FEBRUARY, 1794.]

Commerce of the United States.

uniformly evidenced a selfish policy; and that we have no privileges to boast of in consequence of our present existing commercial treaty with that nation.

[H. or R.

ter thereof, and report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the House.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House on the bill providing for the relief of such of the inhabitants of Saint Domingo, resident within the United States, as may be found in want of support; and,

Ordered, That the said bill be engrossed, and read the third time to-morrow.

Mr. SWIFT moved, that the first of the resolutions, which was then before the Committee, should be struck out.

This, Mr. Chairman, is a summary view of the principal arguments which have been adduced on the one side and on the other of the important question before the Committee. Many ingenious calculations, observations, comparisons, and documents, fraught with information, and tending to elucidate the subject, have been offered. I have COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES. listened with attention to the whole of them, and, on a careful review, it appears to me that this is tee of the Whole House on the Report of the SeThe House again resolved itself into a Commitnot the proper time for us to introduce very essen-cretary of State on the privileges and restrictions tial alterations in our commercial system; that, on the commerce of the United States in foreign be our wishes what they may respecting the issue countries: When of the present war in Europe, neither duty nor good policy will permit us to become parties-the strict principles of neutrality ought to influence our conduct; that the measures proposed would have a very bad tendency; that they would produce great inconvenience to our revenues; a temporary stagnation to our commerce; a future augmentation of the shackles under which it now labors; deprive our fellow-citizens of enjoyments which they have a right to possess; turn industry from its natural channel; induce a necessity of land taxes for the exigencies and support of Government; prove injurious to public credit; be ruinous Mr. GILES was of opinion, that, from motives of to our agriculture, and, in the present crisis, might delicacy, the Committee should grant a short delay. precipitate us into a war-evils which justice, hu-He, therefore, moved that the question should be manity, true principles of patriotism, the duties of deferred. morality and the best interests of our country, require us to deprecate, and, if possible, avoid.

I have endeavored to examine and consider the subject with candor. I have formed my opinion upon serious deliberation, and feel an impression of duty, when the question shall be taken, to vote against the propositions.

The Committee now rose, and had leave to sit again.

MONDAY, February 3.

A petition of Thomas Pearsall and Elijah Pell, of the city of New York, was presented to the House and read, praying that an additional duty may be imposed on the importation of house or hand-bellows, or such encouragement given to the manufacture of the said article in the United States, as to the wisdom of Congress shall seem

meet.

Ordered, That the said petition, together with the petitions of the manufacturers of paint in the towns of Baltimore and Alexandria, and of the dealers in oil and painters' colors, which lay on the table, be referred to Mr. WATTS, Mr. COIT, and Mr. HINDMAN; that they do examine the matter thereof, and report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the House.

moved the resolution, and several other members, were not present; and he hoped for a delay, were it only of ten or fifteen minutes.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, that the gentleman who had

Mr. DAYTON said, that it was the business of members to attend in their places, and if they did not choose to do so, the House were not to wait for them.

Mr. FORREST considered that it would be unfair and uncandid to take the question in the absence of the gentleman who proposed the resolutions. He, himself, if he stood in the place of that gentleman, must feel extremely hurt at such a thing being done to him; and he would not use any gentleman so, because he would not wish to be used so himself.

Mr. SMILIE, in all the public assemblies where he had ever been, had never been witness to any attempt like the present of taking the advantage of the absence of a gentleman to carry a question against him.

Mr. DAYTON replied, that he disdained any idea of this sort, and he did not care whether the gentlemen on the opposite side were to defer the question for a day, a week, or a month. He was willing to postpone it as long as they pleased. But he thought it a bad precedent, that any member, by choosing to absent himself, should stop the business of the House.

Mr. FITZSIMONS wished that the question might never be taken at all.

Mr. DEXTER Spoke a few words to the same purpose. He did not think that the resolution had any meaning, at least he could not discover it; and, therefore, he did not think it worth while to take any question upon the matter.

Mr. CLARK said, that this was the thirteenth The SPEAKER laid before the House a Report day which this question had been debated. The from the Secretary of the Treasury on the petition gentleman who was up last had, upon one of these of Winthrop Sargent; which was read, and order- days, engrossed the time of the House for more ed to be referred to Mr. HEATH, Mr. FOSTER, and than an hour, and after having opposed the meanMr. MONTGOMERY; that they do examine the mat-ing of the resolution at such great length, he at last

H. OF. R.]

Commerce of the United States.

made this wonderful discovery, that it meant nothing!

