retaining a feature in the bill which would admit the possibility of a crime so monstrous and improbable as that of citizens going abroad to commence war upon the citizens and commerce of their own country, and which, even if committed, would be punishable either as treason or piracy. Messrs. CLAY, ROBERTSON, FORSYTH, SMITH of Maryland, and PITKIN, joined in the discussion; but, before any question was taken, the Committee rose, and the House adjourned. WEDNESDAY, March 18. Mr. HARRISON presented a petition of Nathaniel Champe, on behalf of himself, and the widow and other children of John Champe, deceased, sergeant major of Lieutenant Colonel Henry Lee's squadron of dragoons, in the Revolutionary army, praying that some provision may be made for the support of his mother, and that a grant of land may be made to himself and her other children, in consideration of the secret, but eminent and highly important services, rendered by their father, under the orders and directions of the late General Washington.-Referred to the Committee on Pensions and Revolutionary Claims. Mr. H. NELSON, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the resolution from the Senate "directing the distribution of the laws of the fourteenth Congress among the members of the fifteenth Congress," reported the same with an amendment, which was read and concurred in, and the amendment ordered to be engrossed, and the resolution read a third time to-morrow. Mr. WILLIAMS, of North Carolina, reported a bill for the relief of Samuel F. Hooker; which was read twice, and committed. Mr. HERBERT, from the District Committee, reported a bill to incorporate the Medical Society of the District of Columbia; which was read twice, and committed. The engrossed bills for the relief of General Moses Porter; authorizing the election of a Delegate from the Michigan Territory to the Congress of the United States, and extending the right of suffrage therein; for the relief of Abraham Byington; for providing for the erection of a jail and court-house in the county of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia; for providing for the execution of the laws of the United States within the State of Mississippi; and for authorizing the payment of certain certificates; were severally read a third time, and passed. The bill for the relief of Purley Keyes and Jason Fairbanks was read a third time; but, being opposed by Mr. OGDEN and by Mr. SPENCER, was rejected. Mr. PINDALL moved that the Committee of the Whole be discharged from the further consideration of the bill "in addition to the act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,' and to repeal the acts therein mentioned," and that the same be indefinitely postponed. On this motion some debate took place-Mr. P. H. OF R. grounding it on the idea that it was certain nothing practical could result from the further discussion of the subject, &c., and that there was much business of practical importance before the House. The motion was opposed, but succeeded, by a vote of 72 to 62. CASE OF MR. HERRICK, AND OTHERS. The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report of the Committee of Elections on the cases of Mr. Herrick, Mr. Earle, and Mr. Mumford, members of this House. Mr. ADAMS opposed this report, in a speech of moderate length; when Mr. CLAY, without entering into the subject before the House, moved that the Committee rise, with a view to give an opportunity for some gentleman to move a reconsideration of the vote for indefinite postponement of the bill last mentioned, that he might have an opportunity to bill, which he had yesterday pledged himself to move a specific proposition for amending that move, &c. After debate, this motion succeeded; and the House having agreed to reconsider the vote of postponement, again resolved itself into a Committee, on the bill above mentioned. THE NEUTRALITY BILL. A motion (made yesterday) to amend the fourth section of the bill, was now agreed tothe effect of which was to confine the provisions of that section to the punishment of any citizens of the United States who should fit out vessels to cruise against the commerce of the United States, leaving out what related to the commerce of foreign nations. Mr. CLAY rose to propose an amendment he had before indicated. Amended as it had been, Mr. C. said he had no objection to retaining the fourth section; but moved to strike out all the remainder of the bill, except so much as retains the provisions of the act of 1794, and repeals the acts of 1797 and 1817-the simple effect of which amendment would be to repeal the act of 1797 and that of 1817. In the propriety of repealing the act of 1797 he understood the chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations to concur. Of course, then, it would only be necessary to show that the act of the last session ought to be repealed; and that it goes beyond any neutral duty we can owe. In the threshold of this discussion, Mr. C. said, he confessed he did not like much the origin of that act. There had been some disclosures, not in an official form, but