peculiarly impor¬ tant to the small states, and to minorities, whose secu¬ rity rests in this body, not only that their influence in the election of vice president should not be diminished; but that no measure be adopted, which may tend to bestow the office upon an unworthy character. By the proposed amendment, this character must necessaiily become a sort of make-weight, and stepping-stone for the presidency.—As in recruiting for an army, a man, active, and of a particular cast of character, but not very proper for a commander in chief, is employed to obtain ( H5 ) recruits, and upon condition that he obtains a given num¬ ber, is to be rewarded with a serjeant’s warrant; so in this case, the man who can procure a given number of votes for president, will be encouraged to hope for the vice-presidency; and where will such characters be sought after? In Delaware or Rhode Island? No sir,but in the great states ; there the recruiting talents will be put in operation, because the number of recruits, or votes, will be sufficient to test his active and recruiting merits. And thus the office of vice president will be sent to mar¬ ket, with hardly a possible chance to meet an honest purchaser. I have already remarked upon the alteration made by the senate, in the resolution passed by the house of re¬ presentatives, changing the number five to three. But one addition made this morning, deserves attention; I mean that which authorises the vice president to admi¬ nister the government, in case neither the first nor the second constitutional electors effect a choice of presi¬ dent. This is anew principle, and its operation is more un¬ certain, than that of any other; art of the proposed amend¬ ment. Viewing it in one point of light, it may be thought to confer a new power upon the senate ; that of giving a president to the union. And it is said, that this part will recompense the small states, who have the ascen¬ dency in the senate, for the injury inflicted by the other parts of the amendment. If it be true, that the last part restores all which the forme parts have taken away from us, it is inconceivable, why any man can wish to pass a resolution, the parts of which thus mutually destroy each other. It is possible, that by the force of intrigue and faction, the electors may be induced to scatter their votes for both president and vice president, in such manner, as to present several candidates to the house for president and two or more to the senate for vice president. In which case the senate might immediately choose or select a vice president. In this state of things, there is an opportunity afforded for an intrigue, of a very ex¬ tensive and alarming nature. The senate, I mean a ma¬ jority of them, might wish that the man whom they had elected vice president should administer the government and if the house could be prevented from agreeing, their wishes would be gratified. The facility of preventing over that of producing a choice is very obvious. C H6 ) \ A bold address may be made to any member of the house, without wounding his pride, or offending his mo¬ rality, to adhere to his candidate, and not change his vote so as to effect a choice. He can be told that there is no danger of leaving the United States without a presi¬ dent, as there is one already chosen to his hand, by the senate ; and this person may be more the object of his wishes, than any of the other candidates, his favorite ex¬ cepted. In this process the senate may give a president to the United States. But if the probability of such a process and such an event is encreased by the amendment of this morning, it cannot certainly greatly recommend it. For myself I wish for no alteration in the constitu¬ tion, not even if its operations were directly in favor of the small states, more especially if such a favor is to be derived through a sort of double conspiracy of intrigue ; in the first place to operate on the electors, and then on the house of representatives. It seems to me, that the small states had better be contented to enjoy the rights now secured to them by the constitution, which they can honestly do, rather than submit to a deprivation of their rights, for the sake of dishonestly obtaining a restoration of them. We may charitably and safely conclude that the majority do not intend, by this part of the amendment, to expose the country to such a scene of iniquity. And the uncertainty of its operations, alone, is, in my mind, a sufficient ground for rejection. However the opera¬ tion of this part of the amendment may appear in theory as to other points, it seems to me, that in one point all must agree, and that is, when the house of representa¬ tives know r that the United States will be left without an executive magistrate, in case they do not agree ; this awful responsibility, will speak in a voice too loud for the hardihood of party entirely to disregard. And may not I suggest, without giving offence, that the ope¬ ration of this very responsibility, has been proved at least in some degree in the proceedings of the last presidential election ? If this last mentioned security be worth preserving, it follows of course, that the part of the amendment allud¬ ed to, ought not to pass. There is another view of the constitution, which has a reference to the general subject before us : and that is, the caution exhibited with respect to the introduction of amendments. In an instrument so important, and con- C 117 ) taining many features new, if not to the world at least to ourselves, although we might approve of its principles; yet experience might discover errors as to the mode de¬ vised for carrying those principles into effect. Hence it was the part of wisdom and caution to provide for such alterations in practice as would give the fairest ope¬ ration to principles, without incurring the confusion and agitation incidental to a general convention. But lest the daring and restive spirit of innovation should injure or destroy under the specious name of amendment, that same wisdom and caution have provided salutary checks. u Two thirds of both houses of the congress shad deem it necessary” to propose amendments; and three fourths of the state legislatures shall ratify such amendments; before they acquire validity. I speak now, sir, of the mode which has always been, and probably will be put in practice to obtain amendments. The other constitu¬ tional mode is equally guarded as to numbers, but, as it has no relation to the subject now in debate, may be laid aside. “ Two-thirds of both houses,” must, I think on every fair principle of construction, mean two-thirds of all the members. The number of senators is thirty-four; two-thirds being twenty-three. And as there is no re¬ presentation from New Jersey, the number of represen¬ tatives is one hundred thirty-six ; two-thirds being nine¬ ty-one. - My impressions are, sir, that this amendment cannot constitutionally be proposed to the state legislatures, un¬ less it is agreed to, in the two houses, by those numbers, twenty-three, and ninety-one, respectively. This is a constitutional point, which^ I am told, has never been agitated but is certainly worthy of attention. If the construction should prevail, that two-thirds of the mem¬ bers present at any time, might propose amendments, the consequence is, that twelve senators, being two-thirds of a quorum, and forty-eight representatives, being a simi¬ lar two-thirds, might propose any and the most impor¬ tant amendments. I am aware, sir, that it may be said, such propositions are not final, they may yet be ratified or rejected by the state legislatures. But the spirit of the constitution seems to require two-thirds of the na¬ tion, acting by its proper organs, to propose amendments ; and that, in so interesting a subject as a constitutional al¬ teration, a less number should have no authority. The letter of the constitution will certainly justify this idea of its spirit. When two-thirds of the senate are ( H8 ) requisite to consent and advise to a treaty, the words are « two-thirds of the senators present .” To convict on impeachment, “ two-thrds of the members present r— Yeas and nays are to be entered on the journal, u at the desire of one-fifth of those present .” In the two first cases it is requisite to act immediately, whether two- thirds of the whole are present or not; then we see the expressions are clear, “ two-thirds” refers to the num¬ bers present. Why so? Because, without these expies- sions, the reference would have been undei stood «.o ihc whole number of members. In the last case why add the word present ” to the one-fifth ? Because, without that word, one-fifth of the whole would have been its meaning. In all other cases, when two-thirds are re¬ quired, the spirit of the constitution certainly is, and the words seem to carry the meaning, « two-thirds” of the whole numbers. It is said, “ that a majority of each house shall constitute a quorum to do business.”— House , in this case must mean all the members. Two- thirds of both houses must, on the same principles, mean two-thirds of all the members of both. There is, I ac- knowlege some obscurity, in the constitutional use of the word house , when either of the two branches of con¬ gress is described by it; but if the intention and sense as well as words are attended to, I am forcibly led to believe that two thirds of all t! e members of both houses, are required to sanction propositions for amendments, and that this construction is most consistent with the wisdom and political skill of the convention. The construction for which I contend is analogous to the caution manifest in other parts of the constitution. It w r as well known to the convention, that amendments, if recommended or proposed by congress, w ould have an imposing influence with the state legislatures ; and that in no possible in¬ stance, could more evil arise from indigested measures, than in the case of amendments, owing to the imposis- bility of clearly foreseeing their operation and effects on the general constitutional system. It w r as made requi¬ site therefore to w r ait for the uninfluenced movement of two thirds of the popular and federative representatives of the nation. Whatever may be our opinion on the point now discussed, the state legislatures have a con¬ stitutional right to judge of it for themselves, and to de¬ termine whether a proposition for an amendment is pre¬ sented to them, with the sanction required, and, if, in ( 119 ) their opinions, the requisite numbers have not agreed to the proposition, they will guard the constitution, by re¬ fusing to ratify such amendment. My honorable friend from New Hampshire (Mr. Plumer) has done such am¬ ple justice to this part of the subject, as to place it out of the reach of my assistance and beyond the need of any. I am convinced, Mr. President, that the amendment now under consideration could not, in the senate, obtain a constitutional majority, of two-thirds, or even a simple majority, were it not for the influence of instructions.— Some gentlemen have ingeniously said, that until they gave this amendment the present particular examination, they had not contemplated the extent of its probable ef¬ fects, and although they entertained doubts, yet they were induced by the instructions given them, to make the proposition to the legislatures, and let them decide for themselves. Whatever may or can be said in favor of instructions generally, cannot be applicable to this case. For the purpose of obtaining amendments to the constitution, congress can only propose, and the state legislatures ra¬ tify. The duties are appropriate and distinct, and the uninfluenced independent act of both, requisite. The legislatures cannot ratify, till a proposal is made. This subject can be elucidated and enforced by familiar examples. The house of representatives alone, can originate a bill for raising revenue, but it cannot become a law without a concurrence of the senate Would not the advice and instruction of the senate to the house, intimating our desiie that they would originate and send to us for concurrence, a revenue bill, be thought improper, indelicate and even unconstitutional ? the president and senate can appoint certain officers, but they have distinct and appropriate agencies in the appointment. The pre¬ sident can nominate, but cannot appoint without the ad¬ vice and consent of the senate. But the senate cannot nominate, nor could their advice to the president, to make a nomination, be either binding or proper. The character of the several independent branches of our government, forming constitutional checks upon each other, cannot be exemplified more fully, than in the mode of producing amendments. And an inter¬ ference of one independent body, upon the appropriate and distinct duties of another, can in no instance have a ( 120 ) more prejudicial effect. Can it be thought, then either proper, or constitutional for the state legislatures to as¬ sume the power of instructing to/ iro/iose to them a mea¬ sure, when the power of proposing is not only not given to them, bu; given exclusively to congress ? As well and with as much propriety might congress make a law, at¬ tempting to bind the state legislatures to ratify ; as the legislatures by instructions, bind congress to propose.