Page images
PDF
EPUB

*

injure the constitution? It is disgracing him, sir, to believe it. He may truly be called the saviour of his country; [applause] for if ever a nation was saved by a law, I believe, said Mr. B—~, that the EMBARGO LAW is that law. He had examined the last law he said, but he could not discern how the constitution was particularly injured by it. It destroys our rights, it is said; but, sir, there are many laws of this commonwealth which hurt our rights; 'a man may buy a barrel of rum, sir, but he can't sell it without a licence,' [loud satisfaction at this argument] therefore the rights which are injured by the last embargo act have a parallel in our own laws. This, sir, removes one of the constitutional objections to this law, and I dare say, sir, that the others are just as easily overthrown.* I contend, sir, that the first embargo law is just as unconstisutional as the last; because Mr. Giles proved in congress that the last contained no new doctrines. And if gentlemen make such violent objections now, why did they not do the same a year ago? [Loud applause.] Sir, I glory in the administration; we have now no gag law, though I begin to think we ought to have; no alien bills, no land taxes: we have to be sure a standing army; but then sir, there is no BRITISH TREATY; thank God, sir, we have got rid of that scourge. [Three cheers given at this expression.] The Federalists made that treaty, and our commerce might have been ruined by it, but, sir, Mr. Jefferson knew better; he would not make a treaty with the perfidious wretches who hold the reins of that government. And what is the consequence? Why, sir, he has irritated them, he has shewn them the American spirit; and though our commerce has been checked for a space, yet, sir, the time may come, when it will flourish more luxuriantly than ever. This is a compendious account of a speech which took up an hour and an half in delivery; but we believe we have faithfully given all the arguments which it contained. Mr. B-— concluded by hoping that the dinner resolves would be adopted. He said that many other things arose to view, but he was obliged to close his observations.

6

The chairman then put the question, and it passed unanimously. [Here the audience were in rapture, and they applauded by huzzas, clapping of hands, and throwing up of hats.] The moderator was about to adjourn the meeting, when the cry of grog, give us some grog!' was heard in every part of the room. The heads of the meeting immediately consulted, and at length determined it would be best to let the people have as much as they wanted for the sake of quietness. The landlord, therefore, soon furnished them with several buckets of Brandy Toddy,' on which they regaled themselves for upwards of an hour; and considering all circumstances it had no very ill effects. The meet

*The precise reasoning of this member in the house of representatives.

ing was dissolved in great good humour the people departed in excellent spirits; but the heads of the assembly staid to supper for the purpose of more efficient consulation.

RIGHT of SEARCH for SEAMEN in Merchant Ships.

THE claims of our government on this head, have been broached and adhered to with so much pertinacity, that they have very justly been considered the principal impediment to an adjustment of our differences with Great-Britain, and in truth as the real origin of the difficulties, under the weight of which we are now pressed to the last state of endurance. It would be natural to suppose, that amidst all our clamours for redress of the British invasions of the rights of the American flag in merchant ships, that there could not be found on their side the least whisper of any other right but that of power; and indeed Mr. Madison in his letter to Mr. Munroe, of January 5, 1804, seems to entertain this idea. He asserts unequivocally in the outset of his discussion of our rights in this particular; that nowhere will she' (GreatBritain)' find an exception to this freedom of the seas and of neutral flags, which justifies the taking away of any person, not an enemy, in military service, found on board a neutral vessel?

This broad assertion, equally destitute of truth and sincerity, we will oppose by the following instance, directly in point:

war.

'Soon after the peace of 1654, a Dutch man of war convoying a fleet of merchant ships, was met by an English man of war in the Downs. The English searched the merchantmen; and the affair was discussed by the States under two heads; the search of ships of war, and the search of merchantmen, the former question appearing to have been suggested by the latter, and the presence of the Dutch man of The result of their deliberations was a resolution, that the refusal to let merchantmen be searched could not be persisted in ;' but respecting the other point, they came to the following determination. "That, in conformity with their High Mightinesses' instructions, taken in respect to the searching of ships of war, and especially those of September 1627, Nov. 1648, and Dec. 1649, it is thought good, and resolved, that all captains and other sea-officers, that are in the service of this state, or cruising on commission, shall be anew, strictly commanded, told, and charged, that they shall not condescend to no commands of any foreigners at sea, much less obey the same; neither shall they any ways permit that they be searched; nor deliver, nor suffer to be taken out of their ships, any people or other things." *(Thurloe. II. 503.)"

* Edinburgh Review, p. 20, No. 21,

Here the Dutch, as expressly as a nation could do, have renounced the principle of the protection of the neutral flags in merchant ships. But it may be said, the decision only referred to enemies property or articles contraband of war and not to persons. This idea, however, will be removed, when we consider the whole determination of the states, for in the decision in respect to ships of war, they expressly refer to the object of the search, and affirm, nor suffer to be taken out of their ships any people or other things.' The converse of the proposition is equally true according to their own principles, that they could not persist in refusing to 'let merchant vessels be searched' for people or other things.'

LIES, MISREPRESENTATIONS, &c.

LIES.

The embargo was laid on to preserve our ships and merchandize; it was also thought by some that it might operate as a measure of coercion. It did save our property; but the evasions of the law and the Spanish revolution prevented its effects as a coercive act. Monitor.

