The Clerk having finished reading the Answer, the Chairman proceeded to read it paragraph by paragraph. The three first paragraphs were read without any thing being said upon them; but, upon the fourth being read—

Mr. Evans moved, that instead of "will be felt with indignation," should be inserted, "will be felt with sensibility," as a milder phrase; as he wished to avoid using expressions more harsh than was necessary.

Mr. Nicholas said, if his colleague would give him leave, he believed he had an amendment to offer, which would be proper to be offered before one he had moved, as he believed there was a rule in the House which forbids the striking out a clause after it had been amended; and if the amendment he should propose obtained, it might be necessary to strike out a part of that paragraph. It was his intention to move a new paragraph, to be inserted between the first and second. He believed it would be in order to do so.

The Chairman wished the proposition to be read.

Mr. Nicholas asked if it was not always in order to insert a new section.

The Chairman believed it was, provided it was not intended as a substitute for another.

Mr. Nicholas said he should candidly avow it to be his intention to insert several new sections. For the information of the committee, he would, therefore, read the whole, though he meant at present, to move only one.

The following are the propositions which Mr. N. read in his place; the first of which was under consideration:

After the first section insert:

Mr. Thatcher observed, the gentleman from Virginia had read three or four paragraphs, in the form of amendments. He presumed he did not mean to add these, without striking out some part of the report. He wished him to say what part he meant to strike out, that they might see how the Answer would stand when amended in the way he proposed. If they stood together, they would be inconsistent.

Mr. Giles presumed it was the object of the committee to bring into view a comparison of ideas in some shape or other, and he thought the amendment proposed was calculated to produce this effect. If he understood the Answer as reported, it was predicated upon the principle of approving all the measures which had been taken by the Executive with respect to France, whilst the amendment avoided giving that approbation. The simple question was, which of the two grounds the House would take? He believed the best way of ascertaining this, would be to move to insert, and if the amendments were carried, to recommit the report, to be made conformable to them.

Mr. Gallatin said, when an amendment was carried which affected other parts of a composition, it was not usual to strike out, but to recommit.

The Chairman having declared the motion to be in order,

Mr. Nicholas said, the present crisis was, in his mind, the most serious and important which this country had known since the declaration of its independence; and it would depend much, perhaps, upon the Answer which they were about to return to the Speech of the President, whether we were to witness a similar scene of havoc and distress to that which was not yet forgotten; such as had been passed through upon an important occasion, but such as could be entered upon only as a last resource. The situation in which we stood with respect to France called for the most judicious proceeding; it was his wish to heal the breach, which was already too wide, by temperate, rather than widen it by irritating measures. He hoped, on this occasion, they should get rid of that irritation which injury naturally produced on the mind. He declared he felt for the insult which had been offered to Mr. Pinckney; and he felt more for him, from the dignity with which he had borne it, which had proved him a proper character for the embassy. He was sorry that it should have been thought necessary by the French Republic to refuse to acknowledge him as the Minister of this country; but he did not think it right to suffer this first impression to influence their proceedings upon this business. If the insults offered were a sufficient cause for war, let the subject be examined by itself, separate from all others; but, if it be our wish to proceed with negotiation, he thought it wisest and best to adopt a firm but moderate tone.

As he before observed, he felt for the situation of the gentleman employed by this country; he thought it was a trying one, and did great honor to himself, and he deserved the thanks of his country for the good temper with which he had sustained it; but Mr. N. confessed the subject did not strike him with all the force with which it seemed to have impressed the mind of that respectable character. He did not consider the insult offered to Government as going further than the ill-treatment which our Minister had received. He believed that the circumstances, which appeared in the papers laid before them, in some degree accounted for the conduct of the French Government. It appears that at first the Directory were willing to receive Mr. Pinckney, but when they saw his credentials they refused to acknowledge him. This circumstance, he said, seemed to give a character to the transaction which explained its meaning.

It will be recollected, said Mr. N., that since the cause, or imagined cause (let it be one or the other) of complaint against this country, that there has been an intercourse between the two Governments on this subject. It was to be expected that if there had been any intention in Government to have come to an adjustment of the difference between the two countries, our Minister would have been clothed with some power of accommodation. Mr. N. supposed that when the French Directory agreed to receive him, this was their opinion; but upon seeing his letters of credence, they found no such power was given or intended. [He read the object of his mission from the President's Speech, viz: "faithfully to represent," &c.]

If these, he said, were all the objects expressed in his letters of credence—and if there had been more, the President would doubtless have informed them of it—the matter perfectly justified the character he had given of it.

He made these observations, because he thought on an occasion like the present, the truth should be made to appear, and though an insult had been offered to this country, which could not fail to produce irritation, yet that irritation should stop short of the point where it would produce action, as he was certain any steps taken which might hazard the peace of the country, would not conduce to the welfare of its citizens.

There was a subject, he said, which seemed to have involved itself with this, and of which he should take some notice, viz: a charge against certain persons with being attached to the French cause. It might, perhaps, be the opinion of some members of that House, more particularly of strangers, that he was improperly influenced by party zeal in favor of the French, a zeal which it had been blazoned forth existed to an immoderate degree in this country. He had frequently heard insinuations of this sort, which he considered so groundless as to be worthy only of contempt; but when charges of this kind were made in the serious manner in which they were now brought forward, it was necessary to call for proof. Who, said he, is the man who has this proof? He knew of none. For his own part, he had no intercourse with the French but of the commonest kind. He wished those who possessed proofs of improper conduct of this kind, would come forward and show them—show who are the traitors of whom so much is said. He was not afraid of the impressions any such charges brought against him, might make upon his constituents, or where he was known; indeed, he had not the arrogance to believe the charge was levelled against him, though he believed he was frequently charged with a too great attachment to the French cause.

When he first came into that House, he found the French embroiled with all their neighbors, who were endeavoring to tear them to pieces. He knew what had been the situation of this country when engaged in a similar cause, and was anxious for their success. Was there not cause for anxiety, when a nation, contending for the right of self-government, was thus attacked? Especially when it was well known, that if the powers engaged against France had proved successful, this country would have been their next object. Had they not, he asked, the strongest proofs (even the declarations of one of their Governors) that it was the intention of England to declare war against America, in case of the successful termination of the war against France? It redounded to the honor of the citizens of this country, he said, that they had never shown a disposition to embark in the present European war.