in such a shape as to entitle them to credence, that showed that act to have been the result of a teasing on the part of foreign agents in this country, which he regretted to have seen. But, from whatever source it sprung, if it was an act necessary to preserve the neutral relations of the country, Mr. C. said it ought to be retained. But this he denied. The act was predicated on the ground that the existing provisions did not reach the case of the war now raging between Spain and the South American provinces. In its pro H. of R. Neutral Relations. MARCH, 1818. was the Attorney General ready at his post, as he should be, to attend to it, but the attorney for the Massachusetts district was there to argue it also; and, not satisfied with this, a foreign agent was seen attending the court, to see probably that nothing was omitted, and not even a poor Amicus Curia was there to speak for the accused. Such was the state of the case that the humanity of the Attorney General had interposed, and induced that highly meritorious officer to make some suggestions favorable to those individuals. Was there a man in this country, Mr. C. asked, who did not feel his conscience reproach him for that transaction? C. said he should, in that event, submit another proposition to amend the bill, predicated on the idea that some provision was necessary in addition to the act of 1794. The motion of Mr. CLAY to amend the bill having been stated from the Chair visions it went beyond the obligations of the United States to other Powers, and that part of it was unprecedented in any nation, which compelled citizens of the United States to give bonds not to commit acts without the jurisdiction of the United States, which it is the business of foreign nations, and not of this Government, to guard against. Does the act of 1794, said Mr. C., embrace the case of the Spanish patriots? That was the question, and it was not worth while to disguise it. If St. Domingo was not included, as had been said, in the act of 1794, it would not follow that that act did not embrace the case of the Spanish patriots. What was the condition of St. Domingo? Had the Executive The act of 1797 being given up on all hands, of the United States ever acknowledged, in re- and the act of 1817 being, as he thought he had gard to that war, that it was a civil war, respect- shown, unnecessary, he hoped his motion would ing which the United States stood in a neutral prevail. If, however, contrary to his belief, the relation? No such acknowledgment, he said, House should decide that the act of 1794 did not had ever been made, in respect to the war in cover the case of the existing civil war, and the that island, as had been expressly made by the act of 1817 should be thought necessary to bring Executive in regard to the war in South Ameri-it within the provisions of the act of 1794, Mr. ca, that it was a civil war. And, when the courts came to apply the law to cases before them, having the decision of the Executive to guide them, they must decide that the law of 1794 is applicable to both parties. The act of 1817, consequently, was wholly unnecessary to the object for which it was avowedly enacted, and was one of superfluous legislation. Mr. C. said he recollected with pleasure that he gave his negative to it; that every member from the State of which he was a Representative did the same. He recollected that sixty-three members of that part of this House, with whom it had been, and would always be, his pride and pleasure to act, had recorded their votes against it. The voice of the country had since pronounced its doom, and left for Congress nothing to do but to repeal the act. Disguise it as you will, said he, the world has seen the act in its true character; has regarded it as a measure calculated to affect the struggle going on in the South, and discovered that, however neutral in its language, its bearing was altogether against the cause of the patriots. How, asked he, is that war now carried on? But for the supplies drawn from this country through Havana for sustaining the army of Morillo, this modern Alva, whose career is characterized by all the enormities which have consigned to perpetual infamy the name of his great prototype; but for the supplies drawn through Havana, whose port is open to us only for the sake of those supplies, General Morillo could not have supported his army. This fact he had from the highest authority, from the commander of one of our national vessels who had been on a cruise in that quarter and had received it from the lips of Morillo himself. It becomes us, Mr. C. said, really and bona fide to perform our neutral obligations. He had seen and heard of circumstances respecting this subject, humiliating in the extreme. He had been told, for instance, that in the case lately argued in the Supreme Court of the United States, of some of those individuals tried in the court of the United States at Boston, not only Mr. FORSYTH said he was opposed to the motion, and could not but suppose the honorable Speaker himself was doubtful of its success, as he had