—■ In either case the check, which for obviously wise pur¬ poses, was introduced into the constitution, is totally de¬ stroyed. And we have not as much security against im¬ proper amendments, as we should have, if the power were exclusively vested in the state legislatures, and for this obvious reason, that in this mode of operation the respon¬ sibility, for the adoption of an improper amendment, is divided and destroyed. Is the sentiment correct, sir, that we shall be justifiable in sending forth this proposition be considered by the state legislatures, if we believe it ought not to be ratified ? What would be thought of the senate,' if they should pass a bill, and send it to the house of representatives for concurrence, the provisions of which they disliked entirely, and wished not to be estab¬ lished ? And can any sound distinction be made between such a measure, and the one now before us ? In either case, the single act of the other body would be final ; and in either case the people at large would be safer to have but one body in existence, to legislate, or make amend¬ ments ; for ail our agency in both cases would only tend to deceive and mislead, and in addition, to diminish, if not destroy, as has just been observed, the responsibility of the other body. It has been said sir, that the house of representatives have twice given a sanction to this measure, and that their conduct, in this particular, adds weight to it. I wish to treat that honourable body with the highest respect; but I must deviate from the truth, were I to acknow ledge that their conduct upon this amendment, has a tendency to convince me that they have a full understanding of the subject. Twice have they sent us a resolution, simi¬ lar in its leading feature to that on your table, and made no provision that the person to be vice president, should be qualified for the highly responsible office, either in age, or citizenship. And for aught that they had guard¬ ed against, we might have had a man in the chief magis¬ tracy, from Morocco, a foreigner who had not been in the country a month. ( 151 ) }.ir. President,'—-it was suggested, in a former part of the debate, by a gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Butler,) that the great states, or ruling party of the day, had brought forward tnis amendment, for the purpose of preventing the choice of a federal vice president at the next ck ction. .rviid we are now put oeyond tne power of doubt, that this is, at least, one motive, by the observa¬ tions oi several of the majority, but especially by those of the gentleman from v irginia. He inf orms us, and I appreciate his frankness, that if the friends of this mea¬ sure do not seize the present opportunity to pass it, the opportunity will never recur. Pie tells us plainly, that a minor faction ought to be discouraged, that all hopes or PiOspect ox rising into consequence, much more of ri¬ sing into office, should be crushed, and that this amend¬ ment is to produce a part of these beneficial effects ; which amendment he compares to the bill which was inti oauced into the British parliament, to exclude a po¬ pish successor to the crown, commonly called the ex¬ clusion^ bill. Have the minority then, no right left, but the right to be tram filed upon by the majority ? This is identically the conduct, which is mentioned in the quotation which I have had the honor to make from the secretary of state ; to which I ask leave to recur i »ie majoiity, by trawnfilvng on the rig’hts of the fnino-' nty, have produced factions and commotions, which in republics, have more frequently than any other cause produced des/iotism.” Y\ hat a\ ails it then, that this country has triumphed over the invasion and violence ofone oppressor, if they must now be victims to the violence of thousands ? Po¬ litical death is denounced now ; what denunciation will follow ? It would be a useless affectation in us, to pre¬ tend to close our eyes upon cither the cause or conse¬ quences of this measure. rile spirit of party has risen so high, at the present day, that it dares to attempt, what"in milder times would be beyond the reach of calculation. To this over¬ whelming torrent every consideration must give way. The gentleman is perfectly correct, in supposing that now is the only time to pass this resolution ; there is a tide in the affairs of party most emphatically, and un¬ less its height is taken, its acme improved, the shallows soon appear, and the present demon of party give place fo a successor. A hope is undoubtedly now indulged ( 122 ) that one great and dominant passion, will, like Aaron’s rod, swallow up every other, and that the favorable mo¬ ment can now be seized to crush the small states, and to obtain their own agency in the transaction. And when we recur to the history of former confederacies, and find the small states arrayed in conflict against each other, to fight, to suffer, and to die for the transi¬ ent gratification of the great states ; have we not some reason to fear the success of this measure ? In the senate is the security of the small states; their feeble voice in the house of representatives is lost in the potent magic of numbers and wealth. Never until now the force of the small states, which was pro¬ vided by the constitution, and lodged in this federative body, as a weapon of self-defence, been able to bear up¬ on this question. And will the small states, instead of defending their own interest, their existence, sacri¬ fice them to a gust of momentary passion ? to the short lived gratification of party prejudice ? This resolution, if circumstances shall unequivocally demand it, can pass at the next or any future session of congress. But once passed, and its passage will ope¬ rate like the grave ; the sacrificed rights of the small states will be gone for ever. Is it possible, sir, that any small state can submit to be a satellite in the state system, and revolve in tt secondary orbit around a great state ? Act in humble devotion to her will till her pm - poses are gratified, and then content herself to be thrown aside like a cast garment, an object of her own unceas¬ ing regret, and fit only for the hand of scorn to point its slow and moving finger at ? Can the members of the senate who represent the small states, quietly cross their hands and request the great states to bind them fast and to draw the ligature? I am aware, sir, that I shall be accused of an attempt to excite the jealousy of the small states. Mr. Presi¬ dent, I represent a small state, I feel the danger, and claim the constitutional right to sound the alarm, from the same altar on which the small states shall be im¬ molated, will rise the smoke of sacrificed liberty : and despotism must be the dreadful successor. It is the cause of my country and of humanity which 1 plead. And when one vast, overwhelming passion is in exercise, full well I know, sir, that no warning voice, no excitement but jealousy, has been found sufficiently ( 123 ) active and energetic in its operation to dissolve the wizard spell, and force mankind to listen to argument. Jealousy, hateful in private life, has perhaps done more in the preservation of political rights than all the virtues united. I have made the stand, sir, in the senate, which I thought the importance of the subject demanded. If I fail here, there is hope of success with the state legis¬ latures. If nothing can withstand the torrent there, I shall experience the satisfaction which is derived from a consciousness of having raised my feeble voice in de¬ fence of that constitution, which is not only the security of the small states, but the palladium of my country’s rights ; and shall console myself with the reflection that I have done mv dutv. 0 0 Mr. Taylor— The opposition to this discriminating amendment to the constitution, is condensed into a single stratagem, namely, an effort to excite the passion of jealousy in various forms. Endeavours have been made to excite geographical jealousies; a jealousy of the smaller against the larger states ; a jealousy in the people against the idea of amending the constitution ; and even a jealousy against individual members of this house. Sir, is this passion a gGod medium through which to discern truth, or is it a mirror calculated to reflect error? Will it enlighten or deceive ? Is it planted in good or in evil—. in moral or in vicious principles ? Wherefore then do gentlemen endeavour to blow it up ? Is it because they distrust the strength of their arguments, that they resort to this furious and erring passion ? Is it because they know that “ ........Trifles light air, are to the jealous Confirmations strong as proof of holy v/fit-’* So far as these efforts have been directed, towards a geographical demarcation of the interests of this union into north and south, in order to excite a jealousy of one division against another ; and so far as they have been used to create suspicions of individuals, they have been either so feeble, inapplicable, or frivolous, as to bear but lightly upon the question ; and to merit but little atten¬ tion. But the attempts to array states against states, because they differ in size, and to prejudice the people againt the idea of amendiug their constitution, bear a more formidable aspect ; and ought to be repelled ; because they are founded on principles the most mischiev- ( 124 ) cus and inimical to the constitution, and could they be successful ; are replete with great mischiefs. Towards exciting this jealousy of smaller states against larger states, the gentleman frcm Connecticut (Mr. Tracy) has laboured to prove, that the federal principle ot the constitution of the United States was founded in the idea of minority invested with operative power.— That in pursuance of this principle, it was contemplated and intended, that the election of a president should frequently come into the house of representatives ; and to divert it from thence by this amendment, would trench upon the federal principle of our constitution, and di¬ minish the rights of the smaller states, bestowed by this principle upon them. This was the scope of his argu¬ ment, to excite their jealousy, and is the amount also of several other arguments delivered by gentlemen on the same side of the question. He did not question the words but the ideas of gentlemen. Words, selected from their comrades, are easily asserted to misrepresent opinions ; as he had himself experienced during the discussion on the subject. This idea of federalism ought to be well discussed by the smaller states, before they will suffer it to produce its intended effect ; that of exciting their jealousy against the larger. To him it appeared to be evidently incor¬ rect. Two principles sustain our constitution ; one, a majority of the people ; the other, a majority of the states ; the first was necessary to preserve the liberty, or sovereignty of the people ; the last, to preserve the liberty or sovereignty of the states. But both are foun¬ ded in the principle of majority ; and the effort of the constitution, is to preserve this principle in relation both to the people and the states, so that neither species of sovereignty or independence, should be able to destroy the other. Many illustrations might be adduced. That of amending the constitution will sufiice. Three fourths of the states must concur in this object, be¬ cause a less number or a majority of states, might net contain a majority of fiecftlc ; therefore the constitution is net amendable by a majority of states, lest a species of state sovereignty, might under colour of amending the constitution, infringe the right of the people ; on the other hand, a majority ot the people ; residing in the large states cannot amend the constitution, lest they should diminish or destroy the sovereignty of the small states, the fede- ( 125 ) ral union or federalism itself. Hence a concurrence of the states, to amend the constitution became necessary; not because federalism was founded in the idea of mi¬ nority ; but for a reason the very reverse of that idea; that is, to cover the will , both of a majority of the people and a majority of states so as to preserve the great element ot seif government, as it regarded state sovereignty, and aiso as it regarded the sovereignty of the people. ' For this great purpose, certain political functions are assigned to be performed, under the auspices of the state or federal principle ; and certain others, under the popu¬ lar principle. It was the intention of the constitution, that these functions should be performed in conformity to its principle. If that principle is in fact a government of a minority, then these factions ought to be performed by a minority. When the federal principle is perform¬ ing a function, according to this idea, a minority of the states ought to decide. And by the same mode of reasoning, when the popular principle is performing a function then a minority of the people ought to decide. This'brings us precisely to the question of the amend¬ ment. It is the intention of the constitution, that the popular principle, shall operate in the election of a pre¬ sident and vice president. It is also the intention of the constitution, that the popular principle, in discharging the functions committed to it by the constitution, should operate by a majority, and not by a minority. That the majority of the people should be driven by an unforeseen state of parties, to the necessity of relinquishing their will, in the election of one or the other of these officers ; or that the principle of majority, in a function confided to the popular will, should be deprived of half its rights, and belaid under a necessity of violating its duty to pre¬ serve the other half, is not the intention of the consti¬ tution. But the gentleman from Connecticut has leaped over all this ground, and gotten into the house of representa¬ tives, without considering the principles of the constitu¬ tion, as applicable to the election of president and vice president by electors, and distinguishing them from an election by the house of representatives. And by ming¬ ling and interweaving the;two modes of electing together, a considerable degree of complexity has been produced. Ifhowever, it is admitted, that in an election of a president and vice president, by electors, that the will of the electing ( 126 ) majority ought fairly to operate, and that an election by the will of a minority would be an abuse or corruption of the principles of the constitution, then it follows, that an amendment to avoid this abuse, both accords with, and is necessary to save these principles. In like manner, had an abuse crept into the same election, whenever it was to be made under the federal principle by the house of repre¬ sentatives, enabling a minority of states to carry the election, it would not have violated the intention of the constitution to have corrected this abuse also, by an amendment. For, Sir, I must suppose it to have been the intention of the constitution, that both the federal prin¬ ciple, and the popular principle, should operate in those functions respectively assigned to them, perfectly and not imperfectly ; that is; the former by a majority ol states, and the latter by a majority of the people. Under this view of the subject, the amendment ought to be considered. Then the question will be, whether it is calculated or not, to cause the popular principle, applied by the constitution in the first instance, to ope¬ rate perfectly , and to prevent the abuse, of an election by a minority ? If it is, it corresponds with the intention, diminishes nothing of the rights of the smaller states, and of course affords them no cause of jealousy. Sir, it could never have been the intention of the constitution to produce a state of things, by which a majority of the popular principle, should be under the necessity of vot¬ ing against its judgment, to secure a president; and by which a minor faction should acquire a power capable of defeating the majority in the election