lieved some of his public acts of late rendered the present motion necessary. Mr. W. SMITH opposed the amendment, as he thought the gentleman who proposed it conceived the words to imply more than was meant by them they are not meant to include every act of the Executive. He thought that the Administration in general had been wise, firm, and patriotic; that the wisdom and firmness of the PRESIDENT had been conducive to the success of the present form of Government. Had not the words been put in the reported Address, he thought it would not have been of consequence whether they were ever inserted; but the difference is very great. Now they are inserted they are made public, and, to erase them now, and substitute words in any manner deficient in sentiment to them, would be to carry censure and not respect. That the Administration of that valuable man had been wise and conducive to the good of this country, will not admit of a doubt; and for us to rob him of that honor which is his due, would be insult. And any thing short of the words in the Address he thought would not carry a proper mark of respect. Mr. GILES observed, that he thought the Administration had been very deficient in wisdom. Many gentlemen, he said, were very particularly opposed to the British Treaty and to the great emission of transferable paper. Could it then be supposed these gentlemen could, in this instance, so change their opinion? The gentleman last up had said, that because the words were in the reported Address they ought not to be struck out. He thought that the House had now as much power to act as though the committee had made no report. He thought they ought not in any way to be influenced by the report of the select committee, but act as though they had to form the Address themselves. He believed that the PRESIDENT possessed both wisdom and firmness. He was willing to compliment the PRESIDENT as much as possible in his personal character, but he could not think it applicable to his Administration. He thought the amendment proposed would meet his concurrence, and he hoped it would be agreed to. Mr. GILBERT hoped and presumed that the motion of his colleague would not obtain. He understood that the House addressed the PRESIDENT in answer to his Speech, always as a public man, and not in his private capacity. How extraordinary, then, will it appear in this House to refer only to his private conduct! It is, in substance, complimenting him as a private man, while the very words reprobate him in his public station. We are now to address him as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. We may tell him of his wisdom and his firmness, but what of all that unless we connect it with his Administration? Mr. CRAIK said, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. GILES] seemed to think the matter very immaterial whether the discussion on this Address took place in a Committee of the Whole or in a select committee. In his view it was an object of the first magnitude, however gentlemen may [DECEMBER, 1796. think proper to declare on it in point of form. It was now made public, and it would have considerable effect on the people at large. This report, and all the discussion on it, will be published in the papers. Much has been said in this debate against the Chief Magistrate. The principal reason urged for striking out the expressions in question, was grounded on the opinion that some of the PRESIDENT's administration had not been wise or firm. Some object to them on the ground of the British Treaty, some on account of the emissions of transferable paper. If the amendments proposed are adopted, it will readily be taken that the PRESIDENT'S conduct has not been wise, firm, nor patriotic; for if we take it from his public character, it will be to very little purpose to give it him in his private, as we address him as a public man. He thought he had displayed in his public as well as private character wisdom, firmness, and patriotism. And were there, he asked, a majority in that House who would agree to a tacit reflection on the PRESIDENT'S Administration, while they were willing to compliment him as a private character? It was justly observed, by the gentleman last up, that the form of the motion would rob him of his good name as a public officer. Mr. C. said, he sincerely felt, as he hoped a great majority in that House felt, a sincere sense of gratitude due to that character, and a desire to express his unequivocal opinion of approbation and respect for the PRESIDENT's wise, firm, and patriotic Administration. Mr. ISAAC SMITH.-The sin of ingratitude is worse than the sin of witchcraft; and we shall damn ourselves to everlasting fame if we withhold the mighty tribute due to the excellent man whom we pretend to address. Posterity, throughout all future generations, will cry out shame on us. Our sons will blush that their fathers were his foes. If excess were possible on this occasion, it would be a glorious fault, and worth a dozen of little. sneaking, frigid virtues. I abhor a grudging bankrupt payment, where the debtor is much more benefited than the creditor. The gentleman from Virginia misrepresents his own constituents-I am sure he does all the rest of the Union. On the present occasion we ought not to consult our own little feelings and sensibilities. We should speak with the heart and in the voice of millions, and then we should speak warm and loud. What! "Damn with faint praise ;" and suppress or freeze the warm, energetic, grateful sensations of almost every honest heart_from Maine to Tennessee! I will not do it! Every line shall burn! This is a left-handed way of adoring the people. Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) said, the motion then before them was of great importance, and every man who thought favorably of the PRESIDENT's Administration should there make a stand. For, if the words were struck out, it would convey an idea to the world that it was the opinion of that House that the Administration of the PRESIDENT had neither been wise nor patriotic. Gentlemen might very well concur in the Ad dress in its present form, who did not think that every single act of the PRESIDENT had been wise and firm, since it was his Administration in general which was referred to, and not each individual act. He hoped, therefore, the amendment offered would be decidedly opposed, and that the words proposed to be struck out would be retained. Mr. PAGE thought that Mr. LIVINGSTON'S amendment properly confined the compliment to the PRESIDENT. Without it that compliment would be extended to all those that had any share in the administration of the Government of the United States. Senators, Representatives, and Heads of Departments must share it with him. Mr. P. was willing to give credit to the PRESIDENT for his wisdom, firmness, and patriotism, of which he had seen sufficient proofs in the course of his Administration; but he conceived that, after what had been said, with too much warmth on both sides, that there was no propriety in using expressions in the Address which can possibly convey an idea that the House meant to compliment the wisdom, firmness, and patriotism of any other man. Mr. P. looked upon the amendment as conciliatory, and as conveying the true meaning of the Committee of the Whole. He was not willing to censure the PRESIDENT for following advice which he had thought constitutionally binding on him. He was as much unwilling to give others credit for his virtues. [H. OF R. dress, and we do not speak our opposition to it, it This was his opinion at that time, and he never had changed it, nor should he ever change it until he saw reason so to do. Now, sir, said Mr. L., am I to tell the world that I approve the measures of that man while I declare these opinions? Such an assent would prove my instability and weakness. I am willing to acknowledge that I believe the PRESIDENT possessed of as much wisdom, firmness, and patriotism as any man, but cannot believe it has dictated his Administration. I believe he has been very serviceable to the formation and support of the present form of Government. If the adulation were to be stretched further than this acknowledgment it would become bombast. How gentlemen who had disapproved of many of the former measures of the Executive could now vote for their general approbation he was at a loss to account. He did not, like many members, think it immaterial whether the words were used or not. He thought if the original passed it would prove many of their former acts were wrong. Is any gentleman convinced he was wrong in opposing these measures? If so, let him say so, let him manifest it; but, if he was then right, he must now be wrong if found approving the conduct of the Government. Every day proves that these measures were unwise; and, with this evidence, he should vote for the Mr. HEATH said, gentlemen seemed to have various opinions and to entertain very different ideas about the manner this Address would apply to the PRESIDENT. It appeared to him that the manner in which the Address now stood could not possibly involve any difficulty. He did not see the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. LIVINGSTON] would any way answer the purpose of the Address; it would not be attended with sufficient force to convey the respect necessary on the present occasion-applying only to the private character. The wording, he said, would not appear well according to the amendment. After the words, "present form of Gov-amendment. ernment," the words would be altered to refer entirely to the public character of the PRESIDENT. He liked the phraseology of the Address as reported much better than the amendments, and he hoped they would remain without alteration. Mr. GALLATIN thought the words objected to were conceived to mean more than they really did mean by gentlemen who supported the present motion; nor could he conceive how the words "firmness and patriotism," proposed to be Mr. W. LYMAN did not think it so unimportant as inserted, could apply to any thing but the public some gentlemen who had spoken on the subject, character of the PRESIDENT. On the first view of whether the words be introduced or not. As the the Address, Mr. G. said, he thought with the words related to an applause of the Government, gentlemen from New York and Virginia, and it he should vote for the amendment. It was desir- was not without considerable hesitation that he able, he said, to keep out of view, as far as possi- brought himself to agree to this part of the Adble, any difference of opinion on such subjects; dress. He found, however, on further examinabut, since it was brought into view and discussed, tion, that they did not go so far as he at first he should, with other members, speak his opinion. thought they did. Had they approved of every He never should abandon his sentiments till he measure of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, was convinced they were wrong. If we insert he should have voted against them. But, in the the original words in the Address it will be giving first place, he would observe, that his Adminisour general approbation to the public conduct of tration did not include Legislative acts; so that the PRESIDENT, while it makes impression on the whatever evils had arisen from the funding or minds of the people that the opinions of many of banking systems were not to be charged to the us who have disapproved of adopted measures PRESIDENT. They did not mean to pay compliare changed. If this clause goes into the Ad-ments to themselves but to the PRESIDENT: there fore, the words in question related only to the Administration of the PRESIDENT alone, and not to those officers of State which had been supposed by some gentlemen. The first question was, then, whether that Administration had been marked with wisdom, firmness, and patriotism? And, he would briefly say, so far as related to the internal situation of the country, it had borne these marks. He did not recollect any instance where he could say here was any want of wisdom, or there of firmness or