THE falsehood contained in this quotation, results from the attempt to show that only some of the democrats viewed the embargo as a coercive measure. Now it is well remembered, that generally throughout the country and in congress, the friends of the administration have declared it to be such. Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Giles, Mr. Nicholas, and we believe every democratick paper throughout the United States have maintained the policy of the measure under that idea. Indeed the author of the paragraph was himself, originally, a believer in the coercive branch of the system, since he immediately attributes the failure of this part, to evasions of the laws at home, and the revolution in Spain. We have thus refuted this assertion, because we have no intention of suffering the friends of this pernicious policy to shrink from their original ground of defence. If they are allowed to say to-day, that only some republicans thought it might operate as a measure of coercion,' to-morrow they will limit them to a few, and afterwards in regular progression, it may be said that none ever sincerely believed its efficacy. Thus this most pernicious defence, will be frittered away; and when the people, hereafter, want to discover the authors and defenders of such ridiculous dogmas, for the sake of punishing them as they deserve, they will be unable to penetrate their concealment. It is the right of the people to execute the decisions of justice; it is ours to detect the guilty and drag the offenders to the bar of judgment.

The keeping on the embargo till we were prepared for war, could only be for very short time. Monitor.

Here are two lies directly in the teeth of fact. The government have not made, nor have they undertaken to make any efficient preparations for war; any preparations, against either Great-Britain or France that do not disgrace the term, WAR. Where is there a navy? or where the fortifications? or even an army calculated to be of any efficacy against either of those belligerents? The second lie, contained in the above assertion is, that the embargo could remain on only a very short time.' This very short time, is now upwards of a year; and the object to attain which, this short time only was required, that is,* till we are prepared for war' is not now effected, nor are we making any rapid strides towards it. But on the other hand, the losses we are every month sustaining by the continuance of the present policy, would, we have no doubt, more than pay for the establishment of six ships of the line.

• The administration designed to raise it, [the embargo] but they did not want to leave the country stark naked, without means of resisting a foreign invading enemy.' Monitor.

Does this writer mean to assert that we are now in a situation of resisting a foreign invading enemy? If so, then we say the assertion is false. If the reason the administration did not raise the embargo was their not being willing to leave the country stark naked, why not prepare for war at the period of adopting the measure. The truth is, that • as the administration have not provided means for resisting a foreign enemy, the presumption is they did not design to raise it.' What was done in congress at the time the embargo was established, that might be called preparation for war? Positively nothing but the raising of 6000 men, a number absolutely ridiculous, when considered as a means of defence against invasion. But not a single additional dollar appropriated for the naval department. The best means of defence, a defence in which all parties would have united, was neglected and despised. So far from truth is the assertion, that government only wanted time to prepare for that some Federalists who were originally advocates for the embargo policy, on a similar ground, are now and have been for nine months, the most violent opposers of it, since they have not been able to discern in the administration any intention to place the country in a respectable state of defence.

war,

It is worthy of observation, that not a man who openly advocated the resolutions (of Boston,) has one shilling in the funds which will be hazarded in the controversy.' Chronicle, Feb. 6.

This lie it is the more necessary to expose, as it is made with such unblushing effrontery. The piece from which the extract was taken,

was probably the production of a gentleman in office, and we suppose he means by the expression, 'openly advocate,' that no person who spoke in favour of the resolutions, had any property in the funds. Now this is evidently not the apparent intention of the paragraph; it manifestly endeavours to convey, substantially, the idea that the advocates of the resolutions were destitute of any interest in maintaining the credit of government stock; than which no assertion was ever more scandalously false. Conceding, however, the most rigid meaning of the expression openly advocated,' we still say that there could not be a more 'open' avowal of a man's principles than an open vote, before the body of his fellow citizens. But to deprive the Loan Officer, or the author of the paragraph, of any excuse for the assertion, we now affirm that it is not true that not a man who spoke in favour of the resolutions had a shilling in the funds.' We know to the contrary; and if neces sary it can be established by legal testimony.

[ocr errors]

Such lies as these circulate in the country undisputed; and the Federalists by suffering them to remain unanswered, really commit a negative crime on the morals of the community.

• While three thousand seamen are held in bondage by Britain.'

Chronicle, Feb. 6. The conduct of Great-Britain, in the impressment of our seamen, adds a deeper die to the injuries inflicted upon us by her. Thousands of our seamen are confined on board her ships of war. Chronicle, Feb. 16,

This is an assertion generally circulated, and all the democratick papers echo it with exultation. But we think it comes very ungracefully from the advocates of the embargo system, which has driven our seamen into this very bondage of which we hear such pathetick complaints. The fact is, that those American seamen who are now forcibly detained in the English service, will unquestionably be discharged, on a proper application made for them. And as to such as enlist voluntarily we cannot complain of the British, but our own government. We venture to say without risk of contradiction, that there are not three hundred American seamen held in bondage, or against their inclination in the British service, at this moment; and that those can have their discharge when properly claimed. According to Mr. Madison's letter to Mr. Munroe, on the subject of impressment, dated 5th January, 1804, it appears that out of 2,056 cases of impressed seamen of all nations, between the month of June, 1797, and September, 1801, for whom claims were preferred, that 1142 WERE DISCHARGED; 102 were British seamen, and 805 were left for further proof.

In his letter of instructions to Messrs. Munroe and Pinckney, dated May 17, 1806, the Secretary of State alludes to the letter just referred to' as being still applicable to a great proportion of the matter now committed to their joint negociations.' We may hence conclude that

« PreviousContinue »