The difference, Mr. N. said, between the Address reported, and the proposition he had brought forward was this: the former approved all the measures of the Executive, and the latter recommended an inquiry relative to the operation of the British Treaty. It was this question upon which the committee would decide, and it was of importance, he said, that they should weigh the causes of difference between us and the French Republic, and not decide that we are right, without examination, because, if, after being brought to hostility, we are obliged to retract, it would show our former folly and wantonness.

Mr. N. said he would inquire into the rights of France as they respected three principal subjects, which were more particularly causes of complaint between the two countries. These were, the right of our vessels carrying English goods, the article respecting contraband goods, and that respecting the carrying of provisions. He knew no better way to determine how far we could support those articles of the British Treaty, than by extracting the arguments of our own ministerial characters in support of these measures. With respect to the question of free ships making free goods, his impressions were very different from those of the Secretary of State. He says, with respect to the regulation of free ships making free goods, it is not changing a right under the law of nations; that it had never been pretended to be a right, and that our having agreed to it in one instance, and not in another, was no just cause of complaint by the French Government. He advocates this transaction in his letter to Mr. Adet last winter. Mr. N. said, he knew not what was the origin of the law of nations upon the subject; he knew not how it came into existence; it had never been settled by any convention of nations. Perhaps, however, the point now under consideration came as near to a fixed principle, as any other of what are called the laws of nations ever did, as only one nation in Europe could be excepted from the general understanding of it. Mr. Pickering, he thought, seemed not to have given full force to this circumstance, but seemed to have weakened the evidence. [He referred to what Mr. Pickering had said upon the subject.] It was Mr. Pickering's idea, that the stipulation of free ships making free goods, was a mere temporary provision; that it was not an article in the law of nations, but a new principle introduced by the contracting parties. In order to prove this was not the case, Mr. N. referred to the provisions entered into by the armed neutrality of the north of Europe; to a treaty between France and Spain; to a note from the Court of Denmark; and to the declaration of the United States themselves on the subject.

With respect to contraband articles, he had little to say. It was asserted that the articles stipulated in the British Treaty as contraband, were made so by the law of nations. Where the doctrine was found he could not say. It had been quoted from Vattel; this authority might be correct; but he never found any two writers on this subject agree as to this article. In a late publication on the law of nations (Marten's) he found it directly asserted that naval stores were not contraband. But he said, if the contrary were the law of nations, they were bound to extend the same privilege to France which they gave to England: they could not have one rule for the one nation, and a different one for the other.

The 18th article of the British Treaty, respecting the carrying of provisions, always struck him as a very important one. It had heretofore been contended that this article did not go to any provisions except such as were carrying to besieged or blockaded places; but he believed the British had constantly made it a pretence for seizing provisions going to France. Indeed, if he was not mistaken, the British Minister had publicly declared in the House of Commons, that the provisions on board the vessels intended for the Quiberoon expedition had been supplied from what had been captured in American vessels.

Mr. N. contended that this was the opinion of the Executive of this country, as published in all the public papers, and of course known to the Government of France. In the letter of Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Pinckney in 1793, he declares that there is only one case in which provisions are contraband, and shows the necessity of a neutral nation observing the same rules towards all the powers at war. But, in the present case, the right was ceded during the present war.

It was an unfortunate circumstance against the neutrality of this country, to find a doctrine so differently applied at different times. It was a strong proof of the progress of the passions. It might be considered as a fraudulent thing, in one instance, to give up a right for a compensation to ourselves.

Mr. N. concluded with observing that he had gone over the subject, he feared, not without being considered tedious by the committee; but he felt himself greatly interested in the present decision. He believed any additional irritation in their measures would place peace out of our reach. He believed, therefore, it was their business to avoid it. He believed it would be for the honor and happiness of the country to do so.

Mr. W. Smith said, as the gentleman last up had taken a wide range of argument, he must excuse him if he confined himself, in his reply, to those parts of his observations only which appeared to him essentially to relate to the subject under consideration.

He believed the question was, whether they should alter the report in the manner proposed; that is, whether they should strike out words which expressed the sensibility of this House at the unprovoked insults offered by the French Republic to our Government and country, or adopt the gentleman's amendment, which he read.

If they agreed to this amendment, they must necessarily expect from the French Republic fresh insult and aggression; for it seemed to admit that hitherto no insult had been intended.

The amendment might be divided, Mr. S. said, into two parts. The first went to vindicate the French from any intentional insults towards this country: it even held out an idea that the Executive ought to offer some concessions to France, and even designated the kind of concession. He should, therefore, without taking notice of what the gentleman had said about the political parties of this country, or what he had said respecting himself personally, confine his observations to the points in question.

The first point was, whether the conduct of France was justifiable in rejecting our Minister, and sending him from the Republic in the manner they had done?

He thought the committee had abundant materials before them completely to refute the first proposition; and he was surprised, knowing that these documents were in the hands of every member, that the gentleman from Virginia could expect to impress their minds with the idea that no indignity whatever had been offered by the French Government to this country in that transaction.

Mr. S. said, that it appeared most clearly that the French Directory intended to treat this Government with marked indignity; for though the gentleman from Virginia suggested an opinion that their refusal to receive Mr. Pinckney was owing altogether to his not being invested with extraordinary powers, this was evidently not the case, as the Directory had been well informed as to the character in which Mr. Pinckney came, before they received his letters of credence, as appears by the letter of M. Delacroix to Mr. Monroe, styling Mr. Pinckney his successor, and by other documents communicated by the President, (which he read.) There was no doubt, then, with respect to the Directory being well acquainted with the character in which Mr. Pinckney went to France, viz: as Minister Plenipotentiary or ordinary Minister; but, after keeping him in suspense near two months, on the day after the news arrived of Bonaparte's successes in Italy, he was ordered, by a peremptory mandate, in writing, to leave the French Republic. This mandate was accompanied by a circumstance which was certainly intended to convey an insult; it was addressed to him as an Anglo-American, a term, it is true, they sometimes used to distinguish the inhabitants of the United States from those of the West India Islands, but, in his opinion, here evidently designed as a term of reproach, as he believed no other similar instance could be mentioned. Upon this circumstance, however, he laid no stress; the other indignities which our Minister had received were too great to require any weight to be given to this circumstance.