patriotism. If they proceeded to foreign affairs, a great number of members were found (he for one) who wished that certain acts had not taken place; and, if he thought, in giving approbation to this Address, he was approving of these measures, he would certainly vote against it. But, as the gentlemen from South Carolina and New Jersey [Mr. SMITH and the SPEAKER] had observed, as the approbation went to the Administration in toto, it had respect to no particular act. Nor did he believe the literal sense of the words would apply to the business of the late Treaty. [He read the words.] The most clear meaning of these words related to the present Government and Constitution; and the word "success" could apply to those parts of Administration only which had had time to be matured. He did not believe that at the present period it could be said that the Treaty with Great Britain had been successful, and, therefore, could not be included within the meaning of the expression. Not meaning to pledge an approbation of that act, and not conceiving that the sentence could have such a meaning, he would vote against the proposed amendment, and for the original. The question was put on the amendment and negatived. The Committee then rose, reported the Address with the amendments, when the House took them up, and having gone through them Mr. SITGREAVES wished to know at what time it would be in order to move an amendment in the fourth paragraph of the Address. On being informed by the SPEAKER that he might do it as soon as the report of the Committee of the Whole should be gone through with, Mr. SITGREAVES then observed that some gentlemen had thought that the Address as reported by the select committee had not sufficiently expressed our earnest desire to preserve peace and restore the harmony which had heretofore subsisted between America and France; and an amendment had accordingly been proposed yesterday to give additional emphasis to this sentiment. As no gentleman on the floor could estimate more highly than he did the blessings of peace, or more sincerely wish for its preservation, he felt no disposition to object to an expression of this sentiment in language the strongest that could be devised; and therefore he had acquiesced in the amendment which had been proposed, although he thought the Address was well enough before. But, he said, there was another sentiment of at least equal importance, which ought on all occasions to be the inseparable companion of the other, and which ought always to be as unequivocally and as emphatically expressed, to wit: the determination to respect our own [DECEMBER, 1796. rights, and to maintain our own character, in case the restoration of harmony between the two countries should, from any untoward circumstances, be rendered impracticable, without a sacrifice of the one or a violation of the other. These two sentiments, he contended, should, on no possible occasion of difference among nations, be disunited; they should always appear side by side, and have equal height and equal breadth. And since an amendment had prevailed to give additional size to one of them, he made the present motion with a view to restore the equilibrium. He presumed it would not meet with any opposition, because the sentiment was right and just in the abstract, and because the expression of it was proper to give aid and countenance to the Executive in any existing negotiations. But, if gentlemen would recur to what had been advanced by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. GILES,] who had moved the other amendment, the propriety of the present one would strike them with irresistible conviction. That member, who professed to speak with a competent knowledge of the subject, and from sources on which he could place perfect reliance, had declared that whatever ignorance might be affected by us, or whatever ostensible grounds might be assigned, the whole dissatisfaction of the French Republic might be resolved into a resentment at the Treaty lately concluded with, Great Britain; and that for this reason they have violated the positive stipulations of our Treaty with themhave ordered their cruisers to make depredations on our commerce, and have suspended the amicable functions of their Minister here. Mr. S. next adverted to what is said by Mr. Adet, who, in his note to the Secretary of State, declares that these evidences of a well-founded dissatisfaction "are to last until the Executive of the United States returns to sentiments and measures more conformable to the interests and friendship of the two nations." On this combined view of the subject, if the statement made by the gentleman from Virginia was correct as to their discontents, and if the menaces of the Minister were to be relied on as to their continuance, Mr. S. said he was apprehensive the negotiations could not end amicably. On such terms, he was very free to confess that he did not wish they should end amicably. If peace and friendship with the nation of France was only to be preserved by an abandonment of a compact recently made with another nation, by a sacrifice of our independency and free agency, he did not wish on such terms to preserve peace with them. He could never consent to deliver up our honor and our rights to any nation on earth; and on such a condition he did not think the friendship of any country was worth the purchase. He thought it of importance to discountenance any expectation that such an abandonment of our national rights and dignity could be at all suffered, and that we should speak on the occasion a language equally distant from defiance and submission, but which could not be misconceived or misunderstood. He observed, further, that the French Minister had affected to draw a line between our Government and our people, and to insinuate that the acts DECEMBER, 1796.] Address to the President. [H. OF R. of the one were not in unison with the feelings no doubt but the PRESIDENT would conduct himand wishes of the other. Such a mistake ought, self so as to settle matters