H. OF R.

Fortifications.

JUNE, 1809.

viceable it has a right to protection. As good econom ists it becomes the Government of the United States to take especial care that the source of revenue shall be secure. If we listen to the demands of justice, on the one hand, or the dictates of a wise economy on the other, the result will be the same. It has been said by some that the danger even now is not past. With politicians of that description, the argument must be naturally as strong to go on with fortifications as it ever has been, provided that the proper incentive to go on is danger. If Great Britain is insincere, and if appearances are illusory; if, in our actual position, there be little change, I call upon all gentlemen who think so to act up to their opinions, and to protect us against the danger which they themselves, at the present moment, continue to apprehend. But as to others, who can see that all works of this kind can be prosecuted and finished in time of peace, I call upon all such to come forward and protect this great and increasing source of revenue to the United States.

become a Government, and which would deprive
it of that confidence of the people which is so
necessary to its support. Or, are we about to act
upon the very unwise and short-sighted policy,
that, because the danger has disappeared, there-
fore we are never to expect danger again? If
the fears of that period of which I spoke had been
realized, the ports and harbors of the United
States being without fortifications, what would
then have been their situation? How much
cause would there not have been to regret that
the business of fortifications had not been taken
up in due time! Instead of relaxing our atten-
tion to that object, now is the time to proceed.
If we wait until we have war, we cannot fortify
to any good effect; it will be locking the stable
door after the horse is stolen. Now is the favored
time for completing the work, because it can be
done effectually, with coolness, and without ap-
prehension of invasion. If we now refuse, we
shall be much in the situation of a man who fin-
ished his house all but the roof; and when asked
by a neighbor why he did not complete it, the
reason he gave was, that when it was pleasant
weather he did not want the roof, and when it
rained he could not build it; and yet, sir, no man
will say that he was a very wise man. It is a
short-sighted policy which leaves the country un-
defended, because at the moment there is no dan-
ger, and under an idea that there is never after-war.
wards to be any danger. But it is fortunate for
the country, at least for that portion of it which
I represent, that the ice has been broken, that the
great bulk of expense has been gone into. Forti-
fications have been commenced upon a pretty
liberal scale. I do remember very well that when
this question was agitated before, and other gen-
tlemen wished that the appropriations should far
exceed the sum actually agreed to, it was then
said by those who were not for giving all that
we asked, that they would give sufficient to com-
mence the work upon a liberal scale. It was fre-
quently said that more money than was granted
could not be expended within the year, and that
there was no necessity to appropriate more; but
a promise was held out to us, that if we would
be content with that appropriation, further appro-
priations should from time to time be made.
Now, when we want this appropriation of seven
hundred and fifty thousand dollars, we are told
that we shall have one hundred and fifty thousand
dollars; and it will then turn out that all the
money which has been expended will have been
expended for no purpose, unless a future Congress
shall complete the fortifications at a much greater
expense after they have been exposed to all the
effects of the weather, natural decay and neglect.
The people of the city of New York in particular
have an eye on this subject which cannot be
averted from your deliberations, and look to your
acts with an anxiety which I cannot express, and
with a claim upon your justice which no gentle-
man in the House can resist. From that city of
New York perhaps one-third of the money which
flows into the Treasury of the United States is
derived. From its being in this respect so ser-

In fact, sir, in reflecting on this subject, I am at a loss to comprehend why there is any difficulty. We know that fortifications are of essential service to the defence of the coast and of the seaports particularly, because the great danger to be apprehended from any enemy is a predatory Until the French can find their way across the water there is little fear of any invasion that shall endanger the safety of the country. If we have war, plunder will be the object of our enemy, and the cities, the rich depots, will be the points at which they will make a dash. They will destroy the shipping, the banks, the capital, which produces to the United States such great interest, and all that is valuable in the cities. Whenever an attempt is made to invade the country with a view to subjugation, the whole body of the militia must be called out. I do not look upon even an attempt of this kind as probable. The war in which we must be engaged, if in any, will be one in which the seaports will be attacked; and, if successfully, they will enrich the enemy with new means of assailing you, and deprive you of that defence which you have. The defence of the country may be made at the expense of very little money, comparitively speaking. It was upon the principle of doing everything possible to be done for this protection that I was in favor of gunboats. Though I could not see the use of those machines, yet with all that humility which we all feel for great and philosophic men, I thought they might be of service. Other gentlemen voted for them because they had confidence in them. Now, it seems, we are going to sell them. You have withdrawn this sum of one million seven hundred thousand dollars (I believe that is the gross amount of expense incurred for gunboats) from the protection of the seaports and harbors-and will you give nothing to replace what you have taken away? If you give up one set of machines, either give the cities the value of them in another species of defence, or abandon them to their fate altogether. Let us know what

JUNE, 1809.