drawn before the House a variety of considerations which had no bearing on the question. Mr. F. denied, in the first place, that public sentiment had condemned the act of 1817. It was true, indeed, that certain exclusive friends of liberty, at the head of presses in the United States, had condemned this act; but, so far as we have any expression of opinion from the great body of the people of the United States, from the thinking part of the community, the act had been approved. But the Speaker had informed the Committee that sixty-three members of the House had opposed that act, and that all the members from a certain section of the country were in favor of it. This was another point, Mr. F. said, on which he differed from the honorable Speaker. The act of 1817, as it stands, came into this House on the 3d of March, 1817, and was passed by a large majority, the yeas and nays not having been required on it. How the Speaker then had ascertained the political complexion of those who voted for the bill, Mr. F. knew not; as far as he recollected, a very small minority had voted against it. That part of the bill which had been objected to in this House, had been stricken out in the Senate, and the bill, so amended, and as it now stands, was scarcely opposed on its final passage. There was, therefore, no decided political sentiment expressed on the passage of the bill. But, to excite prejudice against the act of 1817, another ground had been taken, and a suggestion made, which, if true, was a reflection, not on the House, but on the gentleman whose eulogy the Speaker some days ago pronounced. The origin of this act had been MARCH, 1818. Neutral Relations. H. OF R. imputed to the teasing of certain foreign agents it not right to do so, when the United States were near the United States. That the Message of responsible for his conduct when beyond their President Madison, recommending that act, was jurisdiction? That was a question which had long in consequence of the representations of foreign been settled. And was there any hardship, Mr. Ministers, Mr. F. said he was ready to admit- F. asked, in requiring bond from a citizen that not of reiterated importunities, but of a perform- he will refrain on the high seas from acts affectance of their duty to their Governments by re- ing the character of the country, and involving monstrating against violations, by citizens of the it in disputes with foreign Powers? And yet United States, of obligations which we owe not there was nothing else in that act which even in to any one nation, but equally to all. A remon- the eyes of the honorable Speaker was reprehenstrance had been made by the Portuguese Minis- sible. But this provision had been said to be unter, a garbled representation of which had been precedented. Why, Mr. F. said, our statute book published; a similar statement of facts had been is full of similar provisions. Every restrictive made by the Minister of Great Britain, another law of the United States; every law forbidding by the Minister of France. All the foreign Min-commercial intercourse, or regulating it with foristers here had, in short, represented that citizens eign nations, contains similar provisions. The of the United States, engaged in cruises in pa- laws prohibiting the slave trade contain similar triot vessels, as they were called, fitted from our provisions. If a person swear that he suspects ports, committed depredations on the commerce another of intention to violate the laws against of England, France, and Spain. What, Mr. F. the slave trade, the person so suspected is reasked, had been the duty of the President of the quired by the collector to give bond and security United States if these facts were true? Were that he will not violate the law in this respect. not the United States bound to make reparation, And where, Mr. F. asked, was the impropriety of if, without an effort to prevent it, we suffered this provision? But there was a still stronger depredations to be made, by our citizens and from case: That of the act prohibiting intercourse our ports, on the commerce of nations in amity with St. Domingo was perfectly parallel to the with us? The Government, he said, had here- present; for, although the color of those who tofore recognised this principle, and had remu- were there fighting for their liberty might make nerated foreign citizens for property taken from a difference in the policy of the Government, it them by citizens of the United States. The could make none in the principles on which that President, then, had barely performed an impe- policy was founded. It was well known, that, at rious duty in representing to Congress the insuf- the date of that act, a contest existed between the ficiency of the laws, &c. European colonists and the colored population of St. Domingo; the latter claiming a recognition of their liberty, the former claiming to reduce them to obedience. Did the United States permit the vessels of that Government, or pretended Government, to come here for military supplies? Did it permit the agent from St. Domingo to reside