[FEBRUARY, 1794.

had not, on that account, been censured. If it was wrong, it arose from the religion they professed. He expressed his surprise at the gentleman's assertion, that the majority of the Assembly of Penn

Mr. BOUDINOT wished the Committee to rise. Mr. W. SMITH regarded the precedent as a dangerous one. The absence might be intentional.sylvania had once run away from a question. That Perhaps the gentleman now absent would likewise be absent to-morrow, although the question should be deferred.

Mr. SMILIE expressed himself much hurt, that the member [Mr. MADISON] should be so treated in his absence. It was a sort of usage that could not be forgiven. He reprobated the insinuation of the gentleman having fled the question.

Mr. WADSWORTH was sorry that the gentleman who spoke last should have been angry at the hint of members flying the question. It was certainly true that such things had frequently happened; and, therefore, it could be no harm to say so. There had been members on that floor who had fled the question. More than one, two, or three members had done so. There will be such characters in all ages and in all countries. A majority of the Assembly of Pennsylvania had once run away from a question. There were members who never could be brought to give a vote on a question of war. Congress had been sometimes forced to stop business for want of a quorum, on account of members flying a question. For himself, he looked upon it as a very bad precedent for the House to defer business on account of the absence of any member. He understood that he was this day to give his vote in a minority. He was against the resolutions for many reasons, with which he was acquainted before this debate began; and he was likewise against them for many reasons which he never heard till after the debate began. I know a member, said Mr. W. smiling, who is to give his vote against the resolutions, and who goes into the country this night. If the question is deferred this day, for the absence of one member, I shall try to get it put off to-morrow for the absence of this other member; and so I shall always be for putting it off till I can turn my minority into a majority.

it must have been a very foolish majority, indeed, to run away from a question, which, by staying, they could have carried as they pleased. He supposed, however, that the gentleman was mistaken about the majority, and rather intended a circumstance peculiar to the late Constitution of Pennsylvania. By that Constitution, the Legislature, consisting of but one branch, two-thirds of the members were necessary to make a quorum. This, and the obligation to publish business of a public nature, from one session to another, were designed as checks to prevent party resolutions. In the early period of that Legislature, so many of the members as reduced the House below a quorum, frequently withdrew, to prevent hasty measures. On one occasion they withdrew to prevent a law from passing, without being constitutionally published for consideration. The doors being attempted to be forcibly shut, occasioned the affair to make some noise. Perhaps it was to this the gentleman alluded, but it was not a majority that withdrew. He said, that he admitted that in most cases the absence of members was a bad argument for delaying business, nor was it acknowledged by the rules of the House, but he thought that a regard to decency and propriety was always a rule. The present question had been debated for twelve or thirteen days in the space of about three weeks. The question had often been called for, but when any gentleman suggested that there was anything further to be offered, the question was delayed without opposition. That before the House adjourned on Friday last, the question appeared ripe for decision, but a member who had been much engaged in the debates, suggested that another member wished to be heard, and the question was delayed. That on Saturday it was expected that many members would go out of town who would not be returned so early this morning. Though Mr. FINDLEY rose in reply to what had dropped he acknowledged the right of the House to take from Mr. W. about the majority of the Assembly the question at any time, yet he wished for a deof Pennsylvania running away from the question. cent exercise of that right. Though he thought [It was objected, that he was not in order, as he the member had a right to change his mind and was not speaking to the question before the House.] decline speaking if he thought proper, yet he could Mr. F. replied that he was in order, as he was not approve of first delaying the question at the about to explain the nature of some facts which request that the members might be heard, and dethe gentleman had asserted. That if that gentle-clining to speak in order to favor a surprise. man was permitted to assert those things, he had a right to explain them, and appealed to the Chairman, who, as well as many of the members, acknowledged his right, and bid him go on.

Mr. F. said, that he doubted if the members had all as high a sense of honor, in standing their ground upon a question, as his colleague [Mr. SMILIE] had suggested, though he acknowledged they ought to have it. He alleged, that members thus absenting themselves, was not peculiar to Pennsylvania. That in the Assembly of that and other States, and even in Congress, members had sometimes withdrawn from questions respecting war, upon the account of religious scruples, and

Though the House might decide any time, it ought not to prefer the most improper time that offered during the whole discussion. He said the Assembly of Pennsylvania, to which such free allusions had been made, thought it indecent to take an important question on Monday morning, knowing that several members having left town on Saturday night, had not returned. To punish absent members in this way was a poor argument. It was not the members that were punished, but the constituents. He said he did not know which side of the House had most members absent; he only wished a fair and full decision.

Mr. CLARK observed, in answer to the gentle

Commerce of the United States.

[Some gentlemen said it would be much more manly to name Britain at once.]

Mr. NICHOLAS said, that he had no objection to naming Britain.