Fortifications.

H. OF R.

that they would attempt it, and therefore have been generally opposed to draining the Treasury by extravagant appropriations for fortifications, because I believed the money could be applied to better purposes. I believe it is impracticable to fortify the whole coast of the United States so as to be perfectly secure, were an invasion to be attempted. The good to result from these works would not equal the expense. We are told that from New York we derive one-third of our rev

is therefore to be particularly defended? If he does, let him attend to the documents, and he will find that the moneys expended in New York have been equal to almost all the moneys expended in every other quarter. The gentleman has no reason to complain, even supposing onethird of the revenue of the United States to be derived thence. The whole amount now called for is $750,000, of which $340,000 are for New York. But the gentleman says further, that New York will be fortified. Does the gentleman mean to coerce the House to grant the whole of the money called for? If not, why say this? I take it to be extremely indecorous for a gentleman to rise and tell the House that a particular State will effect a particular measure. The State of New York has never betrayed sentiments of this kind, and I trust never will. New York is perfectly satisfied with its portion of the whole. But if New York be so anxious, so exceedingly powerful, and so very wealthy, would not equity and conscience induce her to fortify herself?

you will do with us. If you are taking thus much from us, do not drive us to despair by giving us nothing. Or is the policy of fortifying our ports and harbors changed? If it be, let us know it, for our rights are so strong, justice is so imperious that the Government ought to fortify us. If not, the State of New York has means, and it will do it. It is not in New York a question of party; it is one in which the State is so much interested as to obliterate the lines which distinguish parties. I am willing to accept the ap-enue. Does the gentleman mean that that city propriation in the bill, though it is not enough; but trusting to the generosity and justice of future Legislatures to go on with the work; and then the Government will have (what on no other condition they are entitled to) the allegiance and support of the people whom they protect. It is not the cities alone that are interested in their fortification, but the country too; because it is there that they find their market, and exchange their own produce for the necessaries of life. It is a matter, therefore, in which every description of persons is interested individually. A nation is never so glorious as when placed in such a situation that no hostile foot can invade it. For the sake of a few millions shall the depots of wealth remain exposed to total destruction? Can it be the policy of enlightened men to continue them subject to this exposure, when in the train of their ruin follows the distress of every class of people? If we now go on and complete the work, in the hour of danger we shall be blessed for it. If there never be any danger, the expense never will be felt. I hope, therefore, it will be recollected by gentlemen that every part of the country is entitled to protection. I could not rest without expressing my anxiety that an example of liberality should be presented. We know that in this country we fall very naturally into the distinction of Southern and Northern. The only way in which these prejudices can be done away, if they exist at all, is for the South to do justice to the North, to vie rather each with the other in supporting each other, than in thus lopping off and curtailing measures of defence. Let us proceed hereafter on this great principle; that the whole country is entitled to protection. Let us foster every part, and be assured the whole will

be satisfied.

Mr. HOLLAND said he hoped the motion for striking out would prevail. It was an unenlightened policy in this Government to expend on any object more money than is absolutely necessary. It was urged by the gentleman from New York that the whole of this extensive Continent ought to be fortified. If such a thing as this was possible, it certainly would be improper to attempt the measure at this time, or even to go on as extensively as we have begun. It would be improper, because there was a deficiency in the revenue. Let me put the question to any single individual, whether there be any danger of an invasion. I believe not. For my part, sir, I never apprehended it; I always thought this country perfectly secure from invasion by England or France. I never for a moment believed

The only argument in favor of a large appropriation, which is worthy of notice, is, that the whole of the works will go to ruin and decay, if not completed. If they will not go to decay, there is no occasion for the large appropriation contained in the bill from the Senate. It has been said that all the fortifications are of a permanent nature. If so, time will not destroy them so very much as has been represented.

We always find those gentlemen living on the seacoast strong advocates for large appropriations. The modest gentleman from Virginia (Mr. NEWTON) said that Virginia had not her full share. He did not say that she needed it, but he was willing to give it to his State. The gentleman from York, too, last session, wanted three millions for fortifications. [Mr. GARDENIER said that the gentleman was mistaken; he had wanted four millions.] My mistake, said Mr. H., was in the gentleman's favor. The gentleman talks about short-sighted policy; and this is his longsighted policy, I suppose, wholly to drain the Treasury for at least a doubtful expedient. I hope that the amendment proposed will be adopted, and that no appropriation will be made. The sum already unexpended is sufficient for the raw materials for the military to work on. Will not $185,000 purchase stones, mortar, and clay, to make brick? Certainly it will; there is therefore no necessity for so large an appropriation. It is true that this bill is sent from the Senate. That is no argument in its favor. I recollect other bills which have come from that body

