OCTOBER, 1803.]

The Louisiana Treaty.

[H. OF R.

circus, or the gladiators in that of Rome. When | mean time they shall be maintained and proI came within these walls, sir, I ardently hoped tected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, that the voice of party would be silent during property, and the religion which they profess.' the discussion of this subject, and I did not ex- I conceive, said Mr. T., that the only sound pect to hear the Administration attacked in the doctrine is, not that which has been stated by language of vulgarity, malignity, and factious the gentleman from Kentucky, (Mr. SANFORD,) fury. When it is thus assailed, shall its defend- that whatever power is not prohibited by the ers be silent? During the last session of Con- constitution is agreeable to it, but that such gress, an extraordinary degree of agitation was powers as are not given are still held by the produced in the public mind by an egregious States or the people. No arguments have been violation of our rights by an officer of the Span- addressed to prove that the constitution deleish Government. Neither the people nor the gates such a power. The gentleman from VerGovernment were deficient in that spirit which mont, (Mr. ELLIOT,) who has gratified us with the gentleman extols, but they were not gov- so long and flowery a speech, and who has ranerned by false ideas of national honor, and they sacked Vattel, and various other eminent auwere acquainted with the law of nations; they thors on the laws of nations, has proved that knew that we had no right to make the denun- where the United States have a right to make ciatio belli precede the repetitio rerum-a de- a treaty, a treaty may be made. But these auclaration of war precede a demand for justice. thorities do not apply unless he prove that the Mr. SANFORD did not rise to make a display constitution gives the powers exercised in the of his talents. Those who had confided to him present instance. The confederation under the representation of their interests could have which we now live is a partnership of States, no such expectations, as they had unfortunately and it is not competent to it to admit a new selected a plain Western farmer. He was sorry partner but with the consent of all the partners. to see so much time wasted. He begged the If such power exist, it does not reside in the House would recollect the time within which President and Senate. The constitution says it was necessary to pass laws for carrying the new States may be admitted by Congress. If treaty into effect. Much has been said of a this article of the constitution authorizes the breach of the constitution; but has any man exercise of power under the treaty, it must reshown it? The constitution does not prohibit side with the Legislature, and not with the the powers exercised on this occasion; and not President and Senate. having prohibited them, they must be considered as possessed by Government. In his opinion, it was necessary to carry the treaty into immediate effect. This done, other measures would require attention which would afford an ample harvest for the talents and eloquence of gentlemen with which, on any other occasion, he would be highly pleased.

Mr. THATCHER was sorry to be obliged, at this late hour, to state his reasons for voting against the resolution; but he should not discharge his duty to his constituents, were he to refrain from expressing his ideas. These reasons he should state as briefly as possible. This resolution is general, and contemplates two objects; it calls for the occupation and government of Louisiana, and for an appropriation of fifteen millions of dollars. He had hoped that, on a question of such national importance, they would have been allowed the papers necessary for its elucidation. But gentlemen have denied us this privilege. As the question, whether the treaty should be carried into effect, is a great constitutional question, I shall, in my remarks, confine myself to the constitutional objections against the treaty. Two objections have been made arising from the 3d and 7th articles of the treaty.

The third provides that "the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States; and in the

The gentleman from Virginia says, the principle contained in the third article of the treaty has been already recognized by Congress, and has instanced our treaties with Spain and Great Britain respecting the adjustment of our limits. By adverting to these treaties, it will be seen that there was then no pretence that we had acquired new territory. They only establish our lines agreeably to the Treaty of Peace. Certainly then the facts are not similar, and there exists no analogy of reasoning between the two cases. The gentleman from Virginia asks whether we could not purchase the right of deposit at New Orleans? But the argument meant to be conveyed in this question does not apply. We had the right before this treaty was formed; nor did we, in consequence of that right, undertake to admit the people of New Orleans into the Union.

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD.-Mr. Chairman: I rise, sir, to correct the gentleman from North Carolina in one particular; he has stated that the First Consul of France signed the treaty ceding Louisiana to the United States after the declaration of war by Great Britain against France. I believe he is mistaken, sir, for the Louisiana treaties were signed the 30th April, and Great Britain issued a declaration of war against France on the 17th of May. If I am right, the gentleman might have spared himself the trouble of detracting from the merits of tho Executive on this great occasion.

Now I am up, I beg leave to state to the committee some of the reasons why I shall give my vote in favor of the treaties.

H. OF R.]

The Louisiana Treaty.

[OCTOBER, 1803.

