H. OF R.]

ABRIDGMENT OF THE

Importations from Great Britain.

fit on which ultimately centres in Great Britain. There are at this moment British agents in two of your commercial cities, and I suppose more in other parts of the United States as well as in Europe, for they swarm on the industry of all nations. They are acting in concert to carry on this licensed trade with the Spanish colonies, their enemies jeopardizing your neutrality, to the manifest injury of the real American merchants. This is a very valuable branch of commerce, as you may readily suppose from the price that sagacious calculating nation sets upon it. What is the result of all this? Why, sir, if it were not for the interference of this very Government, so much extolled at the expense of your own, we should enjoy the benefit ourselves. They themselves license vessels to carry on a commerce, which if pursued by your citizens, without their permission, is sure to be plundered. Thus, sir, that Government assails your commerce at hoine, and condemns it abroad, on the most vexatious and unwarrantable pretensions.

would be trifling with the time of this commit[MARCH, 1806. tee, were I to attempt to introduce new evidence to prove it.

be determined whether we will tamely submit This point being conceded, it then remains to to these wanton aggressions upon our rights as an independent and a neutral nation, or have recourse to measures of some kind calculated to obtain redress for the past and security for the future. The first, Mr. Chairman, ought to be put out of the question. To submit, without opposition to so wanton and so flagrant violation of our rights, would render us unworthy the name of Americans. For what did we contend with this same Great Britain in 1775 and the succeeding years? When we were few in numbers, and at first without arms, without ammunition, without money, or other established resources, and without allies? Sir, a Warren, a McClary, a Montgomery, a Mercer, and a host of heroes, fought, and bled, and died-for what? For the rights, the liberties, the freedom, and Sir, I beg leave to call the attention of the Mr. Chairman, without one effort, surrender independence of our country. And shall we, committee to an important fact. Examine your those dear-bought rights and privileges, the treaty with Spain, your treaty with France, price of which was the best blood of our counyour treaty with Holland, your treaties with trymen? No, sir, we shall not, we will not do some of the Northern Powers, what do they it; our faces would be covered with shame, and say? "Free ships make free goods." does Great Britain say? What disgrace as well as injury descend to our chilthe goods of my enemies;" and you accede to to a surrender of those rights, which they are "You shall give up dren. But, sir, this committee will not consent it. Is this reciprocal? Is it just? Is it not a constituted to guard and protect. They will, I humiliating concession? Is this cause of war? presume, at least a great majority of them, be What says that oracle, that celebrated pamph- disposed to take measures sufficiently strong to let, on this occasion? Not a word, sir; it is as compel that haughty nation to do us justice. silent as the grave. Who now has the greatest cause of complaint, Great Britain or her ene-in opinion with most of us is, what measures I believe, Mr. Chairman, the only difference mies? Her motto is "Universal domination over will be most likely to have the desired effect, the seas"-the common highway of all nations with the least injury to ourselves. For my own -and, unless you assert your rights, you will part I was in favor of the resolution laid on the be swept into the general vortex. We are told table by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I that this is a war measure. commercial regulations are of that nature, we are under discussion. I was in favor of it, because If it be true, and allude to the one which has been several days at war with Great Britain at this very moment, I believe it would be the most effectual; and for she imposes four per cent. on her exports to no man I think can doubt our right to adopt our country. You cannot impose any on your such a measure, it being only a commercial regexports to that country; it is unconstitutional. ulation, such as every independent nation may Mr. CHANDLER.-Mr. Chairman, unaccustom-rightfully make whenever her interest or coned as I am to public speaking, it is with extreme diffidence that I rise to make a few observations on the measures now under consideration; but the subject is so important, that I am unwilling to give a silent vote.