amount which are consumed in other parts of the country, on which of course the duty really falls? Every man of the smallest information knows that these goods, instead of being consumed in that city, are dispersed in every part of the United States. This subject of fortifications is no new thing. We all agree that we should fortify our most exposed points from predatory incursions; but no man supposes that we can establish fortifications which will effectually repel the invasion of a large force. If we were to collect all our revenue for twenty years back, and sell all our real and personal property, and expend the proceeds of it, we should find all these sums thrown away in an attempt completely to fortify the whole coast of the United States. But I wish gentlemen to state whether the conduct of this Government towards the city of New York and every seaport town has not been such as to exhibit a disposition to defend the country. Suppose the strongest fortifications possible to be erected at New York, would they prevent an army from landing in New Jersey or Connecticut, and going round to the city of New York? From whatever cause, we are in no danger now; and whatever may be said in this House, the embargo has caused a conviction in the British Government of the advantage of a mutual trade between the two countries. They are convinced now, as I have always been, that we want nothing else from them. But, if this House, when danger was believed by all to exist, could not be prevailed upon to appropriate more than $450,000 at the last session for fortifications, with what kind of consistency are thay now called upon to appropriate $750,000 to that object?

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Ross) asks us, whether it would be prudent policy in a farmer to half-fence his fields? Certainly not. But, if a farmer were to attempt to fence in a whole tract of country to secure a little lot, he would not act more ridiculously than we should do in expending extravagant sums of money on an object which can never be attained.

H. OF R.

pose have scarcely ever been expended; and how can it be expected that, in addition to the $185,000 remaining unexpended, the Secretary of War will be able to disburse $750,000 more? I consider the great bulk of expense for this object to have been already encountered, and that almost all the materials are already prepared. The remaining part of the expense must be comparatively inconsiderable, viz: for the employment of men to make use of the materials, which, in works of this kind, constitute the greater part of the expense. The sum with which I propose to fill the blank, will give the War Department until the next session, $300,000, as much as can be judiciously expended, as much as we can spare, as much as the exigency of the country will require; and I hope the House will not consent to impoverish the Treasury by appropriating more, when it can answer no proper purpose.

Mr. GOLD observed that he would not detain the House long on this subject. He expressed himself happy at the demonstration already given of a disposition to go through with the fortifications begun. It was a subject in which New York was much interested, and on which, therefore, the Representatives from that State were particularly anxious. Many remarks had been made as to the calculations, on which so much money could be expended in a given time. He acknowledged himself to be completely ignorant of what was done, and of what might be necessary to be done in a given time. Was any gentleman prepared to say, on his responsibility, how far a just economy would authorize the House to go? For his part, he had confidence in the estimate of our public officers, and be perceived with pleasure that many in the House had the same; from other gentlemen, however, he had expected less jealousy in relation to them than had been displayed. It must be acknowledged, on all hands, that the Department which had made the estimate of the appropriation, was much better apprized of the extent to which it would be necessary to go, than the members of the House. It has been remarked, said Mr. G., that the moneys The gentleman from New York (Mr. GARDE- heretofore appropriated to this object have not NIER) says that he wishes to destroy geographical been wholly expended. What results from this distinctions, and to extend protection to every fact? That economy has been observed; that part. I contend, sir, that, so far as a solicitude the Government has not been disposed to go to has been shown for the protection of any partic- the utmost length when we gave them an opporular part of the country, it has been for the East-tunity; and shows that we have the greater reaern country exclusively. Every one at all con- son now to give them our confidence. On the versant with the subject, knows that very little subject of fortifications, with all due deference to has been done elsewhere. I admit that New the gentleman from Virginia, I must be disposed York should be fortified; but the question is, to give greater attention to the report of the offiwhether we shall, at this particular time, devote cer at the head of the War Department, than to the whole revenue of the country to that object; the fruits of the hasty deliberations of any gentlewhether it will be an inconvenience to New York man. There is a well-grounded expectation that or any other town if it be not fortified by the next New York may be fortified. The gentleman meeting of Congress, when we are in a state of says that an army may land in Connecticut or peace, and there is a prospect of its continuance ? New Jersey, and proceed to New York. I anI wish not, by large appropriations, to induce the swer that they may; but, before they can reach Secretary of War to expend money too precipi- New York, they will find more blows than pluntately; for, if we do, we shall have still more der. There is no danger of an army's being landmoney to appropriate. We know very well that ed in the State of New York, though there is of the appropriations of former years for this pur- an attack from sea.

Fortifications.

Some allusion has been made to an observation | then thought of. I do not know what can have made by my colleague, which seemed to assert made this revolution in the minds of the Senate. too strongly the claim of New York. Some I suppose that, for the two last years the possibilsuch expression may have fallen from the gentle-ity of invasion did not enter into the calculations man, in the warmth of debate; but the people of New York do not impose claims on this subject, but appear as petitioners.