A resolution is on the table which recom- | sequence had been urged. Nor did he discover mends that provision ought to be made to much more than a repetition in substance of his carry into effect the late treaties with France, colleague's reasoning, in what had been urged which cede Louisiana to the United States. by the gentleman from Mass., (Mr. THATCHER,) Feeling as I do that we have acquired this and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. GRIScountry at a cheap price, that it is a necessary wOLD;) though the statement of their objections barrier in the Southern and Western quarters of had received a form and coloring diversified acthe Union, that it offers immense advantages to cording to the skill and ingenuity of each. us as an agricultural and commercial nation, I am highly in favor of the acquisition, and I shall most cordially give my vote in approbation of the resolution.

The gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, who resist the provisions necessary to the completion of this treaty, do so because they say it has been ratified by the President and Senate in open violation of the constitution of the United States, and is, therefore, no treaty, but a nullity, an in

What, sir, shall we let slip this golden opportunity of acquiring New Orleans and the whole of Louisiana for the trifling sum of fifteen mil-strument void ab initio, not a part of the sulions of dollars, when one-quarter part of the purchase money will be paid to our own citizens, the remainder in public stock, which we are not obliged to redeem under fifteen years? I trust, sir, we shall not omit to seize the only means now left to us for getting a peaceable possession of the finest country in the world. The bargain is a good one, and considering it merely in that light, we ought not to relinquish it. I have no doubt that the country acquired is richly worth fifty millions of dollars, and it is my opinion that we ought not to hesitate a moment in passing the resolution on the table.

We have now an opening for a free trade to New Orleans and Louisiana, which we never had before, and I hope we shall embrace it. Let us ratify the treaties, with all their provisions, and we shall see that in less than three years we have gained the greatest advantages in our commerce. I wish we may immediately proceed to adopt the resolution before the committee.

preme law of the land, and consequently not binding upon Congress or the nation. They draw this bold and extraordinary conclusion from the style and meaning of the 3d and 7th articles of the treaty. The former of these, they say, is unconstitutional, because it proposes to annex a new territory, with its inhabitants, to our present dominion; the latter, because it abolishes for a term of years the discriminating duties of tonnage and impost within the ceded territory, giving a preference there to France and Spain, and leaving those duties unaltered in all the ports of the Union.

By the third article, it is agreed that the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States as soon as possible, according to the principles of the federal constitution, and be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of the citizens of the United States; and in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess.

Mr. MITCHILL rose and said, he entreated the indulgence of the committee for rising at so late a stage of the debate, when seven hours have On expounding this article, my colleague has already been employed in the sitting of the day. declared that the President and Senate have no And the reason of his request was, that such power to acquire new territory by treaty, and extraordinary doctrines have been advanced he argues that our people are to be for ever conagainst carrying into effect the treaty with fined to their present limits. This is an asserFrance which cedes Louisiana to our nation, and tion directly contrary to the powers inherent in such repeated allusions have been made to the independent nations, and contradictory to the fresentiments which he submitted to the Housequent and allowed exercise of that power in our during the debate of yesterday, that he felt himself called upon to attempt a reply, and therein to show that the grounds taken by the gentlemen of the opposition are neither strong nor tenable. Although the subject is ample and copious, he should endeavor to condense his remarks, to so moderate a compass, as not to trespass long upon the patience of the committee.

My colleague, said Mr. M., who opened the debate this morning, (Mr. G. GRISWOLD,) displayed in his speech the objections raised against the resolution on the table, so fully, that he almost exhausted the subject. For, in listening attentively to the reasoning of the gentleman from Virginia, who followed him, (Mr. J. LEWIS,) and of the other gentleman from Virginia, who spoke next, (Mr. GRIFFIN,) he could not discern that any new or additional matter of much con

own nation. We are constantly in the practice of receiving territory by cession from the red men of the West, the aborigines of our country. The very treaty mentioned in the President's Message, with the Kaskaskias Indians, whereby we have acquired a large extent of land, would, according to this doctrine, be unconstitutional; and so would all the treaties which add to the size of our statute book, with the numerous tribes of the natives on our frontiers. According to this construction, all our negotiations so happily concluded with those people, whom we ever have uniformly acknowledged as the sovereigns of the soil, are nugatory, and to be holden for naught. He said, he was perfectly aware of the answer which would be made, that we held all our national domain, under Great Britain, by virtue of the treaty concluded at Paris in 1783. What, after all, was the amount of

OCTOBER, 1803.]

The Louisiana Treaty.