It appears to be acknowledged by all the gentlemen who have spoken before me, that we have just cause of complaint against Great Britain; that she has impressed our seamen and compelled them to serve on board her ships of war, to the number of several thousand; that she holds them in the most degrading servitude, and compels them to fight her battles against a nation with whom we are at peace, and that she has seized and condemned, contrary to the laws of nations, and usage, our ships and property to a very large amount. Chairman, is so evident and notorious, that it This fact, Mr.

venience require it. It would, in my opinion, be most likely to effect our object, because it would most deeply touch that tender point, their interest; and it is their interest which and warehouses, it will materially affect their governs them. If we forsake their workshops manufactures and trade. Indeed, to use the. language of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, it will reach the vitals of her commerce; and if it were to go to the vitals of their nation, the fault is not ours; they are the aggressors, we act on the defensive only. If, sir, that nation has two millions of people employed in the cloth manufacture alone, as was stated by a gentleman from Maryland, (which number, however, I think too large,) she must at least have four of all kinds. We take from her of these manumillions in the whole employed in manufactures

MARCH, 1806.1

Importations from Great Britain.

[H. OF R.

factures to the amount of thirty millions an- | the past and security for the future. Are they nually—a market for which she cannot find then for going to war with Britain on the same elsewhere. Interdict the importation of her ground which Mr. Pitt took with the French goods, and what is the consequence? She can- Republic? Do they expect success in their not pay, and therefore cannot employ her work-project? And is peace to be destroyed, and men. She will not find her account in manu- the interests of this people compromitted, until facturing goods annually to the amount of thirty what they please to call indemnity and security millions of dollars more than she can find a shall be obtained? Are they for going to war market for; therefore her workmen, at least with Spain and France, and making a similar one million of them, will be out of employment. convention with them that we some time since How are they to subsist? How can they get made with Britain for spoliations committed on their bread? Other means they have not; they our commerce, and then by a kind of legerdecannot find any other occupation; and, if they main draw from our own pockets wherewith could, they are not fitted for them. This de- to pay for those very spoliations? Is this the rangement of business must be severely felt; indemnity they expect to obtain? I want none their merchants and manufacturers will, I be- of it. I almost dread to see a convention with lieve, be persuasive advocates for us. They any power across the Atlantic, with a stipulawill feel the evil, and will powerfully press the tion to pay money, as I fear its only tendency Government to do us justice. The Minister would be to deprive us of that we have left. will be convinced of the danger. He will be Make any sort of convention you please, and careful not to suffer our custom to be diverted something will scarcely fail to fall out between from England; for he knows if the channel of the cup and the lip, by which you will have to our trade is once turned, it will not easily, if pay the debts due to you by others. By some ever, be restored. He will pause before he sort of legerdemain, the money of your bona finally drives his best customer to the necessity fide citizens will get into the pockets of your of leaving him; for he cannot be ignorant that diplomatists or their creatures on this and the our trade, consisting of the exportation of raw other side of the water, into the hands of bumaterials, and the importation of wrought man- reau men, of counting-house politicians. But ufactures, will be courted by other nations, who I find gentlemen undertake to say, because I am will soon find it for their interest to accommo- indisposed to go to war, I am the advocate and date us with a supply of our demands on satis- apologist of Great Britain; and because I quote factory terms. I consider, Mr. Chairman, that the able pamphleteer, who stands forth the our commerce is and will be so available to the godfather of the doctrines contained in it, I abnations of Europe, as to furnish us the means jure them; and so far from costing me six of commanding respect and procuring justice cents, they cost me one hundred and fifty; and by commercial regulations. I have no fear I consider that a better bargain than the other that Great Britain will venture on a war pamphlet, which did not cost me a sous. Am with us; but if, from a predetermination to I to be considered as the apologist of Britain, quarrel with us at all events, she should make a because the defence of this country has been commercial regulation, or any other of our committed to weak advocates, or because its measures, a pretext for hostilities, notwithstand- cause has been weakly defended or treachering all that has been said on the floor of this ously abandoned? No; I am the advocate of House by certain gentlemen, to disparage the the circumstances of the times-of the constitutroops or militia of our own country, and of tion of this people-of common sense-of expeour weakness, inferiority, and inability to de- diency. What does the gentleman from New fend ourselves, and to prove the invincible York tell you? I admire the resentment he power of Great Britain, yet I trust she would feels for the wrongs committed on our country, still find us Americans. and I entertain a respect for him. He tells you Mr. J. RANDOLPH.-I should have been better every thing I have told you that American pleased if the gentleman who has so eloquently merchants are employed in covering enemy's painted the wrongs which we have received property. No, he draws a distinction between from Britain had, instead of telling us of the native and adopted merchants, and says that he disease, pointed out the remedy. The gentle- considers the latter as the root of the evil. I man a few days ago offered himself as a collat- agree that this trade is carried on by foreigners eral security for the facts stated by the Presi- naturalized among us. But the gentleman says dent and our illustrious Minister at the Court the other nations of Europe treat us on the of London. Did the gentleman believe that principle that free ships make free goods; while what we could not take from them, we should Great Britain treats us on the opposite princiaccept from him? That our commerce has ple, and contends for the principle of contrabeen pirated upon and our seamen impressed band of war, and the liability of enemy's propwe all knew before. But where is the remedy? erty to seizurc. Why is there this difference? Gentlemen say they are for taking commanding Because those who treat on the principle of the ground, that will ensure respect. Where is it? | mare liberum find it their interest to treat on Let them give in their project. Is this the this principle. But do they who have the remedy, or is this the time? Gentlemen tell mastery of the ocean consider it as their interus we ought not to stop short of indemnity forest? And yet the gentleman arraigns one

