The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Fifth Congress, [Third Session] Page: 2,605
[776] p.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
2605 HISTOEY OF CONGRESS. 2606
January, 1799.] Usurpation of Executive Authority. [H. ofR,
Mr. Bayard said, he did not need this authority
to confirm his remark. There could be no doubt
that these Ministers possessed a sincere desire to
settle the existing disputes between the two coun-
tries, if. it could be done with honor. This was
found impossible; and yet, after all this, a single
individual, not appointed by the Administration,
Ihinks he can accomplish what the whole Gov-
ernment could not do, and goes to Prance under
this idea. And can it be right that an individual
should go and offer terms of peace, which could
have no other effect than to excite that clamor at
home which the gentleman from Virginia has
been pleased to say is the object of this bill, by
making it appear that there is an unwillingness
in the Government to make peace. But suppose
a Treaty of Peace was negotiated by an indivi-
dual thus situated, and Government should not
approve of it, it would be thrown out to the peo-
ple as a bone of contention, the consequences of
which would be that one party in the United
States would say that the terms ought to be ac-
cepted, and the other that they ought not; so that
a rash step of this kind might involve the coun-
try in a civil war. Mr. B. concluded by saying,
that he thought the bill was founded in justice
and policy, .and he hoped it would pass.
Mr. R. Williams said, the gentleman last up
supposed all opposition to this bill had subsided.
He knew not what had induced this belief, except
it was thought that a want of the probability of
success would induce members to neglect their
duty. For his own part, he would never cease to
oppose a' measure so fraught with mischief as this
bill appeared to be.
It might not be amiss, Mr. W. said, to take a
retrospective view of this bill. The resolution
which was originally brought forward proposed
to amend the sedition law. But now the bill is
brought in, we find it is not in conformity to the
resolution, but a bill for the punishment of cer-
tain crimes therein mentioned. How this hap-
pened he could not tell. He voted for the reso-
lution, as he wished to see a report on the subject,
and had no objection to a law which should pun-
ish usurpations of Executive authority. But now
the bill is before the House, it is seen that usur-
pations of Executive authority are not proposed
to be punished, but persons who shall carry on
any verbal or written correspondence or inter-
course with any foreign Government, &c.
This intercourse, which is to be punished, is of
a very extensive latitude. If a citizen should at
any time have it in his power to prevail upon a
foreign Government to relax its measures towards
us, this is to be deemed a crime by this bill; be-
cause, say gentlemen, it is an usurpation of power
lodged in the Executive, who, as it respects all
negotiation, is the representative of the nation.
But, said Mr. W., have the people deprived them-
selves of all power \o speak, when their speaking
can do no possible harm, but good to^heir coun-
try. It does not follow that because the people
have delegated a certain portion of power to the
Executive, that they have deprived themselves of
all power or interference, when that interference
is for their own interest. He should have no ob-
jection to a law to punish any man who should
attempt to usurp the Executive authority, or who
should so interfere in any dispute with a foreign
Government as to defeat the operations of our
Government. But gentlemen say, " No; the act
itself, whether good or bad, shall be punished."*
What does this amount to, said Mr. W., but that
a man shall be deprived of the privilege of apply-
ing for property which may be unjustly kept from
him by a foreign Government, and upon the recov-
ery of which the existence of his family may
depend 1 Mr. W. mentioned the case of a persons
applying to a foreign Government to raise an em-
bargo, in order to recover his vessel, which would
be influencing the measures of the foreign Gov-
ernment, and consequently come within this law.
It had been said that peace might be procured
by dishonorable means, and that if an individual
were to have the privilege to make peace, he
might make war also. But, said Mr. W., an at-
tempt has been made to accommodate gentlemen
in this respect, by declaring that where the act of
an individual defeats the design of the Execu-
tive, we are willing it should be considered crimi-
nal ; but they will not consent to this. He would
consent even to punish an individual who should
defeat the Executive in bringing on an honorable
war. as it is termed, but all this will not do. This
does not appear to be the design of the bill. It
had often been said, in this House, that there was
a party who wished to restrain the Executive so
as to stop the wheels of Government; but in this
instance gentlemen propose to punish a person for
aiding the Executive. It appears, therefore, that
the bill is intended solely to increase Executive
influence, let the consequences be what they will.
The Government of the United States has said,
that from the treatment which our Envoys have
received, no further negotiation with France can
take place. Could it then be criminal, when
national pride has said that no further negotiation
can take place, in an individual, to tell the French
Government on what terms peace may be made?
One would think not; yet, by this law, such a
man would be a criminal.
So far as this law goes to construe certain acts
criminal, it is a departure from all usage, in order
to discover what is criminal and what is inno-
cent. When we wish to know whether an act is
criminal or not, we inquire if it has produced any
mischief. In the present case no evil is assigned.
The offences are an attempt to procure peace for
the country ; to obtain a restoration of property,
a release of seamen, or a recovery of debts. The
people of this country never contemplated these
acts as offences.
This bill., though the gentleman who reported
it said that it had no-reference to any particular
case, appears to have been produced by the heat
of the moment. No one would ever have dreamt
of the things described in this bill being offences,
if nothing had happened to move their passions.
The first feature of the bill has a direct allusion
to a late transaction, and takes from the people of
these States a power which they never meant to
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Gales, Joseph, 1761-1841. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Fifth Congress, [Third Session], book, 1851; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc29473/m1/97/: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.