The gentleman from Virginia had confined the complaints of the French Government to three articles of the British Treaty; though, if the committee referred to the letter of Mr. Delacroix, it would be found that they did not confine them within so narrow a compass. They complain, first, of the inexecution of treaties; there are several points of complaint relative to that head. 2d. Complaints against the decrees of our Federal Courts. 3d. Against the law of June, 1794; and, 4th. Against the Treaty with Great Britain. Yet the gentleman confines himself altogether to the latter. And really he did not expect at this time of day, after the subject had been fully discussed, and determined, and the objections refuted over and over again, that any gentleman would have endeavored to revive and prove their complaints on this head well founded. The three articles were: 1st, that free ships did not make free goods; 2d, the contraband article; and 3d, the provision article.

1. The stipulation with respect to neutral vessels not making neutral goods in the British Treaty, was not contrary to the law of nations; it only provided that the law of nations was to be carried into effect in the manner most convenient for the United States. But this doctrine, he said, was no new thing. It had been acknowledged most explicitly by Mr. Jefferson, Secretary of State, in July, 1793, and was so declared to the Minister of France; yet no objection was made to it until the British Treaty was ratified, though long previous thereto French property was captured on board our vessels. Mr. Jefferson, writing on this subject to the French Minister, said: "You have no shadow of complaint;" the thing was so perfectly clear and well understood by the law of nations. This happened as long ago as July or August, 1793. But two years afterwards, when the British Treaty was promulgated, the whole country was thrown into a flame by admitting this very same doctrine. France herself had always acted under this law of nations, when not restrained by treaty: in Valin's Ordinances of France this clearly appears. The armed neutrality was confined to the then existing war; Russia herself, the creator of the armed neutrality, entered into a compact with England, in 1793, expressly contravening its principles. The principle was then not established by our Treaty with England; but such being the acknowledged law of nations, it was merely stipulated that it should be exercised in the manner least injurious to us.

2. The next article of complaint was with respect to contraband goods. If gentlemen will consult the law of nations, they will find that the articles mentioned in the British Treaty are by the law of nations contraband articles. They will find that in all the treaties with Denmark and Sweden, Great Britain had made the same stipulation. Indeed, the gentleman had acknowledged that it was so stated by some writers on the law of nations; but he wished to derogate from the authority of those writers, in the same way as Mr. Genet, in his correspondence with Mr. Jefferson, had called them "worm-eaten folios and musty aphorisms;" to Vattel might be added Valin's Ordinances, a very respectable work in France. How, then, can the gentleman with truth say that we have deviated from the law of nations?

3. The last point which the gentleman took notice of was the provision article. There was no doubt that this Government would never allow provisions to be deemed contraband, except when going to a besieged or blockaded port. Though he made this declaration, yet it was but candid to acknowledge that this was stated by Vattel to be the law of nations. [He read an extract from Vattel.]

When this was stated by Lord Grenville to Mr. Pinckney, our then Minister in London, Mr. Pinckney acknowledged it to be so stated in Vattel, but very ingeniously argued that France could not be considered as in the situation mentioned in Vattel, since provisions were cheaper there than they were in England, and therefore the case did not apply. When our Envoy was sent to London, both parties were tenacious on this ground. Our Minister was unwilling to agree to this construction of the law of nations; but the British Minister insisted upon it, and if there had not been some compromise, the negotiation must have been broken off, and a war probably ensued. The result was, therefore, that, without admitting it to be the law of nations, it was agreed that where provisions were contraband by the law of nations, they should be paid for, but not confiscated, as the law of nations (admitting that construction) would have authorized. Therefore some advantage was secured to France, for if Great Britain had confiscated our vessels going to France with provisions, it would certainly have damped the ardor of our citizens employed in that commerce; but under this regulation our merchants were certain of being paid for their cargoes, whether they arrived in France or were carried into England. These were the three grounds of objection which the gentleman from Virginia had stated as grounds of complaint by the French against the British Treaty.

Before he went further, he would observe that, admitting (which he did not admit) that there had been solid grounds of objection against the British Treaty, before it was ratified, yet they ought now to be closed. It had received a full discussion at the time; it had been carried into effect, was become the law of the land, and was generally approved of by the country. Why, then, endeavor to stir up the feelings of the public against it by alleging it to be just cause of complaint? If the committee wanted any proof of the approbation which that instrument had received, he thought it might be gathered from the general approbation which had been given of the administration of the late President on his retirement from office, in doing which the people had doubtless taken into view the whole of his conduct. Nor did he think the people had shown any hostility to the Treaty in their late election of members to that House. Indeed, he believed that the approbation which the Treaty received increased in proportion as the subject came to be understood.

Admitting further, that the Treaty had changed the existing state of things between Great Britain and France, by having granted commercial favors to Great Britain; by the 2d article of our treaty with France, the same favors would immediately attach to France, so that she could have no reason to complain on that ground. Indeed France had herself new modified the treaty between that country and this, and had taken to herself what she deemed to be the favors granted to Great Britain. [Mr. S. read the decree on this subject of 2d March last.]

Mr. S. said, he believed he had examined all the observations of the gentleman from Virginia, relative to the Treaty, which were essential to the subject under consideration. He did not wish to go much farther on the present occasion, because he agreed with him, that it was proper they should keep themselves as cool and calm as the nature of the case would admit; but he thought whilst so much deference was paid to the feelings of France, some respect ought to be paid to the feelings of America. He hoped the people of America would retain a proper respect and consideration for their national character; and however earnestly he wished that the differences subsisting between the two countries might be amicably settled, yet, he trusted that our national dignity would never be at so low an ebb as to submit to the insults and indignities of any nation whatever. In saying this, he expressed his hearty wish to keep the door of negotiation with France unclosed; but at the same time he strongly recommended to take every necessary step to place us in a situation to defend ourselves, provided she should still persist in her haughty demeanor.

Mr. S. said, as he knew indecent and harsh language always recoiled upon those who used it, he did not wish to adopt it; but, at the same time, it was due to ourselves to express our feelings with a proper degree of strength and spirit. He was not in the habit of quoting any thing from M. Genet, but there was one expression of his which he thought contained good advice, "all this accommodation and humility, all this condescension attains no end."