of a president, or cf electing a vice president contrary to the will ol a ma¬ jority of the electing principle. To permit this abuse, would be a fraudulent mode of defeating the operation of the popular principle in this ejection, in order to transfer it to the federal principle; to disinherit the people, for the sake of endowing the house ol representatives; whereas it was an accidental, and not an artificial disap¬ pointment in the election of a president, against which the constitution intended to provide. A fair and not an unfair attempt to elect, was previously to be made by the popular principle, before the election was to go into the house of representatives. And if the people ol all the states both h rge and small, should by an abuse ol the real design of the constitution, be bubbled out of the election of executive power, by leaving to them the no- ( 127 ) minal right of an abortive effort , and transferring to the house of representatives the substantial right of a real election , nothing will remain but to corrupt the election in that house, by some of those abuses of which elections by diets are susceptible, to bestow upon executive power an aspect, both formidable and inconsistent with the principles by which the constitution intended to mould it. The great check imposed upon executive power, was a popular mode of election ; and the true object of jea¬ lousy, which ought to attract the attention of the people of every state, is any circumstance, tending to diminish or destroy that check. It was also a primary intention of the constitution, to keep executive power, indepen¬ dent of legislative; and although a provision was made for its election by the house of representatives in a pos¬ sible case, that possible case never was intended to be converted into the active rule, so as to destroy in a degree the line of separation and independency between execu¬ tive and legislative power. The controversy is not therefore between iarger and smaller states, but between the people of every state, and the house of representa¬ tives. Is it better that the people—-a fair majority of the popular principle—.should elect executive power ; or that a minor faction should be enabled to embarrass and defeat the judgment and will of this majority, and throw the election into the house of representatives. This is the question. If this amendment should enable the po¬ pular principle to elect executive power, and thus keep it separate and distinct from legislation, the intention of the constitution, the interest ol the people, and the prin¬ ciples of our policy will be preserved ; and if so, it is as I have often endeavored to prove in this debate, the in¬ terest of the smaller states themselves, that the amend¬ ment should prevail, f or, sir, is an exposure of their representatives to bribery and corruption (a thing which may possibly happen at some future day, when men iose that public virtue which now governs them) an ac¬ quisition more desirable than ail those great objects, best, (if not. exclusively) attainable, by the election of execu¬ tive power by the popular principle of the federal govern¬ ment, as the constitution itseif meditates and prefers. So far then the amendment strictly coincides with the constitution, and with the interests of the people of every state in the union. But suppose by some rare accident the election should still be sent into the house of repre- ( 128 ) sentatives ; docs not the amendment then afford cause of jealousy to the smaller states ? Sir, each state has but one vote, whether it is iarge or small ; and the president and vice president are still to be chosen out of five persons. Such is the constitution in both respects now. To have enlarged the number of nominees, would have encreased the occurrence of an election by the house of representatives ; and if as I have endeavoured to prove, it is for the interest of every state, that the election should be made by the popular principle of go¬ vernment and not by that house ; then it follows, that what ever would have a tendency to draw the election into that house, is against the interest of every state in the union ; and that every state in the union is interested to avoid an enlargement of the nominees, if it would have such a tendency. Sir, the endeavor to excite a national jealousy against the idea of amending the constitution, is in my view, in¬ finitely more dangerous and alarming, than even the at¬ tempt to marshal states against states. The gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. Tracy) has twice pronounced with great emphasis, “ man is man” and attempted to make inferences against all attempts to amend cur con¬ stitution, from the evil moral qualities with which human nature is afflicted 1 Sir, he has forgotten, \\\&tgovern¬ ments as well as nations are constituted of men and that if the vices of governed man, ought to alarm us for the safety of liberty, the vices of governing man , are not calculated to assuage our apprehensions. Sir, it is this latter species of depravity which has suggested to the people of America, a new idea, enforced by constitu¬ tions. Permit me, to illustrate this new idea, by the terms political law and municipal law. The former is that law, called constitutional, contrived and enacted in the United States, to controul those evil moral qualities , to which this creature “ man” is liable, when invested with power I The latter is that law enacted to controul the vices of man in his private capacity. If the former spe¬ cies of law, should be suffered to remain unchanged, the effects would be the same,, as if the latter should remain unchanged. Both, unaltered, would be evaded by the ingenuity, avarice and ambition of public man , as well as private man. And therefore it is as necessary for the preservation of liberty, that constitutions or political law, should be amended from time to time, in order to ( 129 ) preserve liberty against the avarice and ambition of men in power, by meeting and controuling their artifices; as it is, occasionally to amend municipal law, for the pre¬ servation of property against the vicious practices cf men not in power. To illustrate this argument, I will repeat a position which I lately advanced, namely, that the substance of a constitution may be effectually destroyed, and yet its form may remain unaltered. England illustrates it_ The government of that country took its present form in the thirteenth century; but its aspect in substance has been extremely different at different periods, under the same form. Without taking time to mark the changes in substance, which have taken place under the form of kings, lords, and commons, it will suffice to cast our eyes upon the present state of that government. What are now its chief and substantial energies ? Armies, debt, ex¬ ecutive patronage, penal laws, and corporations. These are the modern energies or substance of the English monarchy ; to the ancient English monarchy they were unknown. Of the ancient, they were substantial abuses ; for, whether these modern energies are good or bad, they overturned the ancient monarchy substantially, without altering its form. Under every change of ad¬ ministration, these abuses proceeded. The outs were clamorous for preserving the constitution, as they called it ; for though divorced from its administration, the hope of getting in, again caused them to maintain abuses, by which their avarice or ambition might be gratified upon the next turn of the wheel; just as in Prussia, where divorces are common, nothing is more usual than for late husbands to affect a violent passion for a former wife, if she carried off from him a good estate ! And the ins fearing the national jealousy, and the prepossession against amending the form of government, and meeting new abuses by new remedies, brought no relief to the na¬ tion. So that under every change of men, abuses pro¬ ceeded. The solution of this effect exists in the species of poli¬ tical craft similar to priest craft. Mankind were ancient¬ ly deprived of their religious liberty, by a dissemination of a fanatical zeal for some idol ; in times of ignorance, this idol was of physical structure ; and when that fraud was detected, a metaphysical idol in the shape of a tenet or dogma was substituted for it, infinitely more perni- R ( 130 ) cious in its effects, because infinitely more difficult of detection. The same system has been pursued by poli¬ tical craft. It has ever labored to excite the same spe¬ cies of idolatory and superstition, for the same reason, namely, to conceal its own frauds and \ices. Sometimes it sets up a physical, at others, a metaphysical idol, as the object of vulgar superstition. Of one, the former “grand monarch of France” ; of the other, the present “church and state” tenet of England, is an evidence.— And if our constitution is to be made like the “ church and state tenet of England ; a metaphysical political idol, which it will be sacrilege to amend , even for the sake of saving both that and the national liberty ;—and if, like that tenet, it is to be exposed to all the means which cen¬ turies may suggest to vicious men for its substantial de¬ struction ; it is not hard to imagine that it also may be¬ come a monument, of the inefficacy of unalterable forms of political law, to correct avarice and ambition in the new and multifarious shapes they are forever assuming. A constitution may allegorically be considered as a temple for the preservation of the treasure of liberty. Around it may be posted one, two or three, or more cen- tinels ; but unless these centinels are themselves watched by the people, and unless the injuries they are frequent¬ ly committing upon the temple are diligently repaid, such is the nature of man in power, that the very centinels themselves have invariably broken into the temple, and conveyed away the treasure. And this because of tne de¬ lusion inspired by political idolatry, which forbids nations to meet abuses by amending their governments or consti¬ tutions ; and teaches them that municipal law alone will suffice for their happiness. Permit me, sir, to illustrate this argument by declaring how I would proceed, if such was my design, to destroy the constitution of the United States; premising that I speak prospectively and not retrospectively. I would have recourse to those very energies w hich constitute the English monarchy; armies, debt, executive patronage, penal laws and corporations. I would endeavor by these monarchical energies, to produce the same effects as in England; and I would hide my intentions by exciting a fanatical adoration for the constitution, which I would endeavor to make a metaphysical idol; and which I would myself adore—*in order to destroy. Whilst I pre¬ tended to be its devotee it should become my screen. ( 131 ) This sir will be the consequence, if the people of the United States, should become jealous of the amending the constitution ; and therefore this species of jealousy so indus¬ triously attempted to be excited, is calculated if it could operate, to bring upon them the utmost calamity. Abuses of a political system will happen ; and amendments only can meet abuses. Public opinion, and not an idolatrous tenet, is the element of our policy ; and however the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Pickering) may deride the opinion of the people, it is the element in which our policy is rooted, and which can at all times be safely entrusted with moulding their form of government. Mr. Pickering here explained. Sir, I quote gentlemen’s ideas and not their words; is it not true that the gentleman ridiculed a recommen¬ dation of this very amendment, even from a state legis¬ lature, because of some grammatical inaccuracy; and that be reasoned against the possibility of knowing what the public opinion was; and yet, however inaccurately it may be.expressed, that gentleman certainly has had suf¬ ficient evidence to convince him , that public opinion is really a noun substantive. It has been urged, sir, by the gentlemen in opposition, in a mode, as if they supposed we wished to conceal or deny it, that one object of this amendment, is to bestow upon the majority a power to elect a vice president. Sir, I avow it to be so. This is one object of the amend¬ ment ; and the other (as to which I have heretofore ex¬ pressed my sentiments) is to enable the electors, by perfecting the election of a president, to keep it out of the house of representatives. Are not both objects cor¬ rect—if, as I have endeavoured to prove, the constitu¬ tion in all cases wherein it reiers elections to the popular principle, intended that principle to act by majorities ? Did the constitution intend that any minor faction, should elect a vice president ? if not, then an amendment to prevent it, accords with, and is preservative of the con¬ stitution, permit me here again to illustrate by an his¬ torical case. England in the time of Charles the Se¬ cond, was divided into two parties; Protestants and pa - /lists ; and the heir to the throne was a pu/nst. The protestants, constituting the majority of the nation, pass¬ ed an exclusion bill; but it was defeated, and the minor papist faction, in the person of the duke of York, got possession of executive power. The consequences were, V ( 132 ) domestic oppressions and rebellions, foreign wars occa¬ sionally, for almost a century, and the foundation of a national debt, under which the nation has been ever since groaning, and under which the government will finally expire. Had the majority carried and executed the proposed exclusion of James II. from executive power the English would have escaped all these calamities. Such pre¬ cisely may be our case. I beg again that it may be un¬ derstood, that in this application, I speak prospectively, and not retrospectively. But it is far from being improbable, that in place of these religious parties, political parties may arise of equal zeal and animosity. We may at some future day, see our country divided into a republican party and a mo¬ narchical party. Is it wise or according to the intention of the constitution, that a minor monarchical faction, should, by any means, acquire the power of electing a vice president; the possible successor to executive pow¬ er ? Ought a republican majority to stake the national liberty upon the frail life of one man ? W ill not a mo¬ narchical executive, overturn the system of a republican executive 1 And ought the United States to shut their eyes upon this possible danger, until the case shall hap¬ pen, when it may be too late to open them ? Sir, let us contemplate the dreadful evils which the English