amicably with that Reby all possible means, to be corrected; and it public; but he should think himself unpardonable behooved us to declare, beyond the hazard of mis- to pledge himself to anything he did not know. construction, that whatever differences of opinion He thought their proceeding very extraordinary. might have prevailed among ourselves with respect He however thought a rule of this House would to any measures of the Administration, we should afford a remedy, which was, by calling for the nevertheless all unite in one sentiment of self-previous question. He therefore moved the prerespect, and of inviolable determination to resist vious question. aggressions and insults from abroad. We owed it to ourselves and our country to accompany our sincere desire for peace and harmony with the unequivocal assertion of regard to our national dignity and independence. He moved, therefore, to strike out the words from "while" to "countrymen," and to insert at the end of the paragraph the following: "At the same time we assure ourselves that your just confidence in the fortitude, self-respect, and patriotism of our citizens will not in any event be disappointed, and that they will on no occasion forget what is due to the character and dignity of our Government and country.” Mr. S. said, before he laid the amendment on the table, he would just observe that the Address as reported by the select committee had been, as was stated by the Chairman, [Mr. AMES,] the result of accommodation and compromise in the committee; and if the draught had been acquiesced in by others, he would not have desired to disturbit. It would have been more agreeable to him, however, if something like the amendment had been adopted there; and now, that additional force had been infused into the expression of one sentiment, he conceived he was every way justifiable in attempting to express the alternative with equal emphasis. Mr. NICHOLAS said, he took it for granted the gentleman just sat down understood the meaning of his own motion better than he did. He had stated that we would aid the Executive in any negotiations he may undertake. He was not willing to do this. He had avoided saying anything in the course of the debate on the present dispute between this country and France. He was even silent when he heard insinuated that the misunderstanding between the two countries was fomented by American citizens in Paris. He had meant, indeed, at some future time, to have asked the gentleman who made the assertion, for the ground of his information, as he doubtless knew the circum- | stance of which he spoke so confidently to be on a good foundation. He had avoided speaking on that subject, because it was not right to enter into things in that state concerning a nation with whom we were about to be involved. He thought the expression singular and imprudent. He considered the dispute with France as not yet ripe for discussion. The PRESIDENT has told us he reserved this subject for a future communication. He said he had very little information on the subjeet himself; he had not yet even read the French Minister's note, having been but few days in the city. He said he was charged by his constituents to do what was right; and was he to pledge himself to support what the Executive should do? He had Mr. HARTLEY said he feared the House was exposing these things too much, as it would find its way into every newspaper. He thought the House not called upon to enter into it so far as the motion of his colleague went. Great care, he said, should be taken in entering into business of this kind, in its unripe state. Probably the PRESIDENT was now adjusting the matter amicably; and particularly at this time we ought not to take any steps that have the least appearance to invite contention with that nation, or any one upon earth. This subject is not before the House now. He wished as much as that gentleman for information on the subject; but as information was not sufficiently before the House, he should think it more wise to be satisfied till it came in its proper course. He therefore hoped the gentleman would not force his motion upon the House, but withdraw it. When there seemed to be a disposition in this House to be unanimous, he hoped it would not be disturbed by such a motion. They had a delicate part to act, and he hoped they should not do any action for which they would have reason to blame themselves hereafter. This nation, he said, had difficulty enough to keep out of broils. The world were now armed at all points, and we are not. If war was declared against France, he hoped it would be done unanimously. On the motion of a member, the clause was read as amended. Mr. BAILEY called for the yeas and nays, and, on division, 25 members appeared in the affirmative. Mr. SITGREAVES was very sorry that his motion should cause anything like alarm in the mind of his colleague, and was still more at a loss to conceive on what it could be founded. The amendment which he had proposed did not convey the most distant implication of hostility; yet his colleague seemed to think so, when he talked of a declaration of war. Mr. S. had taken pains to express, very unequivocally, his earnest desire that peace and harmony should be preserved, if possible, consistently with our national honor-and could not help wondering at his having been so much misconceived. His colleague had said they should wait for information. Mr. S. did not know what information was wanted, or could be necessary, before the adoption of his amendment: it was not of a nature to require any. The PRESIDENT had stated that circumstances of a disagreeable complexion had occurred in our relations with the French Republic. He had expressed his regret at these differences, and his desire to cultivate peace and a good understanding; but he states further, that in doing this, he shall not forget what is due H. OF R.] Address to the President. [DECEMBER, 1796. be muzzled, and prevented from speaking their sentiments: he certainly should speak his, while in order. The