The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Thirteenth Congress, First and Second Sessions Page: 1,475
1441-2858 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:
HISTO&Y OF CoM&lSlS.
H. op R.
The Loan Bill.
February, 1814.
when it was so decisively applauded for the first 1
And a minute analysis of the facts connected with
each but serves to increase the dilemma.
The arrangement with Mr. Erskine for the re-
peal of the British Orders, it will be recollected,
promised their abrogation at a future day. I
think it was the tenth of June; not having looked
into the documents recently, I am not certain
that I am correct as to the dates, but this I well
recollect, that it was adopted with avidity; in the
language of the resolve, with a promptitude and
frankness honorable to the President; and on the
faith of it, before the day had arrived, the Presi-
dent issued his proclamation, notifying the fact
and renewing the trade, then suspended by our
non-intercourse act, from and after that day.
The repeal of the French decrees was notified
by the French Government to take effect from
and after the first of November, and the procla-
mation of the President in consequence thereof
was not issued until after that day. If there was
any departure from the course of unequivocal im-
partiality in the two cases, it was certainly not
to the prejudice of the British Government, as in
their case the proclamation was in anticipation
of the time fixed upon by themselves, and in the
French case it was not until after the time had
arrived. When Opposition found that they were
driven from this untenable ground, they took
their stand on another; the French declaration
they said was fraudulent on the face of it, and
couched in terms that were offensive.
It was answered, that but two topics of just
inquiry were presented in considering the sub-
ject—first, had the French promised and was it
fair to presume a repeal of their decrees in virtue
of such promise?—and second, was the promise
unequivocal and in terms unexceptionable ? 1st.
That they did promise a repeal no one will deny,
and in point of fact we have express proof that it
was conformed to, and not violated; our agents
abroad state this, and the exemption of our ves-
sels from capture under those decrees, is confir-
matory of the assertion. 2dly. As to the mode of
making the promise; it will be recollected that
we had prescribed a condition in our law to be
performed in the event that either France or
England revoked their edicts, and the other refused
to do so within three months after such revoca-
tion, and the repeal of the Berlin and Milan de-
crees was made to depend upon our fulfilment of
this condition—namely, a renewal of trade with
the party repealing; and unless the outstanding
belligerent repealed his decrees, a non-intercourse
with him. I cannot discover any just cause for
the criticism. It was in the nature of a neutral
compact, requiring the fulfilment by each of the
condition it had prescribed, as the consideration
of its observance by the other ; and it was exclu-
sively in our power by observing good faith to
render the contract absolute, or by violating our
engagements defeat it. We kept our promise, and
for the honor of our nation let it be understood,
in no instance of our history has it been imputed
to the Government that its promise was disre-
garded. The subsequent decree of the French
Government, dated in April, 1811, is a proof that
they considered we had performed our engage-
ments. And I understand it, as its terms import
it to be, no more than an absolute confirmation
of the previous conditional repeal—a declaratioa
that we had performed the condition.
I say nothing as to the charge whether this
decree was not antedated ; it is certainly fairly
liable from the circumstance of its concealment,
to all'the animadversions heaped upon its suspi-
cious appearance. I am speaking only of its
character and tendency; and I insist that the
construction I have given is fair and reasonable.
If so, the assertion that the repeal was not until
after the proclamation, has not a shadow of rea-
son for its support. Gentlemen, in the fertility of
their invention, attempt to derive an argument
from the subsequent repeal of the British decrees,
against the justice of the war, which they call
an act of rashness and precipitancy. And they
allege there was every reason for believing the
British would repeal their orders when they were
notified of the repeal of the French decrees. In
vain have we referred to the declarations of Mr.
Foster that such repeal would not take place un-
less France not only rescinded her decrees so far
as they violated our rights, but permitted the
British manufactures to be admitted into the Con-
tinent also. We also showed that their Minister
for Foreign Affairs declared the same thing; and
that all pretext might be done away we quoted
the "declaration" of the Prince Regent to the same
import. Affecting to disbelieve the confessions
of the British themselves as proof of their inten-
tions, a new species of reasoning was resorted to,
which, as all new discoveries are to be secured by
patent privileges, I hope the gentleman will ob-
tain the exclusive right of using and vending.
They said, you rely on the official declarations of
the British Ministers and the Prince Regent to
prove they would not repeal their Orders in
Council unless the French decrees were uncon-
ditionally repealed—but they have neverthe-
less been repealed without such modification of
the French decrees, and this proves the reverse;
and, reasoning a posteriori, it stands thus: "we
had a right to believe the event would happen be-
cause it has taken place," although they all de-
clared prior thereto that it would not.
Mr. Chairman, although the subject of inva-
sions of the right of property has been first con-
sidered in the order of my arrangement, I have
always believed and still think it of most subor-
dinate importance in the scale of national wrongs
endured by the United States; for, in so far as the
rights of persons are more invaluable than the
rights of property, do violations of personal rights
merit the prompt interposition of the Govern-
ment ; whilst spoliations of property admit of dil-
atory adjustment. Let it not be said that in the
only free Government on earth, where alone all
power is derived from, and frequently exercised
by, the people ; and the rights of persons not only
constitute the key-stone of the arch of our polit-
ical edifice, but the corner stone on which the
arch itself is erected; and above all. let it not be
(
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 and Seaton. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Thirteenth Congress, First and Second Sessions, book, 1854; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30354/m1/20/: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.