SPEECH OF JAMES ROSS, ON HIS RESOLUTIONS RELATIVE TO THE FREE NAVIGATION OF THE MISSISSIPPI,* DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MR. PRESIDENT, THE propriety of introducing these resolutions becomes every day more apparent. Since they have been laid on the table, our national councils have taken a new direction, and assumed a much more promising aspect. Until these resolutions were brought forward, there has been no military preparation; no proposal to detach militia; to build arsenals on the western waters; to provide armed boats for the protection of our trade on the Mississippi. I am happy in seeing gentlemen on the opposite side, pursuing a more vigorous course than they were at first inclined to adopt; and I hope they will, before long, consent to take stronger and more effectual measures for the security of what is in hazard. As I have, on a late occasion, stated at large my reasons for presenting these resolutions, I will not detain the senate with a repetition of them, except where they have been misrepresented or distorted during the debate. I cannot suppose that any gentleman would intentionally misstate what has been said; but it is * See page 236. very certain, that sentiments and assertions have been ascribed to me, in the course of the discussion, not warranted by any thing I have advanced. Every gentleman, who has spoken in this debate, excepting the honorable gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Wright,) admits, that the United States have an indisputable right to the free navigation of the river Mississippi, and to a place of deposit in the island of New Orleans. All agree, that this right is of immense magnitude and importance to the western country. All agree, that it has been grossly and wantonly violated-and all agree, that unless the right be restored and secured, we must and will go to war. Upon what, then, do we really differ? Upon nothing but the time of acting-whether we shall take measures for immediate restoration and security, or whether we shall abstain from all military preparation, and wait the issue of negociation. There is no disagreement but upon this point; for if negociation fails, every man, who has spoken, has pledged himself to declare war. A number of the objections, made against the adoption of measures we have proposed, deserve to be noticed. The honorable gentleman from New York, (Mr. Clinton,) when composing his speech, has made an elaborate research into ancient and modern history, for the purpose of showing what had been the practice of nations. He has collected all the objections together and classed them under three heads. Other gentlemen, who have spoken in opposition, have taken nearly the same ground, and made, in substance, the same objection: I will, therefore, follow the arrangement made by the honorable gentleman, (Mr. Clinton,) and I am persuaded, that it will be easy to show, he has, in many instances, mistaken the most material features of the authorities he has adduced, and more than once misstated the positions which I undertook to refute. He has, however, admitted the magnitude of the right, that it has been violated, and that if ne gociation should fail, we must go to war. He has made objections under these three heads, and insisted: first, that the infraction may be unauthorized; second, that negociation ought, in all cases, to precede the employment of force; third, that reasons of policy should dissuade us from using force at present, even supposing we have just cause of immediate war. The first objection has already been amply refuted by the gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. Dayton,) the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. J. Mason,) and the gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. White.) I will only remark, in addition, that whether authorized or not, is not now very material. If authorized, the temper, the design must certainly be that of an enemy, and you should act accordingly. If unauthorized, seize the culprit and send him home to his master, who will punish him for a breach of duty. Let him answer with his head for embroiling two friendly nations who wish to live in peace. Why wait till you send three thousand miles and inquire whether he had orders or not? He is visibly a wrongdoer: remove him, and protect what he would wrest from you. No man, when proceeding on the highway to market, and stopped by his neighbor's servant, would send out into the country to inquire whether his master had authorized the outrage. No, he would punish and remove the aggressor and proceed on his journey, leaving the circumstance of orders, or no orders, to be settled between himself and the master afterwards. Besides, in this instance, the person inflicting the injury, declares he has no right to the country. If so, why make inquiry whether he has orders? No orders could give him authority to interfere with your unquestionable right, where his master pretends to no right himself. Under this head of aggression and spoliation, the senator from New York, (Mr. Clinton,) in a tone and manner not very decorous in debate, has declared it to be within my knowledge, that indemnity has been provided by Spain, for the spoliations committed upon our trade; and yet the assertion has been made, that Spain has refused all redress for injuries of that kind; while the honorable gentleman alludes to documents before the senate, which are now under the injunction of secrecy. Sir, I have seen those documents, and I now repeat and re-assert, that I know nothing to warrant the opinion or belief, that Spain will make compensation for all spoliations of our merchants, or for the greater part or mass of them. I certainly never did say, that Spain had refused all redress; for it will be recollected by all present, that I expressly stated, the other day, the injuries done to us by the Spaniards themselves, in every place they had found our flag; and that our vessels were carried into their ports by French cruisers, condemned without the semblance of a trial, and our citizens thrown into prison: that if we took possession of the country on the Mississippi, we should have an ample fund in our hands to compensate all our merchants who had suffered from the conduct of the Spaniards: that the merchants would willingly accept such an advantageous offer: and that otherwise there was no reason to hope that they would all be indemnified. And I now return to that gentleman his own words, that he does know, and must be sensible, from the very documents he has alluded to, that there is little, if any hope, that the great body of injuries and losses sustained by our merchants from the Spaniards, in different quarters of the world, and the conduct of the French in Spanish ports, will ever be compensated or paid by Spain, unless in the mode that I have suggested. The same gentleman has said, that we have no facts respecting Spanish spoliation authenticated and reported to us, and offers this as a further reason for delay and negociation. The facts of spoliation, and vexatious, oppressive conduct towards our merchants and seamen, as well on the sea as within the jurisdiction of the Spanish government, both in Europe and America, are so notorious and of such extent and continuance, that no man can really doubt, or with truth deny the aggravated series of outrage and oppression which we have experienced. Although the executive or other officers of government may not have collected and reported these complaints to this House, yet this forms no excuse for the aggressors, much less a reason why we should abstain from giving attention to them while considering indignities of another description. But, that the gentleman may never again be able to say, that he has met with no authenticated case of spoliation by the Spaniards, I will now produce and read one to the senate, which has been delivered to me for the purpose of obtaining the aid of our government to get reparation. The men who have been robbed, were industrious inhabitants of the western country, who lived near Pittsburg. They descended the Mississippi with a cargo of flour, and finding but a low market at New Orleans, shipped their flour on board of an American vessel, and after being two or three days at sea, were taken by Spanish vessels, carried into Campeachy, their flour sold, their captain cast into prison, themselves restrained of their liberty; nay, sir, several of them died in their captivity; and those, who returned home, had no allowance made to them by the Spaniards for their property thus unjustly captured, and of course they only returned to witness the ruin of their families by a loss of property which they had not the means of paying for, having purchased on credit. There can be no excuse for the capture; these men lived in the interior country, they were cleared out from a Spanish port in an American vessel; yet all these circumstances could not save them from the rapacity of the Spaniards. [Here Mr. Ross read the protest of several American citizens before Mr. Morton, the American consul at Havanna, stating the capture of their vesssel, their captivity at Campeachy, the loss of all their property. |