concurred in its adoption-yeas 87, nays 35, as follows:

[H. OF R.

Canal at the Rapids of the Ohio.

Mr. BOYLE, from a committee appointed, on the tenth ultimo, on the memorial of the Legislature of the State of Kentucky, made a report thereon; which was read, and referred to the Committee of the Whole, to whom was committed, on the fifth instant, the report of a select committee on the petition of the President and Directors of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Company. The report is as follows:

YEAS.-Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jr., Isaac Anderson, David Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, George M. Bedinger, Barnabas Bidwell, William Blackledge, John Blake, jr., Thomas Blount, Robert Brown, John Boyle, William Butler, George W. Campbell, John Chandler, John Claiborne, Christopher Clark, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, George Clinton, jr., Frederick Conrad, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, Ezra Darby, William Dickson, Peter Early, James Elliot, Ebenezer Elmer, John W. Eppes, That, of the practicability of opening the proposed William Findlay, James Fisk, John Fowler, Peterson canal, and of its preference to one contemplated on Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Isaac L. the opposite side of the river, as well on account of the Green, Silas Halsey, John Hamilton, William Helms, greater facility of its accomplishment, as of the supeDavid Holmes, John G. Jackson, Thomas Kenan, Ne- rior advantages that would result to the navigation of hemiah Knight, Michael Leib, Matthew Lyon, Dun- the river, when accomplished, may, in the opinion of can McFarland, Patrick Magruder, Robert Marion, the committee, be correctly estimated by reference to Josiah Masters, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, a draft of part of the river, and notes explanatory Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, thereof, which accompany the memorial. Of the imThomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, Gideon mense utility of the proposed canal no one can doubt Olin, John Pugh, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of who reflects for a moment upon the vast extent of ferPennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Rich- tile country which is watered by the Ohio and its tribards, John Russell, Peter Sailly, Thomas Sammons, utary streams, and upon the incalculable amount of Martin G. Schuneman, James Sloan, John Smilie, produce which must, of course, necessarily find its John Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Joseph way to market by descending that river and encounStanton, David Thomas, Uri Tracy, Joseph B. Var- tering the danger and difficulties of passing its rapids. num, Matthew Walton, John Whitehill, Robert White-But, besides the general advantages which would rehill, Eliphalet Wickes, David R. Williams, Marma-sult from the completion of the proposed canal, it is, duke Williams, Nathan Williams, Alexander Wilson, Richard Wynn, Joseph Winston, and Thomas Wynns. NAY.-Silas Betton, Phanuel Bishop, James M. Broom, John Campbell, Levi Casey, Martin Chittenden, Leonard Covington, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, jr., Elias Earle, Caleb Ellis, William Ely, James M. Garnett, Charles Goldsborough, Seth Hastings, David Hough, James Kelly, Joseph Lewis, jr., Jonathan O. Mosely, Jeremiah Nelson, Roger Nelson, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Josiah Quincy, Thomas Sanford, John Cotton Smith, Thomas Spalding, Richard Stanford, William Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Philip R. Thompson, Daniel C. Verplanck, and Peleg Wadsworth.