here, to grant commissions to privateers, to make representations to the Government, officially or unofficially, and to make appeals from the acts of the Executive to the Congress or the people? No, Mr. F. said, the Government of France asked from the justice of this country, to pass laws prohibiting any commercial intercourse with the citizens of St. Domingo, and an act was passed, for two years, and afterwards continued in force for two years longer, one of the provisions of which was similar to that one of the act of '17, which was so much reprobated by the Speaker. But, Mr. F. said, he would never do the late President the injustice to state his views, when he had it in his power to quote his own language conveying them. [Mr. F. then referred to the President's Message, of last session, on which the neutrality act of March 3d, 1817, was founded.] He appealed to every other member of the House whether, in this recommendation, there was anything censurable; anything that the most fastidious could mark for reprobation. The act of 1817 was precisely correspondent with the Message, and, almost in so many words, an answer to it. It corrected the defects of the existing laws, and enabled the President of the United States, where there was strong ground to presume that a cruiser was about to violate the neutral relations of the United States, to arrest his departure until he should give bond not to violate the laws of his country. But this, the House had been told, was a most extraordinary provision, and unprecedented in the annals of civilized legislation. It was not necessary, Mr. F. said, for him to tell the House that, whenever a citizen of the United States or of any State is accused, on public ground, of intending to commit an offence against the authority of the laws, it is the duty of a magistrate to require him not only to give security not to commit a particular act, but to bind him over, in ample security, that he will not violate any of the laws. But it was objected, particularly, that it was required of a citizen to give bond to refrain, when beyond the jurisdiction of the United States, from certain acts. And was 15th CoN. 1st SESS.-45 Mr. F. concluded by remarking, that he thought he had said enough to satisfy the Committee that there was nothing in the origin of the act of 1817, or in any of its provisions, which required its repeal; but that it ought to remain on the statute book, amended as now proposed in the bill before the House. Mr. ROBERTSON, of Louisiana, said he had voted against the act of 1817, and was now in favor of its repeal. Before coming to that question, however, he would remark that, when our situa tion was more critical, and when, in point of resources, we were infinitely weaker; when, in 1794, our citizens were engaged in behalf of the republicans of France, with a zeal infinitely more dan gerous to the peace of the country than anything that has been exhibited in regard to the patriots of South America, the act of 1794 had been deemed sufficient to secure the observance of our neutral relations. Was our situation, he asked, more critical in 1817 than in 1794? If not, ought we to have been induced to take stronger measures by far than had been applied to the emergency of 1794? The administration of WASHINGTON not only deemed the act of that day sufficient, but cautiously limited its duration to two years. It had been subsequently renewed two or three times, and Congress had always been satisfied with its provisions. In 1817, however, a state of things somewhat similar occurs, but infinitely less critical, in consequence of another effort, by another people, to throw off the yoke of a despotic government. As the struggle of the people of France for liberty gave rise to the act of 1794, so that of the people of South America gave rise to the act of 1817, which was passed by Congress without the knowledge of any exterior pressure on the Government, or of the letter which had been mentioned, and other representations. It now appeared, that the act of 1817 was passed in consequence of representations of foreign nations, growing out of hostile feelings to the cause in which the people of South America were engaged. This, said Mr. R. might be a sufficient ground for the Ministers of Portugal, of England, and of France, to proceed upon-but shall we sympathize in their feelings on the subject, and be induced by them to pass acts to shackle our citizens, when it is so easy to trace their remonstrances to a general hostility to the cause of any people who are engaged in a struggle to ameliorate their condition by changing their form of government? It did not appear now he said, that that act had been passed so much with a view to do what was just to ourselves, as to accommodate the views of foreign nations. That, Mr. R. said, had been his objection to the act when it passed; and the more its causes and effects were developed, the more anxious he was to get rid of it, and to return to the statutory provisions of 1794, which, for a number of years, had been found sufficient. The cases stated by the Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations, (Mr. FORSYTH,) as having induced the passage of the act of last session were already provided for by the act of 1794; he referred to cases of fitting out vessels in our harbors, and with them cruising against the commerce of foreign nations, prohibited in that act, under very heavy penalties. But the act of 1817 went a step further, and authorized the collector to stop any vessel manifestly built for warlike purposes, if it has a cargo on board which shows it to have been intended for such purposes, or having a crew, or for any other cause, justifying that suspicion. Mr. R. wished to know by what authority the Government undertook to say, that a vessel built for warlike purposes should not leave the ports and harbors of the United States. What breach of neutrality is it to suffer such vessels to depart our ports; and why are we required, in this MARCH, 1818. manner, to cripple the operations of the shipholders and shipbuilders? Mr. R. strongly objected to the latitude of discretion given to collectors by the term "or for any other cause," which subjected the vessels of our citizens to vexatious detentions. This, he said, was one difference between the act of 1794 and that of 1817; but there was yet another. By the act of 1817, not only armed vessels, but vessels manifestly built for war, though built for sale only, were forbidden to go from our ports without giving bond that they were not to be employed in aiding or assisting any military expedition, &c., and so obviously unjust was this provision, that the gentleman himself had found it necessary to propose an amendment to narrow its scope. Mr. R. concluded by repeating, that he could see nothing in our situation which required a stronger act than was deemed sufficient in 1794, and he, therefore, hoped the acts of 1797 and 1817 would be repealed. Mr. LOWNDES commenced his remarks by redeeming the act of 1817 from the charge which had been alleged against it, as far as his opinion went, by declaring that act not to have been adopted in consequence of any foreign remonstrance, but to have been the deliberate expression of the judgment of this and of the other House; and, though he had listened with the greatest attention to the arguments of the gentlemen from Kentucky and Louisiana, they had failed to convince him that that deliberate expression of the opinion of Congress at the last session ought now to be reversed. But, he said, there was less difference on principle than he had expected to have found between those gentlemen and those who approved the act of the last session. The Speaker particularly had conceded that the acts were unlawful which that law was designed to prevent; and the only difference between us, said Mr. L., is that for the prevention of these unlawful acts we propose a remedy, which they will not accept. On the question of the criminality of enlistment in a war between two Powers with whom we are in amity, we perfectly agree. The opinion of the House and of the country, Mr. L. said, must be that, so long as we profess neutrality, we ought to observe it; that our neutral obligations should be fairly and honestly fulfilled. And it was because he thought it the duty of Congress to prevent our citizens, by requiring bond and security to that effect, from engaging in the existing war, that he was willing to continue the act which the Speaker proposed to repeal. He could not think, he said, that there was anything new in the act of 1817; not merely because similar provisions might be found in our own municipal regulations, but because analogous provisions existed in the laws of other nations. Mr. L. asked of the honorable Speaker, seeing that in time of war we require bond from privateers, before commissioned, that they will not violate the laws of nations, why in time of peace he would not require bonds from those suspected of the intention to violate them. Mr. L. considered it an imperfect view of the subject to suppose that the bond thus required was only to prevent injury being done to any one Power. Those who leave our shores to assail the property of one Power, may, when they get to sea, employ their arms against any and every nation. It was perfectly fair, certainly, that those who left our shores, with the means of mischief on board, should give that security against their involving the interests, and perhaps the peace of their country, which bonds, such as are required by the law of 1817, are calculated to afford. The gentleman from Louisiana appeared to think that there could scarcely be anything in the cargo of the vessel which ought to be taken as an indication of a warlike purpose. Now, Mr. L. said, though he did not think this clause material-not, however, that he would repeal a law because every syllable it contained was absolutely necessary-yet he thought that from the cargo the object of an expedition fitted from our ports might be readily inferred. Might there not, he said, be that preparation of fixed ammunition, &c., which would afford a strong presumption that the vessel was