Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 (4 of 16 vol.). United States. Congress

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ style="font-size:15px;">      In hearing the first resolution treated as an abstract proposition, my astonishment has been not a little excited. I have always understood an abstract proposition to be the assertion of some general principle without any specific application. Here is a distinct position, with a direct reference to particular orders and decrees. The resolution therefore is itself specific and appropriate, to use the apt terms of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Dana). But before we can determine upon the propriety or impropriety of the resolutions, to me it appears indispensable that we should examine attentively and minutely, not only the situation of this country in relation to France and Britain, but also the injuries and aggressions they have committed upon our neutral rights.

      In doing this I regret extremely that I shall wound the delicate taste and exquisite sensibility of my learned colleague (Mr. Randolph), who addressed you yesterday. I shall take no pleasure in the retrospection which seems so much to disgust that gentleman; but I do not know how else to find justification for the measures we, I trust, shall pursue, and to expose the profligacy of our enemies. The regular discussion of the first resolution would seem naturally to lead us to a review of the edicts of Great Britain and France. When we say we will not submit to their edicts; it cannot be amiss, although I acknowledge, sir, the undertaking is an unpleasant one, to inquire into the nature and extent of those edicts; I therefore will endeavor, within as narrow limits as possible, to exhibit to the view of the indignant American, the various wanton aggressions which have been committed by both these powers upon his commercial rights. And, sir, whenever we look for the chief source of our difficulties, we must turn towards Great Britain. Then let us examine the principal items in her account.

      On 8th June, 1793, the British Government issued an Order of Council to stop and detain for condemnation, vessels laden with corn, flour, or meal, and bound to France, whose people were then almost in the act of starving, and of course we were deprived of an excellent market for those articles.

      On 6th November, 1793, an order issued to stop and detain ships laden with the produce of, or carrying provisions to, the colonies of France.

      On 21st March, 1799, she issued a proclamation declaring the United Provinces in a state of blockade, and thereby excluding neutral commerce without any actual investment.

      On 16th May, 1806, a proclamation declaring the blockade of the coast from the Elbe to Brest, inclusive.

      On 7th January, 1807, an order prohibiting neutral vessels from trading from one port to another of the enemy or his allies.

      On 11th May, 1807, a proclamation declaring the blockade of the coast between the Elbe, Weser, and Ems.

      On 11th May, 1807, a proclamation declaring the blockade of the Dardanelles and Smyrna.

      In October, 1807, a proclamation, ordering British officers to impress from American vessels all such of their crews as might be taken or mistaken for British subjects.

      On 11th November, 1807, Orders in Council were issued interdicting all neutral commerce to any port of Europe from which the British flag was excluded; directing that neutrals should trade to such ports only, under British license and with British clearances – that all ships destined before the issuing of the orders to any of the said ports, should go into a British port, and that all vessels having "certificates of origin" should be lawful prize.

      On 11th November, 1807, an Order in Council was issued, declaring void the legal transfer of vessels from the enemies of Britain, to neutrals or others.

      In 1808, various acts of Parliament have been passed, carrying the orders of the 11th of November, 1807, into execution. They impose a specific tax on a variety of articles of American merchandise allowed to be re-exported to the continent of Europe, for example, on tobacco, 12s. 6d. sterling per cwt.; on indigo, 2s. per lb.; pork, 17s. 6d. per cwt.; cotton, 9d. per lb.; and on all other articles not enumerated in the act, a duty of forty per cent. is exacted on re-exportation.

      On 8th January, 1808, a proclamation issued declaring the blockade of Carthagena, Cadiz, and St. Lucar, and all the ports between the first and last of these places.

      In the Autumn of 1808, in order that plunder might commence from the very moment of the expected repeal of the embargo, the French West India islands were declared in a state of blockade.

      I will forbear, sir, at this time from commenting on the habitual impressment of American citizens, by Great Britain; the illegal condemnation of American vessels under what they call the rule of 1756; the spurious blockades of British commanders, and the consequent spoliations on our commerce. Nor will I detain the House by relating the story of Captain Bradley, commander of the Cambrian, who in the face of the city of New York, and in contempt of the civil authority of the United States, dragged your citizens into slavish captivity. The case too of the British ship Leander may remain untold – the enormity of that transaction is written in indelible characters, with the blood of our countrymen. The invitation of the British Ministry to your merchants to violate the embargo, and the burning of a friendly ship of war (the Impetueux) in your own waters, are circumstances too light to be noticed. I feel no disposition, either, to portray the affair of the Chesapeake. The ghosts of the murdered are yet unavenged for that horrid and perfidious deed!

      I will now advert, sir, to the principal injuries committed by France on the neutral commerce of the United States. They consist in the execution of three decrees, to wit:

      The Berlin decree of the 21st November, 1806, declaring the British islands in a state of blockade, and that no vessel having been at or coming directly from England or her colonies, shall enter at a French port.

      The Milan decree of the 17th December, 1807, declaring lawful prize every vessel that has suffered the visit of an English vessel, submitted to an English voyage, or paid duty to the English Government; and also, every vessel coming from the ports of England and her colonies.

      The Bayonne decree of April, 1808, which subjects, as it is said, and I believe not doubted, all American vessels found upon the high seas since the embargo, to capture and confiscation.

      Here, Mr. Speaker, I will end the black catalogue of iniquitous outrages and restrictions upon neutral commerce – restrictions which are acknowledged to depend for their support upon no other ground than that of retaliation. Whilst I protest against the principle of retaliating upon an enemy through the medium of a friend, yet these orders and decrees have no claim even to that principle. Because France and Britain both agree that the right of retaliation does not accrue before the neutral has acquiesced in the aggressions of the enemy. We have never acquiesced in the aggressions of either, and therefore, upon their own reasoning, ought not to be liable to the operation of the principle for which they unjustly contend. But, sir, can we quit this subject without looking more particularly at the consequences which result from this series of injuries?

      In reviewing the conduct of Great Britain towards this country, we perceive a continuation of encroachments, designed only for the utter destruction of our commerce. This disposition is manifest in every order and proclamation she has issued since the year 1793. If this were not her object, why such a continued system of illegitimate blockades? Why so many vexatious restrictions upon neutral trade, tending to destroy competition on our part in the continental markets? I might trace the scheme a little further back, and ask, whence the outrages? the orders of June and November, 1793, which produced Jay's treaty? A treaty which I am sorry to say, did not guarantee to us mutual and reciprocal rights, and which was no sooner ratified than violated by British perfidy. But, sir, I will not speak of trivial matters, like these; they are of no consequence when we reflect upon other topics. The pretended blockade of almost every port upon the Baltic; the blockade of the eastern and southern coasts of the North Sea, unaccompanied by any naval force; the nominal investment of the ports on the south of the British channel, and on the European coast of the Mediterranean СКАЧАТЬ