After the gentleman from Virginia had dwelt sufficiently upon the danger of irritating the French, he had emphatically called upon us to recollect our "weakness." It might have been as well if he had left that to have been discovered from another quarter. He hoped we had sufficient confidence in the means of defence which we possessed, if driven to the last resort; and he believed if there was any one more certain way of provoking war than another, it was that of proclaiming our own weakness.

He hoped such a language would now be spoken as would make known to the French Government that the Government and people of this country were one, and that they would repel any attempt to gain an influence over our Councils and Government. The gentleman had said that there did not appear to be any design of this kind, and had endeavored to do away what was stated as the opinion in France, in General Pinckney's letter. He did not mean to rest this altogether upon the reports of an emigrant, whom General Pinckney mentions as having represented this country divided, and of no greater consequence than Genoa or Geneva, but he took the whole information into view. [He read the extract relative to this subject.]

It was evident, Mr. S. said, from this information from France, that an opinion had been industriously circulated there that the Government and people of this country were divided; that the Executive was corrupt and did not pursue the interests of the people; and that they might, by perseverance, overturn the Administration, and introduce a new order of things. Was not such an opinion of things, he asked, calculated to induce France to believe that she might make her own terms with us? It was well known what the French wished, and it was time to declare it plainly. His opinion was that they designed to ruin the commerce of Great Britain through us. This was evident. They talk of the British Treaty; but they suffered it to lie dormant for near twelve months, without complaining about it. Why were they silent till within a few weeks before the election of our President? Why did they commit spoliations upon our commerce long before the British Treaty was ever dreamt of? Their first decree, directing spoliations of our property, and the capture of our provision ships, was on the 9th of May, 1793, a month before the provision order of Great Britain, which was dated June 8, 1793; and why have they, from that time to this, been committing spoliations on our commerce? The British Treaty was published in Paris in August, 1795; a year after, in July, 1796, they determine to treat us in the same way that we suffer other nations to treat us, and this decree was not made known to our Government till the October following, a few weeks before the election of President.

But this was not all; the French had pursued similar measures towards all the other neutral powers. Sweden, in consequence, had no Minister in their country, and was on the eve of a rupture. The intention of the French evidently was, to compel all the neutral powers to destroy the commerce of Great Britain; but he trusted this country had more spirit than to suffer herself to be thus forced to give up her commerce with Great Britain; he trusted they would spurn any such idea.

Mr. S. hoped the observations which he had made would not be construed into a wish to see the United States and France involved in a war. He had no objection to such measures being taken for preserving peace between the two countries as should be consistent with national honor. It was a delicate thing for them to suggest what the Executive ought to do. It was out of their province to direct him. The Executive had various considerations to take into view. We had injuries to complain of against France, for the spoliations committed upon our commerce. If the Executive conceive we have a right to redress, that subject will of course constitute a part of our Envoy's instructions. Would it then be proper, said he, for this House to interfere with the Executive, to obtrude its opinion and say, "You must give up this point; we take upon us (without any authority by the constitution) to give carte blanche to France, without any indemnification or redress."

The gentleman says it is the object of the amendment on the table to recommend to the Executive to remove any inequalities in the treaties; that was alone sufficient to vote it out.

There had been no period since the Revolution which had so powerfully called on Americans for that fortitude and wisdom which they knew so well how to display in great and solemn emergencies. It was not his intention to offend any one by stating the question in such strong terms; but he was persuaded that when the present situation of our affairs with respect to France was well understood, it would be found that to acquiesce in her present demands was virtually and essentially to surrender our self-government and independence.

Tuesday, May 23.

Two other members, to wit: from North Carolina, Joseph McDowell, and from Virginia, Josiah Parker, appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats.

Answer to the Presidents Speech.

The House then went into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Dent in the chair, on the amendment of Mr. Nicholas to the report of the select committee, in answer to the President's Speech.

Mr. Freeman first rose. He observed, that in his observations on the subject before the committee, amid the conflicting opinions of gentlemen whom he respected, he did not mean to express his own either with confidence or with zeal. Though one of the committee that had reported the Address, he could not approve it in toto. He had two principal objections to it. First, to that part which went to an unequivocal approbation of all the measures of the Executive respecting our foreign relations; and, secondly, to that part which contained expressions of resentment and indignation towards France. In framing an answer to the President, he conceived the committee should have refrained from expressing an unqualified approbation of all the measures of the Executive. To omit it would not imply censure. By introducing it, it forced all those who entertain even doubts of the propriety of any one Executive measure to vote against the Address.

The principal causes of the irritation on the part of France, insisted upon in the Answer, were the rejection of our Minister, and the sentiments contained in the Speech of the President of the Directory to our late Minister. If gentlemen would look into the documents laid before the House by the President, he was confident they would find the true reason for the refusal to receive our Minister. He came only as an ordinary Minister, without any power to propose such modifications as might lead to an accommodation, and when the Directory discovered this from his credentials they refused him. In answer to this, it had been urged that M. Delacroix, Minister of Foreign Affairs, from the first, well knew that Mr. Pinckney was only the successor to Mr. Monroe, and that his coming in that quality was not the reason why the French refused to receive him. Mr. F. referred to the documents which had been laid before the House on this subject, from which it appeared that the secretary of M. Delacroix had suggested a reason for the apparent change of opinion on the subject of receiving Mr. Pinckney. Suppose, the secretary observed, that M. Delacroix had made a mistake at first in the intentions of the Directory, was that mistake to be binding on the Directory?

He did not wish to be understood to consider the conduct of the French as perfectly justifiable; but he could not conceive that it was such as to justify, on our part, irritating or violent measures. As to the Speech of the President of the Directory, he could not say much on it, he did not perfectly understand it. As far as he did, he considered it a childish gasconade, not to be imitated, and below resentment. [He read part of it]. It was certainly arrogant in him to say that we owed our liberty to their exertions. But if the French could derive any satisfaction from such vain boasting he had no objection to their enjoying it. There was another part of the Speech that had been considered as much more obnoxious. It was said to breathe a design to separate the people here from their Government. The part alluded to was no more than an expression of affection for the people; he could see nothing in this irritating or insulting; it was a mode of expression which they used as to themselves, and by which they wished to convey their affection for the whole nation. The term people, certainly included the Government, and could not with propriety, therefore, be said to separate the people from it.