Mr. MADISON observed, that he had at first avoided the particular mention of Britain, because he had been solicitous to conduct the business in as civil a way as possible. It was no concern to him whether Britain was specially mentioned or not. Her Statute Book had afforded many examples of that kind of style.

Mr. S. SMITH was at a loss to know what recent injury Britain had committed, which could justify this proceeding. In point of justice, Spain ought to be put on the same footing. She had laid restrictions on American shipping, that she did not impose upon those of any other nation.

Mr. NICHOLAS answered, that the case did not apply to Spain; we enjoy a trade with her that is highly beneficial to the United States; nor have we any means of compelling her to alter her conduct.

Mr. BOUDINOT strongly recommended that Spain, and the Imperial ports, should be comprehended in the restrictions. He had been against the original resolution; but since the measure was going forward, he wished that it might be conducted with propriety, and on principles as reasonable and equiiable as could be adopted.

[FEBRUARY, 1794.

sense, gentlemen, after perusing such letters from Mr. Pinckney, could stand up, and pretend to say, that they had the smallest expectation of obtain ing justice from Britain? He had been astonished at the language that he had heard in that House. Members had not scrupled to say, that the mere exercise of our political rights, as an independent Government, was equivalent to a Declaration of War against Britain. Why do we pretend to call ourselves a free or independent People? It would be much better, honestly and at once, to declare ourselves Colonies subject to Britain! The language held upon this topic was an insult upon the common sense of every American. We were entitled to exercise our own rights in our own way. He would rather hazard a war, than give up that right.

Mr. WADSWORTH was convinced, that Spain and Portugal deserved to be comprehended under the commercial restrictions as much as Britain, since they behaved as badly. Portugal, in particular, had acted with superlative baseness, for she did not, as in good faith she was bound, warn us beforehand of the approach of the Algerine Peace. It was true that the newspapers had teemed with preposterous praise of her generosity, but this was altogether a farce; because the papers before the House, which could not be printed, proved the contrary. It was strangely said, that Britain had made the Peace for Portugal without the know

Mr. MADISON observed, that Britain had issued a Proclamation respecting the stoppage of the ves-ledge of the Court of Lisbon-a circumstance quite sels of neutral nations; of these there were but three-Denmark, Sweden, and the United States. The two former had been expressly excepted from the consequences of these restrictions. The Proclamation was, in itself, a breach of the law of nations.

Mr. AMES was of opinion that it would be wiser to accept of excuses for injuries, than fight battles to avenge them. He likewise insisted that a train of negotiation had been entered into respecting the grievances of America, and that it would be proper to wait the conclusion of it.

Mr. MADISON Considered the conduct of Britain as extremely atrocious. He read some extracts from the correspondence between Mr. Pinckney and the American Government. In these, the behaviour of Britain was represented as very arbitrary and tyrannical; and it was strongly stated, that there was not the least chance of obtaining redress from, the Court of London, for the violences committed on the American flag.

incredible. Mr. W. asserted the conduct of Spain to be as mischievous as it possibly could be. The same remark applied to France, where the Captains of American vessels had been fined for attempting to obtain redress in a Court of Justice, against the captors of their ships. Nor did it proceed from any want of provisions, that they had seized cargoes of that kind. They had openly locked them up in warehouses for many months, and at the same time refusing to give the Captains of the vessels any satisfaction. I really do not know (said Mr. W.) anybody, within whose reach we come, that does not despoil us. As to the Law of Nations, I leave that to gentlemen of the lawthey may manage it; but he found it to be very uncertain. He was sure that all the world did us all the harm that was in their power; and he was not certain but what an open rupture with us will be acceptable to some of the nations of Europe. With regard to Spain, such a hostile disposition cannot be surprising, since every American newspaper that we can look into is full of projects for driving them out of the American Continent. He said that immense property depended on the deMr. GILES read a passage from one of the let-cision of this day; he believed there never was a ters of Mr. Pinckney, wherein that gentleman re-greater at stake, in any question which had ever commended commercial restrictions, as the safest way of obtaining satisfaction from Britain for all the wrongs of America, since there was not the smallest probability of obtaining redress in any other way: Mr. P. expressed his extreme aversion to war, and therefore he suggested this method of retaliation, as a sure mode of distressing Britain, without the expense and danger of actual hostilities. Mr. G. asked how, in the name of common

Mr. DAYTON read some other passages from the same correspondence, and from these he drew inferences of an opposite tendency.

come before an American Congress. He referred to the lawsuits at present depending before the British Courts of Admiralty for the recovery of American property seized by the British pirates. He was convinced that, if the present amendment passed, the merchants of this country never would recover a farthing before the British Judges, of the immense sums for which they had lodged claims, which would be their ruin. There was

FEBRUARY, 1794.]