not intended for traffic, but prepared for war? He thought this might occur, where other proof would fail. Mr. L. took other views of this question. He said he could not regard this question as one of a mere fulfilment of our duties to the countries at war, as the vessels equipped in our ports might be employed against other countries with whom we are at peace, as well as against those belligerents. One consideration for such an act he would suggest, which it was too late for us to deny, that we are responsible for injuries done by vessels of the United States, after they leave our ports, before they arrive at a foreign port. For such depredations we are responsible, and have recognised the principle by paying claims founded on it. We have bound ourselves to respect the principle in a manner equally obligatory, by preferring claims founded on it against other nations. Having done so, every consideration of prudence, of respect for the character of our country, requires that we should exact the security which is demanded by the act of 1817. As regards those who desire to trade in vessels of war, it is necessary to provide, as has been provided, that it shall be carried on in a way beneficial to them, but compatible with the higher interests of the country. No duty, said Mr. L., is by the act of 1817 exacted from any individual which the Speaker does not think, as well as myself, ought to be performed; a bond only is exacted, in certain suspicious cases, that that duty shall be performed. Where the hardship, then; where the commercial inconvenience of being required to give bond that, while on the high seas, the sus pected vessel shall not violate the laws of the country? The act of 1817 created no new duty, established no new prohibition; it only secured the execution of existing duties in a particular, for the failure to observe which the Treasury of the United States, and not the offending individuals, would ultimately be responsible. Mr. L. H. OF R. would not say that the act merited none of the reprobation bestowed on it; but he would say that it had not been proved to contain any injurious or oppressive provisions. Mr. CLAY said it was always with very painful regret that he found himself differing from the gentleman who had just taken his seat, and with the Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations; and, when differing from them, he almost distrusted his own perceptions. But this was not the first time he had that misfortune; for his honorable friend (Mr. LOWNDES) had been at the last session a powerful auxiliary in carrying through the bill which then passed, and was now proposed to be repealed. Notwithstanding his great regret at the circumstance, however, he must obey the dictates of his own judgment. Mr. C. said, he never had intimated that the act of 1817 did not originate in the judgment of this House, or that it was passed at the instance of any foreign Ministers; and yet, if he understood the gentleman from Georgia, he had admitted that the committee had had the benefit of the suggestions of several foreign Ministers. It was immaterial to him, Mr. C. said, whether the act sprung from any suggestion of foreign agents, or whether, after it was recommended, the letters of the Ministers were sent to the Committee of Foreign Relations. As to the foreign Ministers, Mr. C. said, in referring to them, he meant nothing disrespectful towards them-he would not treat with disrespect even the Minister of Ferdinand, whose cause this bill was intended to benefit; he, said Mr. C., is a faithful Minister; if, not satisfied with making representations to the foreign department, he also attends the proceedings of the Supreme Court, to watch its decisions, he affords but so many proofs of the fidelity for which the representatives of Spain have always been distinguished. And how mortifying is it, sir, to hear of the honorary rewards and titles. and so forth, granted for these services; for, if I am not mistaken, our act of 1817 produced the bestowal of some honor on this faithful representative of His Majesty-and, if this bill passes which is now before us, I have no doubt he will receive some new honor for his further success. No, Mr. C. said, he would never treat foreign Ministers to our Government with disrespect. But yet he was not entirely satisfied with the suggestions respecting the representations, garbled and ungarbled, of the foreign Ministers. In regard to the letter of the Minister of Portugal-a man whom Mr. C. said he highly venerated; whom he regarded as an honor to his country and an ornament to science-a man whose country could not have shown a greater respect for the United States than by deputing him as its representative to this Government-with regard to that letter, as the gentleman had charged the publication which had been made of it to be a garbled one, and it seemed by his confession (his precious confession, he would call it, but not in the obnoxious sense of the term) that he either had the document in his possession or had seen it, he hoped that he would lay it before the House |