An idea had been thrown out by the gentleman from South Carolina, that the people generally approved of the British Treaty; he inferred it from the fate of the late elections. For his part he could see no great alteration to have been produced by the late elections; and if there had been it would not have been an evidence to his mind that the people approved of the British Treaty. He believed, for his part, that the opinions of a great majority of the people had been uniformly averse to it; and those who advocated it were by this time nearly sick of it. It was true a spirit was aroused by the cry of war at the time the subject of appropriation was pending, that produced petitions, not approving however of the stipulations of the treaty, but asking that it might be carried into effect since it had reached so late a stage.

Another engine, he observed, had been wielded with singular dexterity. Much had been effected by the use, or rather abuse, of the terms federalist and anti-federalist, federalism and anti-federalism. When the Federal Constitution was submitted to the people, to approve it, and endeavor to procure its ratification, it was federalism. Afterwards, when the Government was organized and in operation, to approve every measure of the Executive and support every proposition from the Secretary of the Treasury, was federalism; and those who entertained even doubts of their propriety, though they had been instrumental in procuring the adoption of the constitution, were called anti-federalists. In 1794 to be opposed to Madison's propositions, the resolution for the sequestration of the British debts, and the resolution prohibiting all intercourse with Great Britain, was federalism. In 1796 it was federalism to advocate the British Treaty; and now he presumed that it would be federalism to support the report of the committee and hightoned measures with respect to France. In 1793 he acknowledged that federalism assumed a very different attitude from what it had on the present occasion; it was then the attitude of meekness, of humanity, and supplication. The men who exclusively styled themselves federalists, could only deplore with unavailing sighs the impotence of their country, and throw it upon the benevolence and magnanimity of the British Monarch. Their perturbed imaginations could even then see our cities sacked and burnt, and our citizens slaughtered. On the frontier they heard the war-hoop, and the groans of helpless women and children, the tortured victims of savage vengeance. Now we are at once risen from youth to manhood, and are ready to meet the haughty Republic of France animated with enthusiasm and flushed with victory. Mr. F. observed, that he rejoiced however that gentlemen adopted a bolder language on this than had been used on the former occasion. He felt his full shame in the national degradation of that moment. He was in favor of firm language; but he would distinguish between the language of manly firmness and that of childish petulance or ridiculous bombast.

Mr. Griswold said, if he understood the state of the business, the question was, whether the committee would agree to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Virginia? If it contained sentiments accordant to the feelings of the committee, it would of course be adopted; if not, it would doubtless be rejected.

He supposed it would form an objection to this amendment, if it were found to be inconsistent with the other parts of the report. He believed this to be the case; but he would not make objections to it on this ground. He would examine the paragraph itself, and see whether it contained sentiments in unison with those of the committee. He believed this would not be found to be the case, and that when the committee had taken a view of it, it would be rejected.

If he understood the proposition, it contained three distinct principles, viz:

1. To make a new apology for the conduct of the French Government towards this country.

2. That the House of Representatives shall interfere with and dictate to the Executive in respect to what concessions ought to be made to the French Republic.

3. It depends upon the spirit of conciliation on the part of France for an adjustment of the differences existing between the two Governments.

The apology, he said, was a new one, and one which the French had not thought of making for themselves; for they tell us, as it appears from Mr. Pinckney's letter to the Secretary of State, "they will not acknowledge or receive another Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States, until after the redress of the grievances demanded of the American Government, and which the French Republic has a right to expect from it." We say (or rather the gentleman from Virginia says in his amendment) they rejected our Minister because he had not power enough; therefore, for the apology now made for the French Government they were indebted to the ingenuity of the mover.

Now, said Mr. G., I do not wish that the House of Representatives should undertake to make apologies for the conduct of the French Government towards this. It was true they needed apology; but he did not think it was proper for us to make it for them. Further, as this apology was not made by themselves, but wholly different from their own assertions, it was not likely that they would fall into it. They say, "Permit us to sell our privateers in your ports; annul treaties and repeal laws, and then we will tell you on what terms we will receive Mr. Pinckney, and peace from you." After this declaration, he did not think it would be proper to attempt any new apology for them. He therefore supposed, that so far as this proposition offered a new apology for the French Republic, it could not meet with the approbation of the committee.

The next proposition contained in the amendment was, that the House of Representatives should interfere with the Executive power of this country, and dictate to it what sort of steps should be taken towards reconciling the French Government. He asked whether this was consonant to the principles of the constitution? Whether the constitution had not delegated the power of making treaties to other branches of the Government? He believed it had, and that therefore we had no right to dictate to the Executive what should or what should not be done with respect to present disputes with the French Government. On this ground, therefore, he considered it as improper.

In the next place, the amendment contained another proposition, viz: that we rely upon a spirit of conciliation on the part of France for an accommodation of differences. And, said Mr. G., do we really rely upon this? Have we such evidence as should incline us to rely upon it? Have the French Government expressed any inclination to settle the differences subsisting between them and us? The communications which were received from the Supreme Executive, do not bear this complexion. The communication from the French Minister to this Executive does not wear it. Our proclamations are called insidious; our Minister is insulted and rejected; and attempts are made to divide the people of this country from their Government. Is this conciliation? Does it not rather appear as if they intended to alienate the affections of the people from their Government, in order to effect their own views? He was convinced it did, and that they could not rely upon a spirit of conciliation in them. For his own part, he did not rely upon it; he relied upon this country being able to convince the world that we are not a divided people; that we will not willingly abandon our Government. When the French shall be convinced of this, they will not treat us with indignity. Therefore, he trusted, as the proposed amendment did not contain such sentiments as were likely to accord with the feelings of the committee, that it would be rejected.