nation have suffered, from the cause of investing executive power in a man, hostile to the national opinion ; and avoid them. They suffered, because their exclusion bill was abortive. Election is our exclusion bill. Its efficacy depends upon its being exercised by a majority. It is only a minority, which can render election insuffi¬ cient to exclude monarchical principles from executive power. It is aeainst minority that election is intended to operate, because minority is the author of monarchy and aristocracy. Shall we sir, be so injudicious, as to make election destroy the principle of election by adhering to a mode of exercising it, now seen to be capable of bestowing upon a minority the choice of a vice president ? Shall we make election, invented to exclude monarchy, a hand¬ maid for its introduction ? Or shall we if we do not see monarchy at this day assailing our republican system, conclude that it never will ; altho’ we know that this system has but two foes, of whom monarchy is one ? ( 133 ) No, sir, let us rather draAv instruction from the pro¬ phetic observations of a member of the English house of commons, whilst the bill for excluding James II. was depending ; who said : “ I hear a lion in the lobby roar Say, Mr. Speaker, shall we shut the door, And keep him there i Or shall we let him in, To try if we can get him out again” Instead of shutting the door, the English left it open ; tyranny got in ; and the evils produced by its expulsion, to that nation, may possibly have been equal to those which submission Avould have produced. Sir, much has been said about the rights of minorities, and the tendency of this amendment to keep up party spirit. I wish I could hear these rights of minorities defined. It is easy to comprehend the justice of the position, u that every individual in society, has equal rights, whether he be - longs to a majority or a minority but the idea of a minor faction, having political rights, as a faction, to me is in¬ comprehensible. On the contrary, I consider all minor factions, as inflamed, excited and invigorated by a pros¬ pect of success ; just as the popish faction in the period quoted of the English history, was kept alive and propelled to make attempts, which they never would have made, had it not been for the excitement arising from a prospect of gaining possession of executive power; so here, if at a future day, a minor and monarchical party should arise, that also will be propelled and excited, by the chance of getting possession of executive power, to keep party spirit alive, and to make attempts, which they never would have made if no such excitement existed. Hence the amend¬ ment, if it will have the effect of depriving a minor faction of the possibility of getting possession of executive power, will suppress and not provoke party and faction. Mr. President, we have been warned by a picture of the evils produced by the French revolution, to forbear to amend our constitution ; for what end I am at a loss to conjecture. Sir, how are these arguments intended to apply to the people of the United States ? If the state of national information in France, has disqualified the great mass of that nation for the enjoyment of self govern¬ ment, does it therefore follow, that the people of Ameri¬ ca are disqualified for self government ? If this state adapts the French nation for the species of government now existing in France, does it follow, that we are adapted ( 134 ) for a similar government ? Sir, it is our superior de¬ gree of national knowledge, which enables us safely to use national opinion as an element of govern¬ ment. This is evinced by facts. In France, con¬ stitutions were several times made and amended, without producing good effect. ; in America, consti¬ tutions have been in many instances, perhaps to the ex¬ tent of sixty or seventy made, repeated and amended, without producing the least disturbance or evil effects in a single case. Changes in France, even often for the worse; here, generally, and perhaps constantly for the better. It is because the public will is here rooted in a sufficient degree of public knowledge, to preserve a mo¬ derate and free government. Shall we sacrifice this will, and the right to amend our constitutions, to a spe¬ cies of metaphysical idolatry, although we owe to these sources all the prosperity and happiness we now possess. For the doctrine ; “ that it is a species of political sacri¬ lege to amend constitutions, and that the people should be jealous of every such attempt;” is precisely the best means to destroy the right in the people to do so. It is a doctrine levelled against the people themselves, under the predominance of whose will the right can only be exercised ; and tending to throw this mode of national self defence against the arts of avarice and ambition, into the back ground; whilst these foes can carry on their incroachments upon liberty and property, by form of law. Let not then, sir, the people of the United States be deterred from exercising their right to alter their constitutions, so frequently and so successfully exercised, by a picture of the French revolution. Finally Mr. president, this amendment receives my approbation and support, because I think it conformable to public opinion, evidently the special recommendation of sundry states, and the concurrence of a great majority of the representatives of the people in the other house; because it accords with the principle of self government that this expression of the public will should be obeyed, that the right of the nation to amend the form of its government, should, upon that ground, be sol¬ emnly recognized; because elections the result of preference, are more consistent wi^i moral rectitude, than those influenced or guided by intrigue, party, arti¬ fice, or the intrigues of diets ; and because^it was the intention of the constitution, that the election of a presi- ( 135 ) dent and vice president should be determined, by a fair expression of the public will by a majority, and not that this intention should be defeated by the subsequent oc¬ currence of a state of parties, neither foreseen nor con¬ templated by the constitution or those who made it. Gen. Jackson— the gentleman from Connecticut has alleged that the Georgia electors had consulted him, and that there was an intrigue, and seemed to insinuate something about bribery ; I expect that gentleman will explain himself. Mr. Tracy said he had meant no improper imputa¬ tion whatever on the gentleman’s character ; the gen¬ tleman had talked of his being at a meeting of gentle¬ men in Georgia, and that a letter had been received which changed the intentions of the Electors; and he had also talked of intrigues, and it certainly appeared as if there had been something more than ordinary elec¬ tion proceedings when the intention was changed by a letter. He then observed that the hour was late, and moved that the house, when it adjourns, adjourn to Monday. The question was lost. It was then moved that the house adjourn now—the question was taken and lost by a large majority. Mr. Butler hoped gentlemen would not do one thing and tell us another; after hearing them for several hours ; after sitting without refreshment from eleven to now near six; will not gentlemen afford us an opportuni¬ ty to deliver our opinions upon this subject: are gentle¬ men afraid of argument? Or do they wish to press us to debate when this state of fatigue renders it scarcely possible to do justice to the subject or ourselves. As gentlemen proceed thus, he could not avoid using strong language, and must say that he conceived such conduct grievous and oppressive, it was almost tyrannical. There were other gentlemen beside himself who wished to offer their opinions, and he hoped they would not persist in forcing a great portion of the representatives of the states to a vote without a hearing at this late hour. He moved an adjournment. Dr. Logan— as the gentleman wished to give his opi¬ nion, he hoped the house would adjourn. On the question-—yeas 12, Noes 15. Mr. Hillhouse was sorry that after so long a de¬ bate he should be obliged to trespass on the house, and ( 136 ) perhaps be obliged to repeat arguments with which the house was already familiar. But the extraordinary speech of the gentleman from Virginia was such, that although much fatigued, he could not pass it by without notice. He agreed with that gentleman, that there was danger of this government being destroyed by idol worship ; the framers of the constitution foresaw and made provision against it. But there are more kinds of idol worship than one ; the republics of antiquity will bear "witness by their ruin, to the existence of this de¬ structive idolatry. It is that idol worship, I fear, which blinds the gentleman himself to the consequences of this amendment, though in general he would allow him to be distinguished for candor and fairness, and for which he admired him. What is the position which the gentleman lays down and avows ?—That it is his purpose to prevent a minor faction from carrying a vice president into that chair. Had the gentleman laid aside all consideration of what the constitution intended ?—. Does it not say that two persons shall be voted for as president ? And what was the object of this, but to afford the minority an opportunity of putting in one of the two. But gentlemen will say this is not reason¬ able ; he thought differently ; it was to prevent this idol worship, and to make the majority look about them ; it was to prevent any one state domineering over the rest, or attempts of particular states to carry their idol at all risks ; for this purpose two persons "were directed to be voted for. Your amendment proposes to persuade the people that there is only one man of correct politics in the United States—your constitution provides a remedy against this, and says you must bring forward two.— If the majority will select two and bring them fairly for¬ ward, how is it possible for the minority to bring any forward with effect. He would suppose a case, that there is in a particular state a man who in every view is entitled to the highest respect; and so popular as to be beyond the reach of com¬ petition ; according to the laws of some ancient repub¬ lics he would be condemned to the ostracism—and bam ished; this was the punishment of the most virtuous and meritorous men; they were banished because their popularity made them dangerous to the liberties of the republic—because in short he was in danger of becoming an idol. Our constitution more wise and just has provi- ( 137 ) and a more safe and effectual remedy; no man can become too popular; for it there is a portion of the peo¬ ple who are disposed to be infatuated, the constitution provides there snail be two candidates, and those who are not infatuated can chuse a man perhaps not so popular, but probably possessed of equal talents for the station.— Had the convention supposed two religious sects as the Protestants and Catholics, and that there should be a can¬ didate from each sect, the gentleman’s arguments, drawn from the English exclusion bill, would be parallel. But here they have the right to chuse two Protestants, or two of any sect—and the comparison of course is not perfect. What avails it that the minority should propose a Catho¬ lic, if the Protestants lrave a majority. They may select two Protestants and the two will have the major vote. The time was very remote, he believed, when it would be in the power of any man to wrest the power out of the hands of the people of this country ; but get this al¬ teration made, and you never get back to so safe a station again. At some future day an artful and powerful man will rise, as has been the case in all nations, and by this alteration of tne constitution if he can command a majori¬ ty of votes, he will take possession of the executive chair, and your liberties are gone ; for the people of no nation have ever knowingly destroyed their own liberties. When a whole society has become acquainted with its constitution, changes in it are dangerous; every change you make renders the knowlege of it uncertain tothe people ; and the uncertainty is equally pernicious as ignorance, for after successive changes, is the time for an usurper, and then the friend of the people who had stolen away their hearts, under the pretence of preserving their liberties, steals them away too. But now as our constitution stands, you have every guard against am¬ bition ; no man can corrupt the whole people ; and if you put up two candidates the second will be preferred to the first, ifthere is any danger to be apprehended from him. . When we wish to promote a particular object, we are too apt to view it only on one side. The gentleman from Virginia had compressed the object of amendment in one expression—he wished to prevent a minor faction from choosing a vice president. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cocke) had avowed the same sentiment in still plainer terms. S I ( 138 ) It was most certainly a wise principle to guard against evil ; but wisdom requires that there be a just apprehen¬ sion cr a real evil. He did not believe that a federal vice president was an evil of any kind; the gentleman had indeed talked of armies, debts, patronage, and soon; but what concern have the senate and house ol repre¬ sentatives in those evils ? They have not the command of armies ; no member of either house can be appointed to them; the evil apprehended from these things can only attach where the command devolves upon some am¬ bitious man, as the gentleman (Gen. Jackson) said, above impeachment. He was sorry the gentleman had made use of such epithets as the minor faction. He believed when that gentleman was in the minority, he did not think him¬ self a member of a faction ; difference of opinion does not constitute faction ; and a free government always implies the right of tree opinion. He was in a minority, but he disclaimed faction.