[H. OF R.

winds and the waves, a new surface of earth should emerge from the neighborhood of Cape Hatteras, it would be unconstitutional to take possession of it. Yet it appears to me, sir, very like an absurdity to say the United States would break their bond of union by erecting a lighthouse on it. Suppose that, by volcanic action, islands should be suddenly elevated from the bottom of the neighboring Atlantic, as they have repeatedly risen from the depths of the Mediterranean, would it be unconstitutional to take possession of them? So far from it, there would on the other hand be a duty in the Government to assume the dominion of all adjacent islands. Again; suppose for a moment that our present limits were full of people, would it be unconstitutional to purchase additional territory for them to settle upon? Must the hive always contain its present numbers, and no swarm ever go forth? At this rate we should, before a great lapse of time, arrive at a plenum of inhabitants, and if no new settlement could be obtained for them, the Chinese custom of infanticide must be tolerated to get rid of those tender little beings for whom food enough could not be procured, to rear them to manhood. And thus, when this maximum of population shall have arrived, there would be no constitutional power to purchase and possess any of the waste lands on this or the other side of the Mississippi, for them to spread and thrive upon. A doctrine against which, he confessed, his understanding revolted.

that cession by England? Certainly not a conveyance of a country which never was theirs, but rightfully belonged to the Indian natives; for it was, in its true construction, merely a quit claim of the pretensions or title of the land which the English had obtained by conquest and treaty from the French. By that negotiation, the United States obtained a bare relinquishment of the claims and possessions of those two powerful nations. But the paramount title of the original inhabitants was not affected by this. However contemptuously the rights of these rude and feeble tribes had been regarded by the Europeans, their descendants in these States had considered them with recognition and respect. Until the Indians sold their lands for an equivalent, the humane and just principles of the American Government acknowledged them to be the only legitimate owners. And the sovereignty acquired by treaty or purchase to our Government was derived from the title which the natives transferred to them as grantees in a fair bargain and sale. Such, Mr. M. argued, were the rules of true construction, and these rules admitted and acted upon by the Federal Government; and yet, according to the novel doctrine of this day, every treaty with the natives for parcels of their country, although | hitherto deemed lawful, would be an unconstitutional act. According to this notion, every treaty for lands, held with the aborigines since the organization of the Government, was a violation of the constitution. And thus this invaluable instrument, this bulwark of our liberties, had been violated perhaps twenty times or more, since we began to buy the surplusage of their hunting grounds. The Indian tribes are as much aliens as any other foreign nations. Their lands are as much foreign dominion as the soil of France or Spain. Yet we have gone on to annex the territories which they sold us, to our present territory, from the time we acquired independence, and no mortal, until this debate arose, Mr. Chairman, has so much as thought that thereby a breach of the constitution was made. My colleague is surely entitled to great But the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. credit for his perspicuity in finding out that all Chairman, (Mr. GRISWOLD,) contends that even our great and wise predecessors in administer- if we had a right to purchase soil, we have no ing this Government have been plunderers and business with the inhabitants. His words, howconstitution-breakers. But, sir, the just judg- ever, are very select; for he said, and often rement on this subject is, that the Presidents and peated it, that the treaty-making power did not Senate of the United States have heretofore act-extend to the admission of foreign nations into ed constitutionally in acquiring by purchase this confederacy. To this it may be replied foreign dominions from the alien Indians. And that the President and Senate have not attemptby a parity of reasoning, they have acted noted to admit foreign nations into our confederacy. only constitutionally, but eminently for the interest of the country, in buying Louisiana from the white men, its present sovereigns.

But, independent of correct principles and steady precedent in favor of the acquirement of new territory, it may be worth while to mention a few of the strange consequences which flow from the doctrine which the gentlemen of the other side of the House contend for. According to their reasoning, if by any force of the currents of the ocean, or any conflicts of the

Our Government having in this manner the right of acquiring additional territory, had very often exercised that right by actual purchases and by possessions and settlements afterwards. The whole of the recent State of Ohio and of the Indiana Territory was obtained and peopled in this manner, And in the settlement of limits both on the side of Florida and Nova Scotia, the principle had again and again been acted upon; and, strange to tell, nobody, until this eventful time, had possessed acuteness enough to find out the error.

They have bought a tract of land, out of their regard to the good of our people and their welfare. And this land, Congress are called upon to pay for. Unfortunately for the bargain, this region contains civilized and Christian inhabitants; and their existence there, it is alleged, nullifies the treaty. The gentleman construed the Constitution of the United States very differently from the manner in which Mr. M. himself did. By the third section of the third article of that instrument, it is declared, that Congress

H. OF R.]

The Louisiana Treaty.

shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property of the United States, and nothing therein contained shall be construed so as to prejudice any claim of the United States, or of any particular State.