Mr. Giles said the subject under discussion was a very important one. It appeared to him, from various documents, that all the steps taken by the Executive had a view to an eventual appeal to arms, which it was his wish (as it was the wish of many in that House) to avoid. It was proper, therefore, that the clashing opinions should be discussed. If the proposition brought forward for this purpose was not sufficiently simple and explicit, he wished it might be made more so. For he believed the question to be, whether the committee be prepared to pass a vote, approving of the whole course of the conduct of the Executive, or whether France should be put upon the same ground with the other belligerent powers. That she is at present upon the same footing, no gentleman had attempted to show. Gentlemen who wish to get rid of this ground, say this is a thing which should be left to the Executive. He thought it was, however, a proper subject for their discussion; for whatever power the Executive had with respect to making of treaties, that House had the means of checking that power. Suppose, said Mr. G., I were on this occasion called upon to tax my land, was it not necessary I should inquire into the subject, and endeavor to avoid a measure which would probably prove a serious drain upon the blood and treasure of the country? He was unwilling to have his land taxed for the purpose of supporting a war on this principle. It was evident that the French took one ground in this dispute, and the United States another, and whilst this continued to be the case, no negotiation would have any effect. Indeed, said he, it is war; and if the measure proposed was taken, we make war if we do not declare it.

Mr. Baldwin said, he had taken the liberty to express his concern several years ago, that this custom of answering the President's Speech, which was but a mere piece of public ceremony, should call up and demand expressions of opinion on all the important business of the session, while the members were yet standing with their hats in their hands, in the attitude of receiving the communications, and had not yet read or opened the papers which were the ground of their being called together. It applied very strongly in this instance, as this was a new Congress, and a greater proportion than common of new members; he thought it an unfavorable attitude in which to be hurried into the very midst of things, and to anticipate business of such vast importance to the country, before they had time to attend to the information which had been submitted to them. He trusted some fit occasion would before long be found to disencumber themselves of a ceremony, new in this country, which tended only to evil and to increasing embarrassments. He observed that it was under the influence of these impressions, he had made it a rule to himself, for many sessions, to vote for those amendments and those propositions in the Address which were most delphic and ambiguous, and while they were respectful to the President, left the House unpledged and open to take up the business of the session as it presented itself in its ordinary course. It was on this ground he should vote for the amendment now under consideration.

Mr. Rutledge said, when the report of the committee should be before them, he should have some remarks to make upon it; but at present he should offer only a few observations upon the proposed amendment.

He said he had strong objections to the amendment; but one so strong that he need not urge any other: it was, that in agreeing to it they should dictate to the Executive, which he believed would be infringing upon the Executive power. As it was his peculiar duty to give instructions to Ministers, it would be improper in them to say what should be the instructions given to a Minister; but if it were not so, he should not vote for those of the gentleman from Virginia.

In the instructions of a Minister, it was usual to comprise a variety of propositions. Certain things were first to be proposed; if these could not be obtained, he was instructed to come forward with something else, and if this could not be got, he went on to his ultimatum. But, if the proposition of the gentleman from Virginia were to obtain, his instructions would be publicly known. In vain would it be for him to offer this or that, they will say the House of Representatives has directed you what to do, and we will not agree to any thing else. This would be contrary to all diplomatic proceedings; for that reason he should be opposed to the House saying what should be his instructions. Indeed, if it were usual, he should be against it in this instance, as he believed it would encourage an extravagant demand. What, said he, have they said to our Minister—or rather to the person who was formerly our Minister, but who then had no power? They told him to go away; they had nothing to say to him: they would receive no more Ministers from the United States until their grievances were redressed. This country is charged with countenancing an inequality of treaties. The French have said, redress our grievances in a certain way. But, said Mr. R., if we do this, we shall put ourselves under the dominion of a foreign power, and shall have to ask a foreign country what we shall do. This was a situation into which we must not fall without a struggle.

Mr. Sitgreaves said, though he had wished to have taken a little more time before he had troubled the committee with his observations; yet, as there now appeared an interval, he should take the opportunity of occupying it for a few minutes.

He should not answer the observations of the gentleman from Georgia, with respect to the style of the Answer reported; but he believed that those gentlemen who would look at it without a perverted vision, would not discover the faults in it which that gentleman had discovered. He thought it rather remarkable for the simplicity of its style than for a redundancy of epithet. He discovered more of the latter in the amendment than in the original report. It was true that the superlative was used in different places, but he thought it was used where it ought to be. He would not, however, detain the committee with matter so immaterial, but would proceed to what appeared to him of some consequence.

A stranger who had come into the House during this debate, and heard what had fallen from the mover of the proposed amendment, and from members who had followed him, would have supposed, that instead of an act of ordinary course being under discussion, they had been debating the question of a declaration of war against France.

He would declare, for himself at least, on the subject of war, that he agreed in certain of the sentiments of gentlemen on the other side of the House. A state of war was certainly a curse to any nation; to America it would be peculiarly a curse. It ought to be avoided by all possible means. It was not only impolitic, but madness, to run into war. But he thought there were two sides of the subject. He thought that peace was the greatest of all possible blessings; but he also thought that peace might be purchased too dearly, and war avoided at too great an expense. He thought peace might cost a greater value than money—our independence. This was no new sentiment in this country. It was thought that peace might be bought too dearly in the Revolutionary war; they then thought it better to be at war than to submit to the alternative evils. France also shows that she prefers a state of war—a war carried on at an unexampled expense of blood and treasure—to a state of peace with despotism. He thought, therefore, that we should hold a language of a firm and manly tone. To preserve peace by all honorable means, but not by dishonorable means. As he observed last session, on a similar occasion, we should cultivate peace with zeal and sincerity; but whenever our intention of doing so was publicly expressed, it ought to be accompanied with an opposite assertion of a determination, if our endeavors to maintain peace fail, that then every resource of the nation shall be called into existence in support of all that is dear to us. Such a declaration, at this time, was extremely proper. At present, he said, all the observations which had been made relative to war, were very premature. They might be brought into consideration, when any measure should be discussed which might lead to a war with France. Then would be the time to count the cost and the benefit. At present, he conceived, our only object was, to inquire what were the feelings which the conduct of France had created in our minds, and whether we were prepared to express those feelings.

Shall we, said he, from a fear of irritating the French Republic, in a communication with our own Executive, suppress our feelings, or what is worse, suppress the truth? For his own part, he saw nothing in the present business but an expression of feelings naturally excited by the occasion; nothing but a declaration of facts. This being the case, the question was, whether, from fear of irritating the French Government, they should suppress these feelings.