* Mr. Taylor had before stated that his arguments were wholly prospective ; not present or retrospective ; but founded upon a presumption that at some very re - 7 note time, there may be a monarchical faction. Mr. Hillhouse w r as glad of the explanation ; for it could not be supposed that he was a monarchical poli¬ tician, nor the section of the union which he came from, disposed to monarchy; he would never consent to put up any man as a candidate for office who was in favor of monarchical principles ; there were men enough in this country always to be found without taking up men of mat description. But how will gentlemen reconcile their dishke to monarchy with their dislike of federalism also. Tne expression is to prevent a federal vice president being elected ; this comes nearer home than monar¬ chism. Is not every friend to this government a fede¬ ralist—is not our government a federative republic. The habits and feelings of every man in this country are strictly republican ; he was not indeed an Utopian re¬ publican, nor could he flatter himself that the time would ever arrive when every man would think alike ; he should * It may be recollected, that this epithet faction was employ¬ ed like many other epithets, such as disgraced minister , by Mr. Pickering when in the plenitude of his might; Mr. Taylor had not this in mind-—this Mr. Pickering is now in the minor tac¬ tion! Eeit. ( 139 ) rejoice to see such a time, but believed it would not ar¬ rive before the millenium, and was alike the creation of an heated brain. There may be degrees of party spirit—more or less asperity—but there never will come a time when party spirit will not exist; never will come a time when there will be no ambitious men aspiring to power. In the present time gentlemen are perfectly able to place two persons of their own opinions in the two great offices. The minority cannot do it. What is the evil then which calls for this amendment ? Is it from a fear that the minority may bring forward a monarchical charac¬ ter ? He would not undertake to characterize those who brought forward a man whom they never intended for that office. If they have done an improper thing, bought wit is best; but he hoped that gentlemen wouid net do away the salutary checks of the constitution. Mr. Dayton to the gentleman from Virginia we are indebted for two lessons in ethics; formerly he advised us to moderation, in the language of passion ; and now " he tells us that a violation of the constitution is a case of strong morality; while on the other hand the gentle¬ man from Tennesse had nothing farther to say in a speech oi an hours length. He would follow the moderate ad¬ vice in earnest, but he hoped he wouid be permitted to mourn over the departed dignity of that house. He would repeat to gentlemen what they had so of¬ ten heard in this debate, that this venerated cons¬ titution was the result of compromise—and you are now about to deface it. This great point, the most difficult which the convention had to determine, the succession to executive authority, is about to be disturbed, and subject¬ ed to all the guilt of popular passion and political intole¬ rance. Never was there a more wise opinion uttered, than that in amending the constitution, you are not to consider so much what the constitution ought to be, as what it is. Superficial men may doubt this—but it is a solemn truth. Gentlemen should consider, that in framing this con¬ stitution, a due regard was had to the wealth of parti¬ cular states at that period ; three fifths of a particular species ol population was taken into the distribution of representation. If that principle were to be fixed now, would the same distribution upon the ratio of w ealth take place ? W ould it be said that Massachusetts or other eastern states are worth less tlian others, who have ( 140 ) a representation extraordinary on account of wealth. Yet upon such principles is the constitution established, which you now wish to disturb. If it takes effect, those states will claim this representation of wealth also. The gentleman from Maryland (Gen. Smith) disclaim¬ ed the existence of combinations and clashing of states. He presumed this was because there was no law, no re¬ gulation on this subject in the statute books, because it is not matter of record. But why are there no laws ? Be¬ cause the constitution has provided equivalent checks. If a combination begins in the large states, it is checked here ; if in the small, it is checked in the other house. But does it follow that when you alter your constitution no such combinations will take place ? He had often thanked God, that there was one sanctuary here nottobeprophanedby the unhallowed feet of amendment makers—but now even this prophanation has arisen 1 v He had heretofore viewed the seventeen states like planets moving in their orbits, equal in dignity hut dis¬ proportionate in size ; revolving in one great system round the federal centre. Henceforward he must view them converted into satellites revolving in a contracted circle, and actuated by no concord or like principle of action.— For himself, for the people of Jersey whom he represent¬ ed, he would protest against this amendment ; his con¬ stituents were too proud to submit to it. Mr. Pickering said, that on a former day he observ¬ ed that the subject of amendment had been but super¬ ficially considered by the people ; it had not attracted their attention generally ; and where it had been taken up by the legislature of New York, not a grammatical error, but a palpable absurdity had been recommended. In fact the amendment was predicated upon one man being voted for, yet it stated that if two had a majority certain provisions ought to be made, This was impos¬ sible two could ret have a majority. He was aware that formerly it had been thought by some that there was an inconvenience in the present form of choosing two persons, but he did not see it; and at that time some distin¬ guished men reprobated the idea. But for years it had not been attended to, and he believed it would not be de¬ nied by his brother farmers, if he was to say that they were no better informed than himself. He must think that the people’s voice is not easily known. In the debates it was said, that if some one had not given way, at the late election for president, a civil war ( 141 ) \ would have taken place ; and the gentleman from Georgia (Gen. Jackson) was among others ready to have decided the question at the point of the bayonet.—. He had hoped the people were not yet so corrupt, as to be capable of involving themselves in civil war for one man. He had heard high eulogiums lavished, great characters drawn in orderly words ; but we had an apt¬ ness in our nature to blind our own judgements and people will differ in opinions as to persons while the world is a world. He had a feint recollection some- what in point. Some think Heaven’s own spirit on Calvin fell While others think him the instrument of Hell. It was avowed, he thought with more simplicity than discretion, that not only the president must be chosen of the same political opinions, but that the minority shall never, to the end of time partake of the election of those two officers. But he recollected the saying of a venerat¬ ed authority, to be just we must be reasonable ; and though majorities may be overwhelming, minorities have their rights too. In framing the constitution, great pains were taken with this part of that instrument; for a long time, it was contemplated to have the executive chosen for seven years, and the person to be ever after ineligible; but towards the close, the present plan was introduced, and was soon more admired than any other feature of the constitution. When he came into that house he was unprepared to form an opinion on tins subject ; and had it been precipi¬ tated, lie should have remained so, and could have voted only from the repugnance he always felt at the intro¬ duction of novelties ; or by the reliance which he should place on the opinions and patriotism of others. But upon the fullest conviction, after examination, he was now ready to vote against it. After what has been so ably said by the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. Tracy) he could add but little to the argument. When we were colonics, we had governors and lieutenant go¬ vernors, many states have preserved the form, and they always designated. But why was not that plan adopted . ? Because the colonial officers were elected but for one year; and if the lieutenant governor chosen proved to be a man of inferior talents, one year could not do great mischief. But in the government of a great nation, the ( 142 ) period of four years is as small as could be eligible ; and the same reasons that would render the choice of a sui¬ table person for the one office applies to the other, who may succeed to the same station. But the constitution never intended either should be designated on that ac¬ count. It has been often said the public mind is made up on this subject; that the public tvill requires it. But he supposed, this public will, is founded on opinion ; and for . his part he did not believe the public mind well informed ; no one ought to be influenced then unless this will were properly expressed ; and each member should therefore act according to his own idea of good. Perhaps the public mind may mistake or is under a delusion ; it is our duty to check the delusion and preserve the consti¬ tution from the mischiefs that may result. Gen. Jackson —-the gentleman last up has thought proper to notice what he had said would have been the effect of the meditated usurpation at the last election he assured that gentleman, that however much he might plume himself on his own virtues; that the people of Georgia would not take their ideas of the course that ought to be pursued when their liberties were at stake from any other source than the principles of virtue and freedom. The gentleman had also thought proper to notice what he called an eulogium upon the present chief magistrate. His language was too humble and inade¬ quate for that great and good man’s eulogium; it was far beyond any form of words which he could employ, to express the veneration which he felt for him ; and he be¬ lieved that excepting only the departed Washineton, no man ever possessed or merited more of the affection of the people of America than he did. But not content with noticing my tribute cf truth which the occasion called for, and which the gentleman questions ; he has given the senate, what it was to be supposed he intended for poetry ; he would not compli¬ ment him on Ins taste for selection, any more than on his liberality. The verses are bad enough, and the ap¬ plication worse ; they reminded him of the speech of Moloch, in the second book of Paradise Lost. But ta¬ king his verses as thev are, he was content to believe the first; the gentleman might if it could console him, believe in the second. For he did believe that the Pre¬ sident’s virtues were a hell to him. ( 143 ) t The zeal of Georgia appears to be a matter of sur¬ prise to the gentleman. But it is by no means surpri¬ sing. Yv hy was that state so anxious for a change of administration ? Under the fo rmer ad minis tration her Rights. violated, h er govern mentjtreated with stu¬ died insult. In discharge of his duty as governor, Tie ’cotTlcTscarcely get an answer on public business from the department of state, at the head of which that gentleman (Mr. Pickering) was then placed. Und er that adm i- nistration state rig h ts w ere degraded ancTclisregarded; we saw the principles oTTIm revolution brought up as topics for reproach, and we saw that we had no chance but in the resort to first principles—we looked up to the author of the Declaration of Independence, he has not disappointed us—would to God I were capable of doing justice to his eulogium. Mr. White proposed an adjournment; he feared the fatigue would create irritation ; some warmth had al¬ ready been displayed— On the question being called (10 minutes past 7) it was lost. Mr. Wright would offer but a few words. It had been observed that our government is the result of a compromise. So are all federal governments. The reference to the old confederation and their voting by states amounted to nothing conclusive ; the old congress possessed no legislative power, they had only an execu¬ tive and recommendatory power. The constitution was produced by the necessity of the case; no impost could be levied by the old congress, and to preserve the bene¬ fits of the revolution Virginia called the convention. He could not account for the opposi ion of the gentleman from Delaware, as he would not strike the amendment out if it, formed part of the constitution. Mr. White —The gentleman misapprehended my expression. .Mr. Wright— I took the gentleman’s words down— they were these-—If the amendment formed part of the constitution I would not vote for striking it out.” He then went very largely into a recapitulation and reply to the various points of discussion, and asked if it was con¬ sistent with the principles of the government that our laws should be like those of the Medes and Persians, their form immutable and error eternal. He asked if gentlemen would not think it a hard case if men were ( 144 ) placed in the two first oSices of government who were neither the choice nor agreeable to either party ? \ et this would not be more inconsistent or absurd than to have any one man so placed contrary to the fundamental prin¬ ciple of representative government, the will of tne majo¬ rity. Every gentleman must recollect what a scene was exhibited in the legislature of Pennsylvania at the late election, which could have its origin in intrigues alone, and which ended at length in a compromise which gave the most populous state in the union the real value of no more than one vote ; the same intrigues existed in Jersey, where an organized plan existed to place a man in the executive chair against the wish s of the nation, unchosen and unintended for the executive chair by either party. Here we provide a remedy for such evils—we of cr you the certain means of frustrating and rendering them hopeless ; we offer you a designation. But it is said this is a party question. Gentlemen appear not to look round them ; or to overlook facts staring them in the face, do we not see gentlemen of opposite parties in politics on both sides of this question ? Is it from par¬ ty views the gentleman from South Carolina opposes it? He was as much a friend to the principles of a majo¬ rity governing as any man, but here it was a different question which he thought principally concerned—it is to prevent the disgrace and injuries of intrigues ; it is to prevent men not intended to be chosen from being edged into power. At the last election what did we see ? An attempt made by a party in truth hostile to the man at that time, endeavouring to put him into the ex¬ ecutive chair ! And for what purpose ? For the purpose cf confusion—to distract and divide the country, and to lay the foundation of another factious administration on one already humbled by public indignation. Had they succeeded in corrupting a single man from his duty, would it not have been usurpation ©f the worst species. What did his colleague say, that after this project of wrong had failed, another was meditated, it was even supposed to set up a man who had not a single vote, and that had they attempted to carry it into execution, the people would not bear it. And the gentleman from Connecticut expresses his astonishment that the people would not bear usurpation, while he confesses that his section of the union would have been quiet spectators of the act 1 He knew that the people of Maryland felt t ( 145 ) ✓ t!ie danger and were determined to resist it, not with their arms folded 'out with energy oi freemen, and such was the sensation which the meditated wrong had occa¬ sioned, such was tne spirit of the people La resist it, that some of the most opulent men in the state found it time to interfere. This amendment then is intended to prevent the re¬ currence oi such alarming dangers. Does it deprive any one or any state of a right ? Is it not fit, that if I am called on to vote for president and vice president that I should have my free choice ? Is it then consistent with reason that I should be compelled to vote for one man upon equal terms whom I do not think has equal talents or equal claims to my confidence? Is it fair that I should be reduced to the alternative of choosing a wise man and a fool, in order to give the former a chance. Are not the small states as well secured by this amendment as the large ? If this amendment was not intended why has it not been guarded like those parts which cannot be changed before 1808 ? In this senate the small states have tneir security-—-their equal representation, and in the provision against any change being made in their representation here without the consent of each. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Adams) has I drawn all his eloquence in force, he has collected all hi# ! vengeance, and pours out the vials of his wrath upon \ Virginia. Why this vehement, this toothless rage against that state, which in evil times had indeed stood firm, the rock of our political salvation ; to whom we looked in the hour of adversity for counsel, for succour, for statesmen and leaders of our armies. To her we ( were indebted for a Washington, and is itbecause we are I indebted to her for other great men that this jealous f. rage is vociferated against her. Is it to be supposed that j\ with her 24 votes for president she can controul all the ' rest ? We hold the true federative counterpoise, the other house has the democratic or popular, for he knew no difference Nine or ten are destined to be small states, and will always have a majority here ? Gentlemen when they cannot make good their case by argument or fact, endeavor to make it out as well as they can. Hence we have the declamation about small and large states, and hence so many warnings against touching the constitu¬ tion. But who are they who wish to tear up this con¬ stitution ? 1 wo propositions have been offered of inii- T ( 146 ) nitely more force on the principles of the constitution- one to abolish the office of vice president altogether, the other to limit the election of president. We wish to provide against an evil not foreseen, and to supply the deficiency; the gentlemen wish to tear a part of the constitution altogether. And who have proposed and advocate these erasures ? The opposers of this amend¬ ment. So that when reverence for the constitution is spoken of these amendments must be abandoned. Ex¬ perience, sir, is worth a thousand volumes of experiments. Had it been foreseen at the last election, that such events , could have proceeded from the principles of honor and good faith being rigidly observed by the republicans, many would have opposed their uniform vote and cast their vote away rather than lay the country open to in¬ trigue and its consequences. He had thought the number five would equally answer the purposes of election. Arguments had convinced him that three would be still more safe ; because it would give the greater certainty of a choice by the peo¬ ple. And was there a man in that house who would dare to say that the people ought not to have the man of their choice ? They look for the security of that right, and the principle of designation secures it. Is there any man who as an elector would prefer the uncertainty of two for the certainty of one. Some affect to say we strike at fundamental principles. But we say we wish to strike at error and give stability to republican represen¬ tative principles. The constitution says the president shall be chosen by electors ; he believed there was a mi¬ litant spirit against democratic republican principles which would take the power from the people and their electors, which would fly in the face of the constitution itself and tell the people it ought not to be amended ; that error should be perpetual, and experience fruitless; this was notoriously avowed. Our greatest blessing and our first pride is that we have the power and the right to amend, and to redress wrongs without the resort to arms which nations are ever exposed to, where abuses are ren¬ dered sacred and hereditary. On the subject of this amendment so far as it concerns designation, he believed the public mind could not be better known; could three fourths of our legislatures and two thirds of both houses of congress commit treason and treachery on themselves. He was decidedly for the amendment, and for the num¬ ber 3. ( 147 ) Mr. White —the gentleman says the old congress had no legislative powers. Did they not raise armies, emit money, both high legislative acts ? Mr. Wright —the gentleman is wholly mistaken, the several states raised armies, and monies were raised by state contributions—all the power they had Avas to re¬ commend to the states and make requisitions upon the state grants. The question on inserting the number 3 was put (at ten minutes past 8 o’clock p. m.) and carried—21 yeas 11 navs. J Mr. Dayton asked if the question could be taken on the whole of the designating amendment, without deci¬ ding upon the remainder of the report ? * Mr. Butler you assuredly cannot decide upon the first part without deciding upon the whole of the report, unless you do it by power ; and you can do any thing, as judge Blackstone says, by power, but make a man of a woman. Power, however, appears to be the order of the day; tho* he hoped the chair will do so much justice to himself as to acknowlege that we have been hitherto in a committee of the whole. Some gentlemen had spoken so often as nine or ten times in the debate, and in the house that would have been contrary to order. The object of his wishes was to probe innovation. If we have hitherto been in a committee of the whole, as this is only a part of the report, of course it will stand as it is, and we may proceed to the remainder of the report. Tho’ from what he had already seen he did not expect the indulgence that he thought was due to every mem¬ ber of that house ; and it w r as not impossible that it was meant to press into a different course. If so, gentlemen * This question had reference to the following amendment proposed by Mr. Butler for limiting the period for which a pre¬ sident should be elected, and which was not acted upon. “ Resolved, by the senate and house of representatives of the United States of America in congress assembled, Two thirds of both houses concurring, that the following amendment be proposed to the legislatures of the several states as an amend¬ ment to the constitution of the United States, which when ra¬ tified by three fourths of the said legislatures, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said constitution, to wit: “ That no person who has been twice successively elected president of the United States, shall be eligible as president, un¬ til four years shall have elapsed : but any citizen who has been president of the United States, may, after such intervention, be eligible to the office of president, for four years, and no Unger.” ( 148 ) should look to -what the people of the United Stales would say, when they see the doors closed against all dispassionate discussion and all opportunities open to one side only of the house. There was an example of this kind given by the colonel on his left (Mr. Cccke') who after making a speech of an hour sits down and roars out the cjuestion the question. Unless gentlemen mean to practice the same indelicacy as two hours ago. The President wished to interrupt the gentleman for a moment—barely to inform him that the question has never been before a committee of the whole. A desultory conversation on the point of order here took place, in which Messrs. Nicholas, Butler, Tracy, Gen. Smith, Dayton, Taylor, Franklin, Hill house and Adams spoke a few moments each. In which it was contended that the first amendment could not be decided on without first deciding on the second amendment which was reported by the same committee. On the other side it was maintained that the amend¬ ment for designation was a separate proposition, and might be voted upon, whether the other was voted upon or not; that the other amendment might be called up at any time without interfering with tne principle or the passage of that now before tii e house. The president decided that the question now was on agreeing to the resolution as amended. Upon which the yeas and nays were demanded and were as follows. YEAS, Messrs. Anderson, Condit, Potter, Bailey, Ellery, Ts. Smith, Baldwin, Franklin, Sam. Smith, Bradley, Jackson, John Smith, Breckenridge, Logan, Stone, Brown, Maclay, Taylor, Cocke, Nicholas, NAYS. Worthington, Wright—22. Messrs. Adams, Hillhouse, Plumer, Butler, Olcott, T racy,. Dayton, Pickering, Wells, White—10. Mr. Adams thought it proper for him at this stage to notice some observations directed to him. It had been presumed that he had expressed some solicitude about the election ot a federal vice president; he had expressed nothing which could countenance a solicitude about the election of a federal or anti-federal vice president; but I ( 149 ) lie had indeed noticed that the amendment appeared to him as intended directly to affect the next election; tho’ at the same time as far as related to himself he turned out of the consideration every idea of its effect on any single case ; he looked to it as it would affect a century to come—- he never meant to take the diameter of the earth for the measure of a barley corn. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. W ight) had charged him with pouring out the vials of his wrath on Virginia; he was not conscious of utter¬ ing any degree of wrath against Virginia, and could not be persuaded that he had uttered what he certainly never felt, so far from wrath he had ever entertained for that state the highest respect, as producing the greatest men of our revolution. It was true indeed that when he heard a gentleman from that state holding forth what he had then considered as a menace, he had felt some irri¬ tation ; and when he compared it with the mould and pro¬ cess of the measure before us that was increased; and had he not been convinced J:hat no menace was intended by subsequent explanations he should have entertained a serious alarm. His impressions were generally on the subject, that no regard has been paid to the permanent operation of the measure, but that all argument has been drawn from the last, and all consequences are calculated for the next election. From the open avowal of the gentleman from Maryland (Gen. S. Smith) to the la¬ boured, ingenious, and eloquent arguments of the gen¬ tleman from Virginia (Mr. Taylor) all had this tendency and that view only. To the designating principle itself he had no objec- < tion, and believed it calculated to be productive of good. Uut when he heard gentlemen talk of the jealousy of states, he had little expected to find a mixture of argu- ? y ment drawn from English corruptions and degeneracy, applied to our home institutions. When jealousy of' ^ executive power was spoken of, so much like the un- r ) meaning noise out of doors, he had expected that after adding fifteen millions to the public debt at a blow; when 80,000 men were proposed to be placed at the will of the executive—when by four short lines the whole of the arbitrary power of the Spanish king over his subjects in Louisiana was transferred to the executive with all the consequent patronage, he did not expect to hear armies, debts and patronage introduced in the debate. When declamation of this kind is given, the best return that can be expected is declamation of the same species. y ( 150 ) Gen. S. Smith had not intended at any hour to have taken a further part in this debate ; but when he found gentlemen resorting to stratagem when sound argument failed them, and words and sentiments are tortured from their intention, he could not remain silent. It requires very little ingenuity to lop off a part of a sentence even in scripture, and to make the remainder blasphemy; though the whole sentence as written were the most so¬ lemn truth. The gentleman from Jersey, (Mr. Dayton) thinks it consistent, perhaps, to construe words which never had that meaning as a threat. He would beg leave to notice a mistake of the gentleman from Massa¬ chusetts, (Mr. Adams) who had charged him with an open avowal that the sole object of the amendment was to pre¬ clude the election of a vice president; he had said that it would certainly have that effect; and that the effect would be proper and conformable to the spirit and inten¬ tion of the constitution ; and he approved of it for that reason, for under the existing mode the people who wished to secure a proper person, or that person in whom they have the greatest portion of confidence, would be obliged to throw their votes away, and make no choice of the second officer, or leave the choice to chance. But how could the gentleman say himself, or think him guilty of the absurdity, in supposing that this amendment originated and was conducted solely with a view to the next election, and that only ; or that ail arguments were drawn from the last election ? If he recollected correctly, the subject of this amendment was brought forward several years ago, by the representa¬ tive of a small eastern state, Mr. Abiel Foster, of New Hampshire. At that period those persons were of the predominant party. But they tell us it was not then carried. And why not ? Most probably because they could not find members convinced of its necessity, it was proposed before the last election, and that event has con¬ vinced every one who before doubted. After all, if the legislatures do not think proper to adopt it, it cannot pass. Mr. Tracy— we are told this is a proposition for the legislatures ; but will its passage through