Mr. EARLY moved that the resolution be referred to the Committee of Ways and Means to bring in a bill.

WEDNESDAY, March 19.

Death of Senator Jackson, of Georgia. A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate, having been informed that the honorable JAMES JACKSON, Esq., one of the Senators from the State of Georgia, died yesterday, have appointed a committee to take order for superintending his funeral.

in the opinion of the committee, particularly interesting to the United States, inasmuch as it would greatly enhance the value of the public lands north-west of the Ohio. There can be but little doubt that, by the additional value it would give to the public lands, the United States would be more than remunerated for the aid which the Legislature of Kentucky have solicited.

From these considerations the committee would not

hesitate to recommend a donation or subscription of shares to the amount contemplated by the law of the Legislature of Kentucky incorporating the Ohio Canal Company, if they believed the state of the public finances was such as to justify it. But, from the applications already made for aid in opening canals, it is probable that, if the United States enter upon expenses of this kind, those expenses cannot be inconsiderable; and, as the revenue of the United States is already pledged, almost to the full amount, for purposes, though not more useful, yet more urgent, the committee are induced to submit the following resolution.

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to grant, at present, the aid solicited by the Legislature of Kentucky, in opening a canal to avoid the rapids of the Ohio.

ceased members had not been yet adopted. Attending the funeral, and wearing the badge of mourning, were deemed the adequate honor; and well worthy was General James Jackson of it. He was a man of marked character, high prin

The House then proceeded to consider the said message: Whereupon, Resolved, unanimously, That this House will ciple, and strong temperament-honest, patriotic, braveattend the funeral of JAMES JAOKSON, Esq., late a member of the Senate of the United States.

Resolved, unanimously, That the members of this House do wear mourning on the left arm for the space of one month, in testimony of their respect for the memory of that distinguished revolutionary patriot.*

The practice of pronouncing funeral eulogiums over de-
VOL. III.-30

hating tyranny, oppression, and meanness in every form; the bold denouncer of crime in high as well as in low places; a ready speaker, and as ready with his pistol as his tongue,

and involved in many duels on account of his hot opposition

to criminal measures. The defeat of the Yazoo fraud was

the most signal act of his legislative life, for which he paid the penalty of his life-dying of wounds received in the last

of the many duels which his undaunted attacks upon that measure brought upon him.

H. OF R.]

FRIDAY, March 21.
Potomac Bridge.

ABRIDGMENT OF THE

Plurality of Offices.

An engrossed bill to authorize the erection of a bridge over the river Potomac, in the District of Columbia, was read the third time; and on the question that the said bill do pass, it was resolved in the affirmative-yeas 61, nays 52.

About 2 o'clock Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS said he had a motion to make, which required the galleries to be cleared. They were accordingly cleared.

WEDNESDAY, March 26.
Importation of British Goods.

The bill to prohibit the importation of certain British goods, wares, and merchandise, was read the third time.

The yeas and nays were called for on its passage.

The question to recommit the bill having been disagreed to, it passed-yeas 93, nays 32, as follows:

THURSDAY, March 27.