It would be well to consider what would be the consequence of this condescension. He did not think they were warranted in believing that they should put France in a better humor with us by this means. He was sure that gentlemen who were in the last Congress would recollect that the Answer to the Address was reported in very mild terms, from a spirit of accommodation in the committee who formed it, and that it was afterwards pruned in the House with care, yet there had been no amelioration of the disposition of the French towards this country. Instead of inducing them to behave better to us, had it not been with a knowledge of this that they have offered us fresh insult and indignity? Indeed, Mr. Pinckney suggests an idea that this moderation of ours may have been one of the operating causes of sending our Minister from their country. Besides, gentlemen have not pointed out the particular expressions which they consider as irritating in the report. For his own part, he thought the amendment might be considered as more irritating than the draft of the committee. What was the language of the amendment? [He read it.] He gave it as his opinion, that there was more of war and bullying in it than in the original report. It was true the threat it contained was accompanied by an if. Now, all the difference between the draft and the amendment was, that in the former, instead of using the if, they had at once expressed indignation at the insults offered to this country by the French Republic, and given assurances to the Executive that they would repel indignity with indignation.

But, said he, let us, on this occasion, confine ourselves to the real question now before us. We have been informed, said he, by the President, in his Speech to both Houses, of the conduct of the French towards this Government, and have since received the documents upon which this report was founded. He had not yet heard any gentleman justify the conduct of the French. He had heard, indeed, some attempts to palliate or apologize for it, but none to vindicate it. His ideas of these things were, that the French had not only injured us, but added insult to injury; and while he retained this belief, he could not help feeling indignation and resentment. The question before the House was not, Will we resent it? Our actions, better than our words, show our desires for peace. It was a desire in which we were too much interested, to be doubted; yet it was proper that this desire should be accompanied with expressions of our feelings on the occasion. What objections could there be to this? If we were sunk so low, if our fears of the French Republic are so great, that we dare not express what we feel, our situation was become really deplorable. He hoped this was not, nor ever would be the case. He hoped we should cultivate peace with sincerity, but with firmness. For if the French Republic is so terrible to us, that we must crouch and sink before her; if we hold our rights at her nod, let gentlemen say so. And if we are to give up ourselves to her, let it be an act of the Government; do not let us conceal under the appearance of spirit, actual submission. Nations, it was true, might be brought into such a situation as to be obliged to surrender some of their rights to other nations; but when this is done, it should be done with some degree of character. Let it not be done as a confession of guilt. Let us, said he, however, surrender any thing, sooner than the fair fame of our country. He was not a military man, nor did he know how he should act upon such an occasion; but he knew what we ought to do. We ought, rather than submit to such indignity, to die in the last ditch. Why insinuate that the Government had been wrong? was it not enough to submit to injury; shall we not only receive the stripes, but kiss the rod that inflicts them?

Mr. Otis observed, that he was so little accustomed to the mode of conducting a debate in that honorable House, that he hardly knew in what manner to apply his remarks to the subject before the committee. A specific motion had been laid on the table by the gentleman from Virginia, which reduced the true question before them to a narrow compass; but the mover, in discussing his own proposition, had enlarged upon subjects dear to his mind, and familiar to his recollection. In this circuit he had been ably followed by the gentleman from South Carolina, and others; so that the whole subject of the Address to the President, and the reply of the committee, was brought into view, with many considerations that did not belong to it. It was his design to have remained silent until the subject had been exhausted by other gentlemen, and if any remark of an important nature had been omitted, which was not likely to have been the case, he would have suggested such ideas as might have presented themselves to his mind; but a motion having been made for the committee to rise, he would then offer a few observations, not so much for the sake of illustrating the question, which had been done most successfully, but in order to declare his sentiments upon this important occasion. He so far agreed with the gentleman from Georgia, that he believed, upon ordinary occasions, an Answer to the President's Address should be calculated to preserve an harmonious intercourse between the different departments of Government, rather than to pledge either branch of the Legislature, collaterally, upon subjects that would come regularly under their consideration. But the present was not an ordinary occasion, and the situation of the country required that the Answer should not be a spiritless expression of civility, but a new edition of the Declaration of Independence. He expressed his regret that upon this question gentlemen should have wandered into a review of measures and subjects, so frequently examined, so deliberately settled, and which had a tendency to rekindle party animosity. If they would never acquiesce in the deliberate acts of the Government, because their personal sentiments had been adverse to them in the season of their discussion, there could be no end to controversy. For his part he conceived that all party distinctions ought now to cease; and that the House was now called by a warning voice, to destroy the idea of a geographical division of sentiment and interest existing among the people. His constituents and himself were disposed to regard the inhabitants of the Southern States as brothers, whose features were cast in the same mould, and who had waded through the same troubled waters to the shore of liberty and independence. He hoped that gentlemen would, in their turn, think the other part of the Union entitled to some consideration.

The Address of the President disclosed, for the contemplation of the committee, a narrative of facts, and of the existing causes of controversy between the French Republic and ourselves; the overtures for reconciliation, which were to be repeated by attempts to negotiate, and the measures of defence that might be proper, in case negotiation should fail. The injuries sustained by us were of a high and atrocious nature, consisting in the capture of our vessels, depredations upon the property and persons of our citizens, the indignity offered to our Minister; but what was more aggravating than the rest, was, the professed determination not to receive our Minister until the complaints of the French should be redressed, without explanation and without exception—until we should violate treaties, repeal laws, and do what the constitution would not authorize, vacate solemn judgments of our courts of law. These injuries should not be concealed. He did not wish, however, to indulge in unnecessary expressions of indignation, but to state in plain and unequivocal terms the remonstrances of injured friendship. If any man doubted of the pernicious effects of the measures of the French nation, and of the actual state of our commerce, let him inquire of the ruined and unfortunate merchant, harassed with persecutions on account of the revenue, which he so long and patiently toiled to support. If any doubted of its effects upon agriculture, let him inquire of the farmer whose produce is falling and will be exposed to perish in his barns. Where, said he, are your sailors? Listen to the passing gale of the ocean, and you will hear their groans issuing from French prison-ships. Such were the injuries, and such the requisitions of the French nation; and he defied the ingenuity of any gentleman to draw a comparison between the Directory and the British Parliament, in favor of the former; and insisted that the demands of Charles Delacroix were upon a parallel with those of Lord North. He enlarged upon the analogy of the circumstances attending the pretensions of the British Government to bind us, when we were colonies, and of the French to subjugate us, now we are free and independent States. He thought it expedient to cultivate the same spirit of union, and to use the same firm and decided language. He regretted that questions should be agitated upon this occasion, which had been formerly the cause of party spirit and dissensions; and did not believe that the immortal men who framed the noted instrument which dissolved the charm of allegiance and shivered the fetters of tyranny, condescended to differ about verbal criticisms and nice expressions, through fear of giving offence; nor that it was incumbent upon the members of the committee to repress the assertion of their rights, or smother a just and dignified expression of their susceptibility of insult, because the French had been once our friends, or because the commencement of their revolution was a struggle for liberty. There was a time when he was animated with enthusiasm in favor of the French Revolution, and he cherished it, while civil liberty appeared to be the object; but he now considered that Revolution as completely achieved, and that the war was continued, not for liberty, but for conquest and aggrandizement, to which he did not believe it the interest of this country to contribute.

