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

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ case he is to give notice, or where it was subsequently entered on, in which case he is not required to give notice. It is easy to show that this is one of the cases contemplated by that act. It is well known that the feudal law did exist in Louisiana, previous to its acquisition by the United States, and that by that law alluvion does accrue to the Crown. Now, if the feudal law did exist, and by that law alluvion did accrue to the Crown of France, does it not follow that the same right did accrue to the United States by the deed of cession from France, who owned the territory? If the claimant was in possession when this act passed, it became the duty of the President of the United States to give him three months' notice previous to his removal; if not, no such notice was necessary. On this point I need only refer to the fact that it was not so early as the passage of the act, indeed not till the 23d of May, that the claimants came into possession. They were quieted in possession, so far as the rights of the United States were not concerned, on the 23d of May, 1807.

      The decision of the corporation court of New Orleans is relied on as giving a title to the petitioner. That that decision did at all affect, in the remotest possible degree, the right of the United States, is a position which no man acquainted with the principles of law will contend for. The decision cannot affect the right of the United States, because it was not contested or defended before that court.

      It is said that the feudal law does not exist in France. From time immemorial it has existed all over Europe. That it exists at this time in this country there can be no doubt. The right to lands is allodial, but is inherent in the Government. Is it denied that the Government can take property from an individual, making him compensation therefor? If the right to land be indefeasible, could the Government run a road through it? It certainly could not. I wish it to be distinctly understood that I do not attempt to say where the real right to the property in question does reside. But I do say, that, according to the treaty of cession, it did become the Government of the United States to exercise the power which the President under the law of 1807 did make use of.

      If there has been any violation of right, it was in the passage of the law under which the President acted. It was such a one as, under present persuasion, I could not have voted for, even to remove a Yazoo purchaser. I would even give to such a one his right to a fair trial. I would not have agreed to pass it, for a reason given a day or two ago, that the right to trial by jury is inalienable; it is a right which descends to us with our other birth-rights; it is one without which liberty is but a name. It was an unfortunate circumstance that such a law did pass. But if the Legislature thought proper to enact such a law, let them not, in the name of the great God, throw the blame on their instrument, on the President, who was innocent of fault, and bound to carry the statute into effect. There is undoubted proof that the President only acted in pursuance of the statute. The retroactive part of the statute is the most horrible feature in it.

      But it is said that this is an extreme case, that this small spot was selected as the object of Executive vengeance. I am informed that in almost every instance of intrusion on the public lands, settlement was made by individual claimants. I would rather give up fifty times the value of land of the United States than to encroach against law on that of any individual. It was not the execution of the law which encroached on the rights of the citizen, but the law itself. I would ask, how can it be contended to the contrary? Who was in possession of the land when the law passed? It had been used as public property, and had every requisite to that character; and as such, when any one took possession of it, the President would not have done his duty under the act of 1807, had he not caused them to be removed.

      Monday, June 26

Non-Intercourse

      On motion of Mr. Smilie, the House resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of the Whole, on the bill from the Senate, to revive and amend certain parts of the act interdicting commercial intercourse.

      Mr. Dana said the amendment moved to the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sheffey) went to give a construction to the bill which would operate as a complete exclusion of the vessels of both powers until a satisfactory adjustment of all existing differences shall have taken place. What, said Mr. D., is the situation in which we are now placed? On what principle is it that British ships were first excluded and on which their exclusion was confirmed by the non-intercourse law? They were originally excluded by the proclamation of the President of the United States in consequence of the attack on the Chesapeake. The President of the United States now in office has declared his acceptance of the proffered terms of satisfaction for that outrage. And, after that, is it proposed that we shall continue the measure of hostility when the cause alone which led to it is completely done away? I should suppose that in the very act of adjustment, which took place between the British Minister and the American Secretary, it is implied that we should do nothing further on this subject. The President of the United States has accepted the satisfaction offered; he has declared those terms, when performed, to be satisfactory. And are gentlemen considering the restoration of the seamen taken from the Chesapeake as a reason why we should continue the interdict? If we examine this subject fairly, the great principle of reparation was disavowed of the claim to search our armed vessels, and a homage to our rights. That matter must be deemed to be settled, if the President of the United States had authority to settle it. If the President had not power to settle it, this furnishes strong evidence that the vote of approbation of his conduct was a proper proposition.

      As to the interdiction by the non-intercourse act, I apprehend that was founded on the violation of our neutral rights by the belligerent powers, the President of the United States being authorized to renew trade whenever the edicts violating our lawful commerce should be revoked. Whether or not the President has done right in accepting the assurance instead of the fact, gentlemen have considered it unnecessary for them to express any opinion upon it. If there be no edict affecting our lawful commerce in force by one belligerent, the interdict is at an end in point of fact in relation to that one. The question of the affair of the Chesapeake is settled, if the President had power to settle it; and as to the other cause of interdiction, the President has declared that the British orders will have been revoked on the 10th of June. Has the President acted correctly or not? If he has acted correctly in taking the assurance for the fact, the very principle of the non-intercourse is at an end as respects one of the belligerents, and there can be no ground for the exclusion of British armed vessels.

      Mr. Taylor said he thought the gentleman from Connecticut used the word hostility in relation to this measure of including British armed vessels from the United States. Now, I believe, sir, said Mr. T., that if we go to the opinions entertained, not by the President of the United States, but entertained and expressed in the very foundation of the arrangement which was made, it will be found that the very hostility intended to be produced by the President's proclamation ceased at the moment when we passed the non-intercourse act in which we excluded the vessels of both the belligerents. The hostility was in the admission of the armed vessels of one, and excluding those of the other. It ceased by the non-intercourse law, and so satisfactory was this law of the last session, that it was the very foundation on which the overture was made which ended so much to the satisfaction of this nation. So that, in fact, when we perpetuate the order of things produced by that act, we do not perpetuate the state of things produced by the interdictory proclamation of the late President. It was matter of satisfaction to the British Government, as expressed by their Minister here, that the quality of hostility in the exclusion of her vessels was taken away by the non-intercourse law. Have we promised, in the negotiation which has taken place, that we will commit an act of hostility against France for the boon which we have received from the hand of Great Britain? No, sir; and yet, if we take the definition of Mr. Canning, as to excluding the vessels of one belligerent and receiving those of the other, according to the mode proposed by the amendment, without the sentence moved to be admitted to it, it will in fact be agreeing to go to war with France. According to the opinion of Britain, promulgated not only to this Government but to the world according to the demonstration made by the British Government, you will undertake a measure of active hostility against France; for what? For any great boon that this Government has received from the hands of Great Britain? No, sir. If all the promises were fulfilled to their full extent, we should then receive but justice at СКАЧАТЬ