[MARCH, 1806.

Introduction of Slaves into Territories. pointed on the seventh ultimo, presented a bill Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS, from the committee apto prohibit the introduction of slaves into the Mississippi Territory, and the Territory of to a Committee of the Whole on Saturday Orleans; which was read twice, and committed next.

FRIDAY, March 28.
Plurality of Offices.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of some time since by Mr. J. RANDOLPH. the Whole on the following resolutions submitted

Resolved, That a contractor under the Government and meaning of the constitution, and, as such, is inof the United States is an officer within the purview capable of holding a seat in the House.

the person of a single individual, but more especially Resolved, That the union of a plurality of offices in of the military with the civil authority, is repugnant to the spirit of the Constitution of the United States, and tends to the introducing of an arbitrary govern

ment.

United States, incapable of holding any civil office
Resolved, That provisions ought to be made, by law,
under the United States.
to render any officer in the army or navy of the

without debate.
The question was taken on these resolutions

The first was agreed to-ayes 54, noes 37.
The second was agreed to-ayes 75; and
The third was agreed to without a division.
When the committee rose and reported their

The House immediately considered the report.

YEAS.-Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jr., Isaac Anderson, David Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, George M. Bedinger, Barnabas Bidwell, William Blackledge, John Blake, jr., Thomas Blount, Robert Brown, William Butler, George W. Campbell, John Chandler, John Claiborne, Christopher Clark, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, George Clinton, jr., John Clopton, Frederick Conrad, Orchard Cook, Leonard Covington, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, Ezra Darby, John Dawson, William Dickson, Elias Earle, Peter Early, James Elliot, Ebenezer Elmer, John W. Eppes, William Findlay, James Fisk, John Fowler, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Isaiah L. Green, Silas Halsey, John Hamilton, Wil-agreement to the resolutions. liam Helms, David Holmes, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, Thomas Kenan, Nehemiah Knight, Matthew Lyon, Duncan McFarland, Patrick Magruder, Robert Marion, Josiah Masters, William McCreery, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Roger Nelson, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, Gideon Olin, John Pugh, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of not in his power to vote for this resolution. He Mr. FISK said he sincerely regretted it was Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Rich- regretted there was no such principle in the conards, John Russell, Peter Sailly, Thomas Sammons,stitution as is prescribed. Such a principle not Martin G. Schuneman, Ebenezer Seaver, James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Joseph Stanton, David Thomas, Uri Tracy, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Matthew Walton, John Whitehill, Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, Marmaduke Williams, Nathan Williams, Alexander Wilson, Richard Wynn, and Joseph Win

ston.

NAYS.-Silas Betton, James M. Broom, John Campbell, Martin Chittenden, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, jr., Caleb Ellis, William Ely, James M. Garnett, Seth Hastings, David Hough, Joseph Lewis, jr., Jonathan O. Mosely, Jeremiah Nelson, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, Thomas Sanford, John Cotton Smith, Thomas Spalding, Richard Stanford, William Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Philip R. Thompson, Thomas W. Thompson, Abram Trigg, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Daniel C. Verplanck, and Peleg Wadsworth.

Whole in their agreement to the first resoluOn concurring with the Committee of the tion,

being in the constitution, he did not conceive it in the power of the House to make the provision. It was not, in his opinion, in their power to say a man should not hold a seat in that House who was not prohibited by the constitution. It was on this ground only he was against the resolution under consideration.

from Vermont may in perfect consistence with Mr. J. RANDOLPH.-I think the gentleman the principle he has laid down, which I do not mean at present to contest, give his vote in favor of this resolution. He says that this House has not a right to make a disqualification which the constitution itself does not attach to the tenure of a seat on this floor; that the constitution draws a line between the qualification and disqualification of a member, and that this House has no right to alter them. What do we propose to do? To add a new disqualification? No; to do that which the constitution put in our