SPEAKER insisted upon the member confining himself to the point of order. Mr. SMITH said he now rose to express himself on the propriety of adopting the amendment, and against the previous question. Some gentlemen say that the resolution had better not be entered into now. He differed from them in that; he thought if any declaration at all was made, it ought to be now. His reasons were, because we are now answering the PRESIDENT'S Speech; and the circumstances which have lately occurred seem to to the character of our Government and nation. These sentiments, which ought eternally to be combined, the PRESIDENT had not separated: why then should they be separated by the House? The amendment proposed to go no further than the PRESIDENT had done; it repeated his language, and contained nothing more than an assurance of that support which the Executive was entitled to receive from the Representatives of the people. It contained not a single expression that could justly be deemed irritating or offensive to the French or any other nation; and any idea of that kind must arise out of the gentleman's own feelings, and not from anything in Mr. S.'s proposition. He was so perfectly satisfied with the expediency of hold-call for such a declaration; and because, in withing a language at once moderate and firm on this occasion, that he could not consent to withdraw the amendment; and was glad that the yeas and nays were called, which he should have done himself, if it had not been done by others. He was solemnly impressed that the sentiment could not be disavowed without a sacrifice of national honor, and that the circumstances of the times demanded the declaration of it. In reply to the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. NICHOLAS,] he said that the amendment could not be considered, but by a most distorted construction, to pledge the House to the support of any specific measures, or of all the measures which might eventually be adopted by the Executive; it pledged them only to such a conduct as circumstances might render proper for a preservation of our character and independence as a nation; and this pledge, he hoped, would never be abandoned or forgotten. holding it, we run great risks, inasmuch as we hold out a new idea to the French Government that we are so alarmed by the note of their Minister as to throw ourselves on the justice and moderation of the Republic. He thought there was much need to assert our national dignity, and prove that we do not throw ourselves on the mercy of that nation. Gentlemen have said they have no information on the subject: they surely could not be unacquainted with the appeal of the French Minister to the people of the United States. He thought it was just for the members of that House to speak on the subject. In that Minister's representation to the people, he has said that his nation is offended with ours, and that they will continue so until our Government returns to itself by a change of its conduct. This is the very time, Mr. S. said, for those gentlemen who were convinced that our Government has acted in its proper character-that we have not been changed by any act or Mr. CLAIBORNE hoped the question on the threat of the French-this is the proper time for amendment would not be taken at all. Will this, them to come forward and express the full relihe asked, be a paper fit to put into the hands of ance the Executive may have in the co-operation our negotiator, in this time of danger, to authorize and support of this House. Surely there was no him to say to the French nation, If you will not threat in this: the threat does not come from us, be satisfied with our conduct, we are not disposed it comes from that Republic. The PRESIDENT to accede to any other terms? That gentleman's informs us that he has done all he could towards motion, he said, surely carried an extremely hos- an amicable settlement of the business, but that, tile aspect: he thought such language would have notwithstanding all, they persisted in their coma bad effect. We ought not to pretend to nego-plaints. However, he says he shall go on to pursue tiate with a sword in our hand. Men did not like those measures which may tend to produce harto negotiate with a dagger at their breast. He mony; at the same time he shall not forget what hoped no question would be taken on words that is due to our nation. He closes the subject of the must tend to hostility, but that we should take communication with the French with that sentievery means towards the preservation of peace with ment. And can we avoid expressing our wish that the French Republic. he would do so: at the same time, declaring that he may place a firm reliance in our willingness to support his endeavors? The French Minister is offended on account of the Treaty we have made with Great Britain: he considers that we have violated our neutrality. If he pursues this idea, we must be involved with one or the other of those nations; and while we are in this dilemma, at such a serious period as this, will gentlemen say that it will be improper for us to declare to the PRESIDENT that we will pursue and support the measures of Government? We could do no less. Mr. S. said he thought it necessary to make these observations, in which he had kept himself as much in Mr. W..SMITH wished to know what debate order (about which we are so hampered) as poscould take place if the members' mouths were tosible. This, said he, is the proper time to make Mr. GILBERT could see nothing in the question that had the least hostile appearance-nothing that alluded to a declaration of war. He was surprised how gentlemen could so interpret the motion. He thought it would be very unbecoming in a nation to talk of negotiation without that patriotism which tends to prevent incroachments. He thought these ideas were as closely connected with a just national dignity as body and soul. He should support the motion. The SPEAKER said gentlemen went too far: the previous question was the point to which they must confine themselves. |