congress have no influence on the votes of the states, will the legisla¬ tures not say two thirds of both houses of congress passed it, and they would not deem it necessary if it was not good. But here we have legislatures prompting us to this ( 15 ! ) • r / measure, and it goes back to them again for their deci¬ sion ; that this is a measure, a measure in a hoop, it comes and goes whence it came The gentleman complains of attacks made on Virginia, it was never meant to reproach Virginia. But the gentle¬ man tells us we must make an exclusion bill, and he tells you of the consequences if you do not, in order to in¬ duce you to pass it. He admired the gentlemanly manner, the openess and good nature, and he was certain that he never meant to kill us outright, but he will exclude us. We know very well what was intended by the bill for the exclusion of popish recusants, and that with regard to the objects of the measure we stand precisely in their place. This was the very condition of the gentleman; he supposed aminority had no rights, beside that of being trampled upon—and he is for bringing in a bill of exclu¬ sion. He says he does not quote words, he caught ideas not words. He has given a key for his ideas—they go to the total extirpation of the sect of federalists—as the ex¬ clusion bikl went to the total exclusion of the sect of po¬ pish recusants. If gentlemen wish to shake the constitution to pieces, if majorities must decide every thing, why not go at once to a simple democracy. There were many who did not think the constitution sufficiently democratical. The gentleman thinks so perhaps, for he tells that a consti¬ tution may be preserved while the liberties of the people are destroyed ; he wishes you to go to the spirit which is democracy, and against which we guard. But he would not consent to go to that spirit for his remedy. Mr. Breckenridge —the gentleman last up, had in¬ sisted on two or three arguments before repeated, that he thought proper to notice him. He insinuates that we are destroying principles. But the gentleman has lost sight of the amendment altogether, where no prin¬ ciple is in the smallest degree violated. He has indi¬ rectly questioned the democratic principles of the con¬ stitution ; but in the course of three weeks discussions, for the first time he had heard any thing even glancing at a denial of the people’s right to chuse the executive thro’ the medium of electors. What is this clamour about large and small states ? It has nothing to do whatever with the question. The true and only point is what will be the best mode of effectuating the choice ; we hold that the amendment is that best mode. If any princi- ( 152 ) pie is more sacred and all important for free government it is that elections should be as direct as possible, in proportion as you remove from direct election you ap¬ proach danger. And if it were practicable to act without any agents in the choice, that would be preferable even to the choice by electors. But if you \vish to elect A and you are so placed as that B is elected contrary to your wishes can you say that this is a reasonable and just process. Has it not always been insisted that the two characters chosen at the last election were equally estimable. Why then was there any hesitation ? Why has public opinion, so ready to declare itself, never uttered a sound of discontent at the issue, while the nation was aimost in arms at the retardment of the choice. Had the now vice president been placed by whatever secret means in that chair, is there a man who now hears who would not say it was contrary to the in¬ tention of the people ? If ever public opinion was more strongly known on any point than another, it is on tnis. Nine states he believed had testified their wishes on the subject. New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Mas¬ sachusetts, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Ohio, have in the most solemn manner recommended it. If the gentlemen from Massachusetts or one of them particu¬ larly (Mr. Pickering) are in doubt as to the understand¬ ing or information cf their constituents on the subject, there can it is presumed be no doubt but the other house understand both the subject and the opinions of the people whom they so immediately represent. And this supposed ignorance is a reply to the gentleman from Connecticut. It is to be presumed if they are now igno¬ rant, that when the amendment comes before them they wiil possess new lights—and that aii danger win t>e avoid¬ ed by their watchfulness. Mr. Butler had allowed every gentleman to speak, though he had early in the debate signified his intention to offer a few observations on this important subject, which it was his lot to oppose from a conviction of its injurious tendency. He had gratified himself in the opening of the discussion with the expectation that the regularity of proceeding would be such, that we should never more hear the voice of menace or of civil war, words which should never enter the walls of that senate any more than the most vulgar expressions. But the hour was late. But the gentleman from Kentucky says that ( 153 ) you should not remove the election farther from the peo¬ ple, and he appears to think that at the late election the disposition to place a man not intended in the chair, was the consequence of that form of proceeding*. Whatever may be the sentiments or wishes of the individuals who vote, he could take upon him to say what was the in¬ tention of the constitution; the framers of that instru¬ ment were apprehensive of an elective chief magistrate ; and their views were directed to prevent the putting up of any powerful man; that for this end the states should chuse two, and that as public suffrage would be common to both, that either would be alike eligible, and it was totally immaterial which—he feared that the election of a single individual might exhibit all the evils which afflicted Poland. One observation he owed to the side he had taken in this debate, it had been suggested abroad that he had changed his opinion from being in favor to an opposition of the amendment. This was not so, for when the amend¬ ment was introduced he had avowed his purpose to op¬ pose it. He was more confirmed when he heard argu¬ ments employed avowing the determination to remove every possibility of an election in the house of represen¬ tatives, and for this reason that the smaller states having fewer representatives in that house, would be exposed to the corruption of any designing man, and they might be made the instruments of national ruin as the rotten bo¬ roughs of England have in the hands of the king of that country. If the small states then are mere rotten boroughs, and their representatives liable to corruption, is the evil re¬ medied by this amendment ? He asked if only two were to be voted for and had equal votes would it not then go to the house of representatives as much as if there were five from which to make a choice. But the time which has been expended in this discussion has only served to render more conspicuous the anxieties by which it is pressed forward. A gentleman has asked us shall a fac¬ tious minority give a vice president to the United States ? Aye there’s the rub I He had thought that the reproach¬ ful epithet of faction, that all heat and animosity of party should long since have been buried and the repre¬ sentatives of the small states he hoped would see that they were hound by duty and by feeling not to suffer the ( 154 ) votes to go along with those reproaches; for with that vote would pass a very material part of their sovereignty. A great deal had been said to remove this idea of the jealousy of the states, and that it was only a stratagem set up for the occasion. Whatever gentlemen might say on that subject he would say to the small states, with the orator of Greece —'Beware of Macedon !” Be¬ ware of the great states I In this, however, there was one exception, lie would exclude the state of Pennsylvania; and civil liberty was better understood and practised there than in any age or in any part of the world. He had, however, seen something very like this combina¬ tion of states—and thought it behoved the small states to watch them, else they would monopolize the whole of the executive departments; and the moment that v r as accomplished, farewell to the republic, it would no longer exist—it would be succeeded by a high haughty aristoc¬ racy of states, with an executive moulded and accommo¬ dated to their views. When you pass this you plant the seed of discord— the dissolution of federalism. He thought that after a contention of seven years, with a party who he had thought abused their power, the time was come, when a better course would have been pursued ; he had con¬ ceived that principles would have prevailed, and that men would not absorb every consideration ; but with a member of the convention he would say—I hoped after so long a course of pork that our diet would be changed, but I find it is pork still with only a change ol sauce. Pass this amendment, and no man can live in the small states but under disparaging circumstances—they will have about as many rights left in society as the Helots of Greece. And why is all this done ? For the purpose of shewing one of the least becoming of the weak pas¬ sions of man, resentment; you pursue a line of conduct reprobated by yourselves in the time of your predeces¬ sors. He was sorry the embers of party were kindled even by the very injudicious manner in which it had been supported. The best reflecting men see in this only the change of men without regard to measures; and that it had paved the way for a revival of the heats and animosities which ought to have been buried, but which may lead to a separation of the union. ( 155 ) The question was called for loudly at half past nine and put—the yeas and nays being taken, were : YEAS. Messrs. Anderson Ellery Is. Smith Bailey Franklin Sam. Smith Baldwin Jackson John Smith Bradley Logan S Lone Brekenridge Maclay Taylor Brown Nicholas W orthington Cocke Condit Potter NAYS. W right Messrs Adams Olcott Tracy Butler Pickering W ells Dayton Hillhouse ^ T" - . Plumer White-10 Upon the president declaring the question carried by two thirds. Mr. 1 racy said he denied that the question was fairly decided He took it to be the intention of the constitu¬ tion that there should be two-thirds of the whole number of senators elected, which would make the number ne¬ cessary to its passage 23 . It was moved to adjourn to Monday. Mr. Iaylor said that since it was proposed to ad¬ journ to Monday, when he should be disqualified to sit in that house ; he hoped the senate would not rise with¬ out deciding the question definitively on the gentleman’s objections. Mr. Tracy said he certainly would avail himself of the principle to oppose its passage thro’ the state legisla¬ tures. 1 he president declared the question had passed the senate by the majority required, and conformable to the constitution and former usage. Adjourned at 28 minutes after 10 at night. THE AMENDMENT AS ADOPTED. Resolved by the senate and house of representatives of he United States of America in congress assembled, Two thirds ofboth houses concurring, that in lieu of the 3d Paragraph oi the first section of the second article of the constitution ol the United States,the foliowing be proposed is an amendment to the constitution of the United states, which, when ratified by three fourths of the le¬ gislatures of the several states, shall be valid to all in¬ cuts and purposes, as part of the said constitution, to -it: i ( 156 ) The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote bv ballot for president and vice president, one of whom at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots, the person voted for as president, and in distinct ballots, the person voted for as vice president, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as president, and of all persons voted for as vice president, and ol the number of voters for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the go¬ vernment of the United States, directed to the presi¬ dent of the senate ; The president of the senate shall, in the presence of the senate and house of representa¬ tives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number ol votes for president, shah be the president; if such num¬ ber be a majority of the whole number of electors ap¬ pointed ; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as president, tnc house of representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the president. But in choosing the president, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote ; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And ii the house of representatives shall not choose a president whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March, next following, then the vice pre¬ sident shall act as president as in the case of the death or the constitutional disability of the president. The person having the greatest number of votes as vice president, shall be the vice president, it such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appoint¬ ed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the senate shall choose the vice president—a quorum for the purpose shall con¬ sist of two thirds of the whole number of senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to that of vice president of the United States. ( 157 ) Messrs. Anderson Bailey Baldwin Bradley Breckinbridge Brown Cocke Condit Ellery Franklin Jackson VOTES IN THE SENATE. YEAS. Logan Maclay Nicholas Potter Israel Smith John Smith Samuel Smith Stone Taylor W orthington Wright 23 NAYS. Messrs. Adams Butler Dayton Hillhouse Olcott Pickering Plumer Tracy Wells White 10 The resolution was sent to the house of representatives and on Friday the 9th day of December, the vote was taken upon it and the yeas and nays being called, were. YEAS. Messrs. Nath Macon (Spk.) William Alston jr. Nath. Alexander Isaac Anderson John Archer David Bard George M. Bedinger William Blacklegde John Boyle Robert Brown Joseph Bryan William Butler Geo. W. Campbell Levi Casey Thomas Claiborne Joseph Clay John Clopton Frederick Conrad J. Crowningshield Richard Cutts John Dawson William Dickson John B. Earle Peter Early John W. Eppes William Findley John Fowler James Gillespie Peter Goodwyn Edwin Gray Samuel L. Mitchell David Meriwether William M'Creery Andrew M‘Cord Matthew Lyon John B. C. Lucas Michael Leib Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore Jeremiah Morrow Anthony New Thomas Newton, jr Gideon Olin Beriah Palmer John Patterson John Randolph, jr, Thos. M. Randolph John Rea, (of Penn.) John Rhea (of Tenn ) Jacob Richards Caesar A. Rodney Erastus Root Thomas Sammons Thomas Sanford Thompson J. Skinner John Smilie John Smith (ofN.Y.) Richard Stanford Joseph Stanton John Stewart ( 158 ) Andrew Gregg Samuel Hammond John A. Hanna Josiah Hasbrouck Daniel Heister Joseph Heister James Holland David Holmes JohnG. Jackson Walter Jones William Kennedy Nehemiah Knight David Thomas Philip R. Thompson Abram Trigg John Trigg Isaac Van Horne Daniel C. Verplank Matthew Walton John Whitehill Marmaduke William Richard Winn Joseph Winston Thomas Wynns—84 NAYS. Messrs. Simeon Baldwin Silas Betton Phanuel Bishop John Campbell William Chamberlin Martin Chittenden Clifton Claggett ^Matthew Clay Manasseh Cutler Samuel W. Dana John Davenport John Dennis Thomas Dwight James Elliott L *William Eustis Calvin Goddard Gaylord Griswold Roger Griswold Samuel Tenney Samuel Thatcher George Tibbits Seth Hastings William Hoge David Hough Benjamin Huger C- Samuel Hunt Joseph Lewis, jr. Thomas Lewis Henry W.Livingston Thomas Lowndes Nahum Mitchell Thomas Plater Samuel D. Purviance Ebenezer Seaver John Cotton Smith William Stedman James Stephenson Samuel Taggart Benjamin Tallmage Joseph B. Varnum Peleg Wadsworth Lemuel Williams 42 THE y DECLINE and FALL % OF THE ENGLISH SYSTEM OF FINANCE, ' > * \ ' N / ■ ' ■ 1 Uitf 2 ' „ , i a; * r \ • / 1 . .' . • 4 ■ \ »» • L < ‘ . L A - rJt the decline and FALL of the ENGLISH SYSTEM OF FINANCE. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ By THOMAS PAINE, ADTHOR of common sense, rights of MAN, AGE OF REASON, &c. / /■- * PHILADELPHIA, PRINTED eyjohn page, n°. 6l mulberry street for benj. franklin bache, n°. , 12 high street.’ Y9 6 - “ On the verge, nay even in thegulph of bankruptcy. debates in Parliament. yy N< a ~jnmV^^’ t ‘ >e ' / ‘ z y> * 3 more certain than death and noth'ng more uncertain than the time of dyin^ cannot i.ve.lnd within" P** bey ° nd which will die. We are en ki °T C n J om ^ nt °f which he £~E 23 s^&a &2 fach for infhnce as ^fvftem f fi any ° the \ fubje£l > c as a 'y item of finance, exhibits in A V % * I ( ) its progrefs a feries of lymptoms indicating no- cay, its final diffolution is certain, and the period of it can be calculated from the fymptoms it exhibits. Thofe who have hitherto written on the Englifh fyflem of finance (the funding fyften) have been . uniformly impreffed with the idea of its ctow mail happening fonve time or other . ihey took, however, no data for that opinion, but expreffed it prediaive- ly, or merely as opinion, from a convi&ion that the perpetual duration of fuch a fyflem was a natura impoflibility. It is in this manner that Doclor a rice has fpoken of it *, and Smith in his Wealth of Na¬ tions has fpoken in the fame manner \ that is, mere y as opinion without dat*. “The progrefs, fays Smith, of the enormous debts, wnich at preient oppreis, will in the long run mojl probably ruin , ail the great nations of Europe, (he fhould have faid governments) has been pretty uniform.” But this generaT manner of fpeaking, though if-might make fome impreffion, carried with it no conviction. It is not my intention to predift any thing *, out I will (how from data already known, from fymptoms and fads, which the Englifh' funding fyflem has al¬ ready exhibited publicly, that it will not continue to the end of Mr. Pitt’s life, fuppofing him to live the ufual age of a man. How much fooner. it may tail,| I leave to others to predict. • '$ Let financiers diver fify fyftems of crecut as they , mb L ic noverihelefs true, that every fyflem oi ere- will, it is neverfcheiefs true, that every fyflem 01 cre¬ dit is a fyflem of paper money. Two experiment^ have already been had upon paper money *, ti^ one 1 4-1 America the other iu France. In both thofe cafes the whole capital was emitted, and that whole capital, which in America was called continental money, an in. France affignats, appeared in circulation ;* the con- fcqyiencc of which was, that the Quantity becarc- A __ (• 3 ) . , enormous, and fo difprrportioned to the quantity of population, and to the quantity of objects upon which it could be employed, that the market, if I may fo exprefs it, was glutted with it, and the value of it fell. Between five and fix years determined the fate of thole experiments. The fame fate would have - Happened to gold and filver, could gold and filver have been ifiued in the fame abundant manner as paper had been, and confined within the coun¬ try as paper money always is, by having no circu¬ lation out of it; or, to fpeak on a large/fcale, the fame thing would happen in the world, could the - world be glutted with gold and filver, as America and Trance has been with paper. 1 he Englifli fyffem differs from that of America and France in this one particular, that its capital is kept out of fight; that is, it does not appear in cir- ' culation. Were the whole capital of the national debt, which at the time I write this is almoff four nundred million pounds fcerling, to be emitted in a£~ fignats or bills, and that- whole quantity put info circulation, as was done in America and in France, • thofc Englifli afiignats, or bills, would fink in value as thofe of America and France have done ; and that in a greater degree, becaufe the quantity of them 1 would be more difproportioned to the quantity of po¬ pulation in England, than was the cafe, in either of the other two countries. A nominal pound (telling in fiich bills would not .be worth one penny. , But th-ough the Englifli fyftem, by thus keeping tnc capital out of fight, is preferved from hafiy de- ftruciion, as in the cafe of America and France, 'it neverthelefs approaches the fame fate, and will ar- ' rive at it with thefame certainty, though .by a flower progrefs. The difference is altogether in the degree oi fpeed by which the two fyftems approach their /• ( 4 ) fate, which, to fpeal: in round numbers, is as twen¬ ty is to one ; that is, the Engiifh fyftem, that of fund¬ ing the capital inftead of iffuing it, contained within itfeif a capacity of enduring twenty times longer than the fyftems adopted by America and France ; and at the end oi that time it would arrive at the fame common grave, the Potter’s field, of paper money. The datum I take for this proportion of twenty to one, is the difference between a capital and the intereft at five per cent. Twenty times the intereft is equal to the capital. 1 he accumulation of paper money in England is in proportion to'the accumula¬ tion of the intereft upon every new loan; and there¬ fore the progrefs to difiblution is twenty times flow¬ er than if the capital were to be emitted and put into circulation immediately. Every twenty years in the Engiifh fyftem is equal to one year in the French and American ‘fyftems. Having thus ftated the duration of the two fyf¬ tems, that of funding upon intereft, and that of emit¬ ting the whole capital without funding, to be as twenty to one, I come to examine the fymptoms of decay approaching to difiblution, that the Engiifh fyftem has already exhibited*, and to compare them with fimilar fymptoms in the French and American fyftems. I he Engiifh funding fyftem began one hundred years ago ; in which time there has been fix wars in¬ cluding the war that ended in 1697. 1. The war that ended, as I have juft faid, in 1697. 2. The war that began in 1702. 3- The war that began in 1739. 4. The war that began in 1756. 5. The American war that began Tn 1775. 6 . The prefent war that began in 1793. ( 5 I ))' The national debt, at the conclufion of the war,- v/hich ended in 1697, was twenty one millions and an half. (See Smith’s Wealth of Nations, chapter on Public Debts.) We now fee it approaching fait to four hundred millions. If between thofe two extremes of twenty one millions and four hundred millions, embracing the feveral expenccs of all the including wars, there exifts feme common ratio that will afeertain arithmetically the amount of the debt at the end of each war, as certainly as the fadf is now known to be, that ratio will in like manner de¬ termine what the amount of the debt will be in ail future wars, and will afeertain the period within I which the funding fyftem will expire in a bankrupt¬ cy of the government; for the ratio I allude to is the ratio which the nature of the thing has eftablifh- ed for itfelf. Hitherto no idea has been entertained that anv fuch ratio exifted, or could exift, that could deter¬ mine a problem of this kind, that is, that could af¬ eertain, without having any knowledge of the fadr, what the expence of any former v/ar had been, or what the expcnce of any future war would be ; but it is neverthelefs true that fuch a ratio does exift, as I fhall {hew, and alfo the mode of applying it. The ratio I allude to is not in arithmetical pro- greffion, like the numbers 4> A, 7> 8, 9, nor yet in geometrical progreftion, like the numbers 2 > 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256; but is in the feries of one half upon each preceding- number ; like the numbers 8, 12, 18, 27, 40, 60, 90, 135. Any perfon can perceive that the fecond number 1 / I ( 6 ) 12 ) is produced by the preceding number 8, and j half 8 : and that the third number 18 is in like man¬ ner produced by the preceding number 12 and half 1 2 ) and fo on for the reft. They can alfo fee how rapidly the fums increafe as the ratio proceeds. The. difference betwen the two firit numbers is but a, but t j j the difference between the two laft is 45 \ and from thence they may fee with what im'menfe rapidity the . national debt has encrcafecl, and will continue,to ■■ * encreafe, till it exceeds the ordinary powers of cal¬ culation, and lofes itfclf in cyphers. I come now to apply the ratio as a rule to deter¬ mine all the cafes. I begin with the war that ended 011097, which was the war in which the funding fyftem began. The expence of that war was twenty-one millions and an half. In order to afcertain the exnence of the next war, I add to twenty-one millions and an half, the half thereof (ten millions and three quar¬ ters) which makes thirty one millions and three quarters for the expehce of .that war. This thirty- one millions and three quarters, added to the former debt of twenty-one millions and an half, carries the national debt to 52 millions and three quarters. Smith, in his chapter on Public Debts, fays, the national debt was at this time 53 millions. I proceed to afcertain the 'expence of the next N * war, that of 1739, by adding, as in the former cafe, one half to the expellee of the preceding war. , The expcnce of the preceding war wgs thirty-one millions and three Quarters ; for 'the fake of even' numbers, fay 32 millions, the half of which (16) makes forty eight millions for-'the; expence of that' 1 war. , . ,V . # 1 - . ;; : I proceed to ’afcertain the expence of the war of 1756, by adding, according to’ the ratio, one Half to t I V .the expence cf the preceding war. The expence of the preceding war was taken at 48 millions, the half of which (24) makes 72 millions for the ex¬ pence of that war. Smith (chapter on Public Debts) fays, the expence of the war of 1756 was 72 milli¬ ons and a quarter. I proceed to afeertain the expence of the Ameri¬ can war of 1775, by adding, as in the former cafes, one half to the expence of the preceding, war. The expence of the preceding war was 72 millions, the half of which (36) makes 108 millions for the ex¬ pence of that war. In the laft edition of Smith, (chapter on Public Debts) he fays, the expence of the American war was more than an hundred millions. I come now to afeertain the expence of the pre¬ fent war, fuppofmg it to continue as long as former wars have done, and the funding fyftem net to break up before that period. The expence of the- preceding war was 108 millions, the half of which (54) makes one hundred and fixty-two millions for the expence of the prefent war. It gives fymptoms of going beyond this fum, fuppofmg the funding fyftem not to break up ; for the loans of the.laft year and of the prefent year, are twenty-two milli¬ ons each; which exceeds the ratio compared with the leans of the preceding war. It will not be from the inability of procuring loans that the fyftem will * break up. On the contrary, it is the facility with. ■ which loans can be procured, that haftens that event. The loans are altogether paper tranfa&ions, and it is the excels of them that brings on, with accele¬ rating fpecd, that pr ogre hive depreciation oi fund¬ ed paper money that will diiToivethe funding fyftem. I proceed to afeertain the expence of future wars, and I do this merely to fhew the impoftibiiity I , / / t 3 ) of the continuance of the funding fyftem, and the certainty of its dii'iblution. war T. he expence of the next war, after the prefent according to the ratio that has ascertained the preceding cafes, will be Expence o! tne lecondwar of the third war of the fourth war of the fifth war 243 millions 364 millions 546 millions 819 millions 1228 millions ,. . 4 3200 millions; which, at only 4 per cent, will require taxes to the nominal amount of one hundred twenty-eight milli- ©ns to pay the annual intereft, befides the intereft of the preient debt, and the expence of government, which are not included in this account. Is there a man fo mad, fo ftupid, as to fuppofe this fyftem can continue ? ' When I firft conceived the idea of leeking for fome common ratio that Ihould apply as a rule of meafure- menL to nade the ratio,^ any more than Newton made the ratio of gravitation. I have only aifeovered it, and explained the mode of applying it. I \ l ( 9 ) To (hew at one view the rapid progreflion of the funding fyftem to deftruaion, and to expofe the folly of thole who blindly believe in its continuance, or who artfully endeavour to impofe that belief up¬ on others, I exhibit in the annexed table, the ex¬ pence of each of the fix wars fince the funding fyf- teni began, as afeertained by the ratio, and the ex- police of fix wars yet to come, afeertained by the fame ratio. Firfl fix wars. 1 - 2 - 3 " 4 - 5 * 6 « Total - - 444 millions Second fix wars. - 243 millions - - 364 millions - - 546 millions - - 819 millions - - 1228 millions - 1842 millions lotal - 5042 millions 21 millions 1 33 millions 2 - 48 millions 3 72 millions * 4 - 108 millions 5 - 162 millions 6 1 —i ii Miii ii f I 1 ■ 1 * * ' J * : i 1 • * The adhial expenceorf the war of i 739 , did not come up. to the lum alcertained by the ratio But as that which is the na¬ tural difpofnion of a thing, as it is the natural difpofition of a ftream of water to defeend, will, if impeded in its courfe, o* vercome by a new effort what it had loft by that impediment, fo it was with r e f|