[OCTOBER, 1803. British vessels from their territories in America, adjacent to the United States, any higher duties than would be paid upon such imports, if brought into our Atlantic ports in American bottoms.] In this case, he said, gentlemen could not avail themselves of the distinction In the case of Louisiana no injury is done taken by his friend from Maryland (Mr. NICHOLeither to the nation or to any State belonging to SON) between a Territory and a State, even if that great body politic. There was nothing they were so disposed-since the ports in quescompulsory upon the inhabitants of Louisiana tion were ports of a State. The ports of New to make them stay and submit to our Govern- York, on the Lakes, were as much ports of that ment. But if they chose to remain, it had State, as the city of New York itself; they had been most kindly and wisely provided, that un- their custom-house officers, were governed by til they should be admitted to the rights, ad- the same regulations as other ports,-duties vantages, and immunities of citizens of the were exacted at them; and yet, under the arUnited States, they shall be maintained and ticle of the British Treaty which had been just protected in the enjoyment of their liberty, read, British bottoms could and did enter them property, and the religion which they profess. subject to no higher duties than were paid by What would the gentleman propose that we American bottoms in the Atlantic ports. Mr. shall do with them? Send them away to the R. said that he did not mean to affirm that this Spanish provinces, or turn them loose in the exemption made by the Treaty of London was wilderness? No, sir, it is our purpose to pursue constitutional, so long as a distinction prevailed a much more dignified system of measures. It between American and British bottoms in other is intended, first, to extend to this newly ac- ports. He had never given a vote to carry that quired people the blessings of law and social or- treaty into effect-but he hoped the gentlemen der. To protect them from rapacity, violence, from Connecticut-both of whom he believed and anarchy. To make them secure in their lives, had done so; one of whom, at least, he knew limbs, and property, reputation, and civil privi- | had been a conspicuous advocate of that treaty leges. To make them safe in the rights of conscience. In this way they are to be trained up in a knowledge of our own laws and institutions. They are thus to serve an apprenticeship to liberty; they are to be taught the lessons of freedom; and by degrees they are to be raised to the enjoyment and practice of independence. All this is to be done as soon as possible; that is, as soon as the nature of the case will permit; and according to the principles of the federal constitution. Strange! that proceedings declared on the face of them to be constitutional, should be inveighed against as violations of the constitution! Secondly, after they shall have been a sufficient length of time in this probationary condition, they shall, as soon as the principles of the constitution permit, and conformably thereto, be declared citizens of the United States. Congress will judge of the time, manner, and expediency of this. The act we are now about to perform will not confer on them this elevated character. They will thereby gain no admission into this House, nor into the other House of Congress. There will be no alien influence thereby introduced into our councils. By degrees, however, they will pass on from the childhood of republicanism, through the improving period of youth, and arrive at the mature experience of manhood. And then, they may be admitted to the full privileges which their merit and station will entitle them to.

he hoped that gentleman (Mr. Griswold) would inform the committee how he got over the constitutional objection to this article of the Treaty of London, which he had endeavored to urge against that under discussion. How could the gentleman, with the opinion which he now holds, agree to admit British bottoms into certain ports, on the same terms on which American bottoms were admitted into American ports, generally? thereby making that very difference, giving that very preference to those particular ports of certain States, which he tells us cannot constitutionally be given to the port of New Orleans-although that port is not within any State, and, if his (Mr. GRISWOLD'S) doctrine be correct, not even within the United States!

The gentleman from Connecticut professed a wish that this important discussion should be conducted with moderation and candor. In this sentiment he concurred. He was therefore altogether unprepared, after this preamble, to hear the gentleman from Connecticut represent the treaty in question as conceding the most valuable commercial privileges to France and Spain, and thereby sapping the very foundation of our own carrying trade. In the spirit of candor the stipulations in question would be viewed, not as conceding advantages in trade to those nations, but as securing them to ourselves. The article in question did indeed proMr. J. RANDOLPH said that a sense of duty fess to grant, for a limited time, to French and alone could have induced him to rise at that late Spanish vessels, laden with the products of their hour. He wished to call the attention of the respective countries, admission into the ports of committee to a stipulation in the Treaty of the ceded territory, on equal terms with our London. [Here Mr. R. read an extract from the own ships. But, although nominally an advanthird article of that treaty, whereby the United tage has been conceded to these nations, subStates are pledged not to impose on imports instantially their situation was changed for the