Wednesday, May 24.

William Smith, from Pinckney district, South Carolina; Samuel Smith, from Maryland; John Allen, from Connecticut; and William Findlay, from Pennsylvania, appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats.

Answer to President's Speech.

The House again went into Committee of the Whole on the Answer to the President's Speech, and Mr. Nicholas' amendment being under consideration,

Mr. Swanwick opened the debate. He lamented the loss of time which was generally experienced at the opening of every session in debating the Answer to the Speech of the President, when, perhaps, business of the first moment called for immediate attention. It was much to be wished that committees appointed for this purpose would confine themselves to the instructions which were given to them on the occasion, which were in general terms, viz: "to prepare a respectful Address, assuring the President that the House will take into their serious consideration the various important matters recommended to their attention." If Answers were drawn in general terms, conformably to these instructions, he thought very many of the embarrassments which they now experienced would be avoided, and every member would be left at liberty to pursue such measures as appeared to them right, when they came before him in the ordinary course of business unclogged by any creed which he might have been called to assent to before he had an opportunity of considering the subjects it contained. It also often occasioned much warmth in debate, and served to divide the House into two parties on the very threshold of their business. This could not possibly have any good effect, but the contrary; he should therefore be happy to see the practice simplified or abolished altogether.

The effect at present has been, that no sooner had the committee appointed to draft an Address made a report, than the gentleman from Virginia proposed a substitute, which, according to his idea, was more proper. A warm debate had taken place, and he believed that either might be adopted without effect, as they were merely a form of words leading to no conclusion. Suppose a majority of one was obtained on the report, what end would be produced? None; for it might be that the very persons who voted on this general question, might vote against particular subjects when they came under consideration; as every one would recollect the difficulties which had been experienced in getting three frigates built, and this difficulty, he doubted not, would again occur. Since, however, these two forms of an Answer were before them, and they were called upon to say which they would adopt, it might be proper to go into some consideration of the subject.

The difference between the two productions seemed to be, that the one reported seemed to express great indignity on account of the injuries received from the French Republic, and a determination to repel them; that produced by the gentleman from Virginia was of a more conciliatory tone, recommending to the President to begin his negotiations with placing the French Republic on the same ground with the other belligerent powers; so that the difference was simply as it respected a few words.

What were the arguments in favor of the warm tone? They were told it would have a great effect on the French Republic, because if a spirited Answer were given to the President's communication, signifying (as his colleague Mr. Sitgreaves had strongly expressed it) that we were determined to die in the last ditch, it would strike them with terror. If he thought this effect could be really produced, it might be some inducement for him to agree to it.

Mr. S. remarked, that they were told by Mr. Pinckney, in his letter to the Secretary of State, that it was probable that two events had contributed to his dismissal from the French Republic, viz: one, the victories of Bonaparte in Italy, the other, the Addresses of the Senate and House of Representatives in answer to the Speech of the President at the last session. With respect to the Answers alluded to, no opinion could be formed from this assertion, because, though that of the House of Representatives was tolerably moderate, yet that of the Senate was as warm as any thing could be produced. He read extracts from both, and compared them with each other, giving the credit which, in his opinion, was due to the most moderate.

The first and most necessary step to be taken was, to put all the belligerent powers upon the same footing, which could not be an offence to any. But it was said that to recommend this measure to the Executive, was to dictate to him; that it was carrying humility on the front of the Minister who should be employed. What! said Mr. S., would it be to carry humility in his front to say, "I come to place you on the same footing with the most favored nation?" It certainly could not; since it was the language of right reason, of justice.

As to dictating to the Executive, could it be called dictating when we merely express our opinion and advice to him, on points which he has himself laid before us; and, in order to deliberate on which we were thus unusually called together? Very low and debasing, indeed, must be the situation of this House, if they were to be muzzled and prevented from laying their sentiments before the Chief Magistrate of the Union! When treaties are made, we are told they are laws over which we have no power. If we dare not speak on the subject before they are made, is this House reduced merely to the odious task of laying taxes, without being allowed to exercise its sense on any other public measures connected with them? Why does the President communicate these things to us, if we are not allowed to express any sentiments about them? Why do the people elect their representatives all over this widely extended empire, if, when they are convened, they are not allowed the privilege of expressing their opinions on the dearest interests of their constituents? But it is stated that this will create division among the branches of the Government, who ought always to act and think alike. Were this the case, there was no use to divide the Government, as our constitution does, into three branches; they might all have been left in one, and then no accident of this kind would have happened; but the fact is, this very division of the branches was devised in order that they might operate as checks on each other. The people thought it better that a division of this kind should prevent acting at all, than that we should act hastily and unadvisedly. Thus when a law, after mature deliberation, passes this House as wise and good, the Senate were not obliged on this account to see it in the same light; they judge for themselves, and, if they see cause, reject it, and no complaint takes place on our part because they do so. In another Government, indeed that of England, all the branches have been contrived into the most perfect union, Kings, Lords, and Commons, all agree, but has the Government been the better for this? Happy had it been for that nation, had this not been the case. Many an unwise measure they have gone into, might then, fortunately for the nation, have been totally prevented.