Commerce of the United States.

one effect which the resolutions would produce, and that was, to drive a great part of our shipping out of employment. This he did not consider as a misfortune, for there was a much greater proportion of the mercantile capital of America engaged in that business than could be for the advantage of the country.

Mr. NICHOLAS, in reply to an argument constantly urged by the gentlemen on the other side of the question, said, that it was quite needless to speak of waiting for the result of an application to Britain. A thing has happened that puts all negotiation out of the question. A man owes you a dollar, you ask payment, and he robs you of an hundred. The affair of the Algerines puts an end to negotiation. The case was so bad, that after it, no man could hope for amicable redress from Britain, or that after such baseness she would ever give us justice. With regard to Spain, there were two good reasons why we should not wish to offend her. In the first place, the United States gained largely by her trade; and, in the next, she was entirely out of our power. As to Britain, she was within our reach; and he was solicitous to except Spain and every other country from the restrictions, that their impression might be the more strongly felt in Britain.

Mr. W. SMITH again spoke at considerable length.

[H. OF R.

Mr. W. SMITH rose immediately after Mr. CLARK, and observed, that the member might have spared himself the trouble of mentioning his advanced age, as his garrulity was a pretty strong symptom of it. Whether he (Mr. S.) had, in the course of his remarks, employed more words than were necessary, the Committee would judge. They would also judge whether the incessant loquacity of that member was, in general, much to the purpose. With respect to any illiberal insinuations, they only excited his contempt. He had no doubt they were reprobated by the Committee, for they were intended to check the freedom of debate. But he declared, he would never suffer such attacks to deter him from that which he conceived a proper discharge of his duty. Mr. S. said it was astonishing that, after he had, from the commencement of the debate, so guardedly excluded all political topics, and confined his remarks expressly to commercial grounds, (considering the subject merely as a commercial one,) that there should be found any one so uncandid as to wrest his arguments from commercial and apply them to political facts. He had stated commercial facts, and had drawn inferences from them. If the facts were unfounded in truth, let gentlemen deny them. If his inferences were inconclusive, let gentlemen refute them. It was with much satisfaction he had, however, found, that all the commercial members who had followed him on the same side had, by their opinions and votes, borne testimony to the accuracy of his statements. Were those members, on that account, liable to the charge of undue partiality for Britain, and would they not, if such charge were made, be justified in recriminating? Would there not be as much reason to accuse the one side of being agents of France as the other of being agents [Here the gentleman was called to order.] for Britain? But he hoped all such remarks Mr. C. rose again, and repeated what he had would, in future, be spared. The members on said, appealing to the judgment of the House. He both sides were Americans, and had the same said that he had not named the gentleman as being object in view-the public good-but they differ. a British agent; he had only said, that a stranger ed about the means. To substitute indecent permight think there was a British agent in the Com-sonalities for argument was unworthy of any memmittee. The gentleman [Mr. SMITH] had objected to the prolixity of the proposed amendment, in naming and excepting so many nations from the restrictions, and had recommended it as much better to declare, at once, that they were levelled at Britain only; it was putting twenty-five words where one would answer the purpose. Sir, (said Mr. C.,) in cases of this kind there are often different opinions. He had heard the gentleman himself employ five hundred words, which, in his judg-ing ment, did not comprehend the meaning of one. As to the war, we had heard much painting, as if arms and legs were flying about our ears. For his own part, he was not afraid of hostilities: the reason perhaps was, that being much more advanced in life than some other members, he had less to lose by death. As to the present amendment, he regarded it as containing the essence of all which they have been debating about for thirteen days; and he hoped that the same gentlemen would vote for it to-day, who yesterday had voted for the resolution itself.

Mr. CLARK replied, that the gentleman from South Carolina had said that Britain was the most friendly to the United States of any nation in Europe; and that if a stranger came into that House, he would think the resolution under discussion was a manifesto of war against Britain. But, said Mr. C., (looking at Mr. SMITH,) if a stranger were to come into this House, he would think that Britain had an agent here.

3d CoN.-15

ber, was an avowal of a want of argument, and merited the animadversion of the House.

Mr. SWIFT was sorry to hear so much personal reflection cast out as the Committee had just now heard. He was convinced that the gentleman from South Carolina would despise it, as he was satisfied that every other gentleman in the Committee would do.

Mr. SMILIE saw no difference between returnto the situation of a Colony dependent upon Britain, and that of submitting to be shackled as to commercial restrictions.

Mr. AMES said, that there was no commercial State in the Union which favored the resolutions: four-fifths of the citizens of the United States were against them. It had been urged, that they contained nothing new; nothing but what had long been intended to be carried into execution. An opinion against the resolutions was traveling with rapidity from this centre, on every side, to the circumference of the circle. The people had too much good sense to approve them.