worse, and the benefit in fact conferred on us. | For what were our rights in these ports, and what were theirs, setting aside the treaty? The treaty then had rendered our situation more eligible and theirs less so. How then could gentlemen declare that it was calculated to injure our carrying trade? when by it our trade was put on the footing of absolute security, while that of France and Spain was admitted under considerable restrictions, enjoying in but one particular, and for twelve years only, an equality with ours. Their trade, before on so superior a footing, had descended from its preeminence in privilege, and given way to ours; and yet gentlemen warn us of the destruction of our carrying trade, and commercial prosper ity, from the very source which has enlarged and secured both. The enemies of the treaty, therefore, are the advocates of the trade of France and Spain, and the enemies so far of our own; since, by retaining things in their present posture, they would continue to those nations the superior advantages which they now enjoy in the ports of Louisiana, they would continue the restrictions which heretofore have fettered our commerce to that country, and they would refuse to put our trade on a footing superior to that of France and Spain.

On the subject of expediency, the gentleman had undervalued the country west of the Mississippi, and had declared that he considered the barren province of Florida as more important to us. Mr. R. asked if the country west of the Mississippi were not valuable, according to the gentleman's own statement, since it afforded the means of acquiring Florida, which he prized so highly, from Spain? He had no doubt of the readiness of that power to relinquish Florida, in itself a dead expense to her-only valuable as an out-work to her other possessions, and now insulated by those of the United States-for a very small portion of the country which we claimed in virtue of the treaty under discus

sion.

[H. OF R.

passed the title to the country to France. The fifth article is as follows:

"This treaty being in pursuance of that already concluded between the First Consul and His Catholic Majesty, by which the King delivers to France possession of Louisiana, the contracting parties agree to carry into effect the said treaty," &c.

Spain, therefore, being satisfied as to the stipulations entered into by France in the Treaty of San Ildefonso, declares herself in the second treaty ready to redeliver the country to her R. said, he had it from high authority that the whenever she was ready to receive it, and Mr. royal mandate to that effect was in the hands United States, and would be forwarded to the of the Minister of the French Republic near the existing Government of Louisiana so soon as the treaty should be confirmed on our part.

Having departed considerably from the parby the gentleman from Connecticut, who had ticular point on which he wished to be satisfied spoken first, (Mr. GRISWOLD,) he would again recall the attention of that gentleman to the third article of the Treaty of London, and request that he would reconcile its provisions to the doctrine which he had advanced on the seventh article of the treaty then before the committee.

The committee now rose. Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair, and Mr. DAWSON reported that the committee had, according to order, had the said message, treaty, conventions, and motion, under consideration, and come to several resolutions thereupon; which he delivered in at the Clerk's table, where the same were read, as fol

lows:

1. Resolved, That provision ought to be made for carrying into effect the treaty and conventions concluded at Paris on the thirtieth of April, one thousand eight hundred and three, between the United States of America and the French Republic.

President, of the twenty-first instant, as relates to

2. Resolved, That so much of the Message of the

the establishment of a Provisional Government over

the territory acquired by the United States, in virtue of the treaty and conventions lately negotiated with the French Republic, be referred to a select committee; and that they report by bill, or otherwise.

3. Resolved, that so much of the aforesaid conventions as relates to the payment, by the United States, of sixty millions of francs to the French Republic, and to the payment, by the United States, of debts due by France to citizens of the United States, be referred to the Committee of Ways and Means.

He denied the correctness of the doctrine advanced by the same gentleman, that the stipulation entered into by France, in time of war, to raise the Duke of Parma to the throne of Etruria, bound her to obtain a recognition of that King from every power of Europe. All which concerned us in that treaty had been recited in ours with France. By the Treaty of St. Ildefonso His Catholic Majesty stipulates "to redeliver (retroceder) to the French Republic, six months after the full and entire execution of the conditions and stipulations herein relative to His Royal Highness the Duke of Parma, the colony or province of Louisiana." What these stipulations were is certainly known only to the parties themselves, for they never were officially YEAS.-Willis Alston, jr., Nathaniel Alexander, made public, although we are at no loss to con- Isaac Anderson, John Archer, David Bard, George jecture them. Nor are we at all concerned Michael Bedinger, Phanuel Bishop, William Blackwhether France has or has not complied with ledge, John Boyle, Robert Brown, William Butler, them. Because in a treaty executed at Madrid, George W. Campbell, Levi Casey, Martin Chittensix months after, in March, 1801, they show den, Clifton Claggett, Thomas Claiborne, Joseph that they consider the former treaty as having | Clay, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Frederick Con

The House proceeded to consider the said resolutions at the Clerk's table: Whereupon the first resolution being again read, was, on the question put thereupon, agreed to by the House yeas 90, nays 25, as follows: