Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

H. of R.]

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal.

[JAN. 20, 1825.

gislation and protection, in the system of internal communications, proposed to be aided by Congress, could be perceived at once by the People and by this House. We have been warned to proceed with caution in commer.cing this great object.

True, said he, I would proceed with all caution-I would avoid rashness-I would avoid all the causes that might possibly produce a reaction in the public mind.

ments. That Government have yet to provide the means and apply them to the reduction and discharge of the national debt; that this policy is indicated by the state of public opinion on the subject. A further objection is made to the passage of the present bill: that we have yet derived little or no benefit from the act of last session of Congress, authorizing estimates and surveys of roads and canals; that no general system has been adopted in reference to the subject. Mr. ELLIS In the object of the present bill, every thing is preagreed with gentlemen who urged the objection, that pared and digested. He said that he considered an Congress were bound to meet and discharge the public appropriation in this House to imply and presuppose an debt; but he did not believe a just regard to this import-estimate; he would always vote upon this principle. In ant subject incompatible with the objects of the present the appropriations for the army and navy, the Secreta bill. He did not think the present an unpropitious ries of those great Departments were bound to give this time to engage the attention of the Government upon House such lucid estimates, such clear statements of the interesting subject of Internal Improvement. What facts, that the appropriations to be made would follow of is the character of the present time? said he. Under course. How, he asked, would these principles apply the blessings of Almighty God, we enjoy a profound to the subject under consideration? Nothing was here peace, a time peculiarly proper to foster all the means to left to chance. Surveys, estimates, and contracts under secure its blessings. those estimates, had all been actually made; every thing of this kind was settled, and the operations upon the canal were now progressing, under a board of enlightened managers, and an able engineer. Suppose the general system digested and produced, it could throw no additional light on this subject. It stands on its own merits, and is confessedly an object of the first national importance; an extensive portion of several states will be greatly aided by it. He said that the navigation of the Susquehannah had long been a subject extremely interesting to the People of Pennsylvania. The Legislature of that state had made liberal appropria tions to improve the bed of that river through all its falls to tide water.

It is said, that, in ten years, we can discharge the public debt; that this is an object of the first importance; and that, during this period, we can obtain the surveys and estimates for the grand system which seems to be floating in the minds and speculations of some gentlemen opposed to the bill. But who can foresee what the lapse of ten years may produce? That period of time may bring to us a foreign, maritime, and even a territorial war. None will say that these great objects can be effected in a time of war. If their completion has any relation to our means of defence, we are more strongly bound to commence the system now. Under these views, we are proceeding with liberal annual expenditures upon our system of fortifications; then why not aid the most interesting-National Canals?

The navigation of that river has always been of the most hazardous kind, and yet the hardy and enterprising men who live along its shores had surmounted all its natural difficulties in getting the produce of the country to a market.

According to a hasty estimate which he had made, from his knowledge of the country bordering upor this river, and without referring to any certain data, he supposed that, in the article of wheat and flour alone, there was an amount of $1,000,000 annually transported to market by that river. To this may be added, the other

ing on this river, pork, whiskey, lumber; and to these again may be added a new article in the interior commerce of the states, namely, coal. The country bordering upon the Susquehannah abounds with this mineral, and, under all the present disadvantages, has found its way to a market at your cities.

The reasoning upon which our military and naval establishments, and our system of fortifications, is supported, may be perfectly understood in this House. But their absolute advantages may not be so clearly seen by the people at large; yet large sums are annually appropriated to them, and he believed, with general approbation. But how much more complete may that approbation be expected to be, when the appropriations shall be for the completion of great designs which the people every where perceive to be intimately connect-productions of that immense and fertile country bordered with their happiness and prosperity. The public mind has been clearly expressed on this subject. These opinions are not idle and visionary. The public mind cannot be misinterpreted on this subject. The strong language and warm feelings of approbation of internal improvements in many of the states, have been clearly expressed by the most salutary laws of their Legisla The great country of the Susquehannah, he said, was tures in reference to this subject. Another objection rapidly improving, and as rapidly increasing in popularelied upon by gentlemen opposed to the bill, is, that tion. All that he had said of the Susquehannah might no general system has been adopted; that no informa- be applied to the Delaware. The article of coal, on that tion, comparatively, has been obtained under the act of river, had become a most interesting matter, in the comlast session. Mr. ELLIS believed that all that was ex- merce of the interior with Philadelphia. It seemed pected from a digested system, might be obtained by re- then, in these views of the subject, of the first importsolving the course of procedure to be adopted by Con-ance, that the contemplated communication should be gress into a single principle, and which, in practice, completed, between the bays of these rivers. In a miliwould be found to be perfectly simple and obvious. If tary point of view, he considered it of infinite importthis principle should indicate the object of appropria- ance to the country, that the object should be effected. tion and expenditure-you then have the system so Upon the completion of the canal through Jersey, it much talked of, in as safe a form for practical purposes would open the most perfect communication between as possible. Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York. Troops can be moved to any of those points, with a celerity now impossible. And to this may be added, the transportation of every species of the munitions of war. In a word, as regarded the defence of the country, he considered it as of greater utility to the country than any one single fortification.

The objects of appropriation, he said, were purely national, or partly so. The first may be said to be the interest of foreign commerce-the army and navy. The second, an internal communication among the several states-fortifications and the improvements of harbors. No general system, except those adopted, can be required to apply appropriations to these objects, except that of the fortification; on this last subject, the most accurate scientific information, from the nature of the subject, was required. But the objects of national le

Some reference had been made to the expenditure of the public treasure among some of the states. He regretted that this mode of argument had been resorted to; but, since it had, it was but just to say, that it could not

[blocks in formation]

apply to Pennsylvania. For himself, as a Pennsylvanian, he regretted that it had been found necessary to apply to the General Government for aid; but since the application had been made, he thought it could, and ought to be supported, upon the best views of the subject, as a national measure.

Mr. HOGEBOOM, of New York, said that he should not detain the House by any lengthy remarks on the subject now before it. He had no objections to internal improvements, and he had no objections to internal industry. As to canals, when we take a view of the United States, we see that there is a chain of mountains running North and South through the whole country, and within was an enclosed space abounding with navigable rivers, leading to the sea. He thought that the best general policy was, to open the course of these rivers, and to make them navigable, so that the inhabitants of the interior might have access to the seaboard.

[H. of R.

any public work in the state of New York. As to the little money that had been brought into the Treasury for the general objects of Government, it was as a unit to a thousand. All the great property in the country was in the states. The states had come together and given the General Government certain powers. All they wanted was, that the General Government should exercise those powers, and no others. He was quite willing that the Government should have power to erect forts for the defence of the country, but not that they should make roads. They ought to endeavor to carry on only the affairs of the United States. Many forts were now wanting in the state of New York. One was wanting on Lake Erie, and one on Lake Ontario, and another on Lake Champlain, and the city of New York was not half fortified. The whole United States were not near fortified, and now gentlemen wanted us to commence a system of internal improvements. He could not, however, find those words in the Constitution, and, at all events, he should vote against the present bill,

[Here the attention of the Reporter was interrupted, and he lost some of Mr. H.'s remarks, but he was understood to say that] there were four of the old states in- Mr. BRECK, of Pennsylvania, observed, that he rose terested in the canal, and the General Government also. not to enter into a discussion of the general subject, but He did not think that any were likely to meet with en- merely to state the necessity of the aid of Government couragement, but such as benefitted the General Go to prevent this undertaking from being entirely intervernment. At the last session, gentlemen had said that rupted. He was in possession of data, from which he the new Tariff was necessary to protect our own indus- was enabled to state that, if the present bill should fail, try, and teach our people to manufacture for themselves. that important work must again cease, probably for They seemed, then, all to be mightily in favor of internal many years. The gentleman from South Carolina, inindustry-but this year, the scales seem to be turned-deed, (Mr. HAMILTON,) had said, that the canal passed all were in favor of internal improvement; and he found through a populous and wealthy country, and such were that internal improvement was something very different the interests embarked in it, that, whether Government from internal industry. The object of internal improve- subscribed or not, the undertaking would certainly go ment appeared to be, to take money out of the Treasu- on. In this the gentleman was greatly mistaken, and ry; the object of internal industry, not to bring it in. gentlemen would perceive that the reverse was true, For his part, he was in favor both of internal improve- when he made to them a few statements of the actual ment and internal industry. state of facts on this subject. It was almost twenty years since this canal was commenced. At that time, between two and three hundred thousand dollars had been subscribed, but subsequently, the course originally proposed for the canal had been changed. The money was expended, and the work ceased for many years. About two years ago the design was revived. The old subscription list had been examined, and it was now found that it would yield about 50 per cent. The Company had then applied to the Legislatures of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, each of which had made grants of money to aid the funds. Efforts were then made in the city of Philadelphia to form a fund on which to recommence the work, but the attempt was attended with the greatest difficulty. Ward meetings were called, committees were appointed, all classes of people were applied to, not only merchants and capitalists, but shopkeepers and mechanics, and those of the lowest grade. The committees offered to receive subscriptions of a single dollar, and in many instances a subscription of ten dollars had been received, which were the aggregate contributions of several neighbors, who had united for the purpose. In this manner, four hundred thousand dollars were obtained, and there was now a deficiency of five hundred thousand dollars, and he was warranted in saying, that any attempt to get more in the city of Philadelphia would be made in vain.

Last year, the article of cotton bagging was brought forward, and a duty was laid upon it almost equal to the price of the article; but, notwithstanding this pressing duty, the poor weavers of Inverness and Dundee fur. nished two-thirds of all the bagging that was used in the country, and now, the little money that was in the Treasury was wanted out of it for internal improvement. The country had an immense debt hanging over it. This debt, at first, was forty millions. We had three years' war, and the debt was now nearly ninety millions; and we had been told all the while, that it was very soon to be paid off; but he believed, that if he lived to be a very old man, the country would be in debt still. The payment of that debt, Mr. H. said, was an object near his heart. He used to think, before he came to Washington, that internal industry and internal improvements were very much the same thing. He now saw that they were very different. He did not like the practice of taking shares in private companies, and he thought the United States had much better keep their hands out of it. If Government begins the practice of taking shares in any stock, he thought it would be a great means of creating an executive patronage. [Here Mr. H. quoted the article of the Constitution which forbids a capitation | tax being taken, unless according to the census.] He asked if the Constitution was not a dead letter, if a tax raised equably from all the country should be laid out, for example, in the state of Delaware? Did not the Constitution intend that Congress should do justice to all? The New York Canal was not very internal-it passed pretty near the boundary line of the United States-yet he admitted that it was of great benefit. He was not fond that the United States should hold stock in the state of New York, or that the Government should carry on any public work in that state; for, some how or other, he had got a notion that the General Government was not so economical as the State Governments. He had made a discovery since he had been in Washington, and he had rather that the Government should not carry on

As some explanation of that fact, it might be proper to state, that there were now held in the city of Philadelphia, in unproductive stocks, an aggregate of about four millions of dollars. In the Schuylkill canal, which runs one hundred and nine miles to Mount Carbon, there was held $1,740,000; in the Union Canal which branches out towards Sweetara creek, about one million; in the Water Works, near Philadelphia, $500,000; and in this canal $700,000. All these stocks were, as yet, unproductive. Not a single cent of interest had been realized on all this capital, and if the 500,000 dollars, necessary to complete the canal, is looked for from Philadelphia, it will be looked for in vain; unless Congress shall lend

[blocks in formation]

the proposed aid, the work must be entirely suspended. He had made notes of some of the objections that had been already so ably answered, that he should not trouble the House with any further remarks.

The question being now called for, and being about to be put

Mr. LIVINGSTON intimated an intention to address the House, and requested, on account of the late hour, an adjournment; which was agreed to.

IN SENATE.-FRIDAY, JAN. 21, 1825.
SUPPRESSION OF PIRACY.

The Senate again proceeded to the consideration of the bill "for the suppression of Piracy."

Mr. TAZEWELL rose, and moved to strike from the bill the third section thereof, which is as follows:

"And be it further enacted, That, if any of the said pirates should escape from the fresh pursuit of the commanding officers and crews of any armed vessel of the United States, and find refuge in any of the cities or ports of the said island of Cuba, or other islands aforesaid, the President of the United States, on being informed of the fact in a manner satisfactory to him, of its authenticity, shall be, and he is hereby, authorized, at his discretion, to declare the said port or city to be in a state of blockade, and shall cause the same to be invested by the naval force of the United States, till the said pirates shall have been secured and punished by the authorities of the said island, or until satisfaction shall otherwise have been made, whereupon he shall deem it just and expedient to discontinue the said blockade."

In support of this motion, Mr. T. said

Mr. President: In proposing this measure, I do not by any means, wish to be considered as being opposed to the great object of the bill. So far from opposing it there is no member of the Senate, no member of the committee, not even my honorable friend and colleague, to whom so much is due for the zeal and ability he has displayed on this occasion, who is more favorable to the application of every proper means of obtaining the object than myself. Sir, it is precisely because I do not consider the means proposed by the third section of the bill, to be either proper or sufficient to obtain the end the bill has in view, that I have proposed to strike it out. It is unnecessary to recite again the phrases of this section. It is sufficient to observe, that its object is to authorize the President of the United States, under certain circumstances, to institute a blockade of certain Spanish ports.

[JAN. 20, 21, 1825.

commended, we shall lose much of that moral force which constitutes the great power of the people of the United States at this moment, while we shall not add a single sprig of laurel to the garland which now adorns our brow. Suppose we allow there is just cause of war with Spain; does it follow that any obligation is thereby imposed on us to exercise the right thus acquired? Because a nation has a just cause of war, is it to be argued, that she must, of necessity, engage in it? She surely may waive the right of waging war, if she thinks proper so to do; and when she waives this right, it must be admitted its incidents and mere consequences follow the right so waived, and she can no longer claim the shadow, after she has voluntarily waived and abandoned the substance which produced it.

If this be so, it is not correct to argue that, because we have just cause of war, we may, in times of peace, adopt a measure which belongs to war alone; and, least of all, does it result, that, while you are maintaining these relations of peace and amity with all nations, you are at liberty to put in practice measures of war, which will not fall on the offending party alone, but on the innocent and meritorious only. Here, then, exists the first and great difference between the advocates of this measure and myself. They say that the measure proposed is designed to act, and must act, "upon the guilty alone." In my view, it can only affect the innocent and meritorious; and, if this position be established to their satisfaction, I venture to hope the advocates of the bill themselves, when they find that this measure, instead of promoting the end they had in view, is calculated to produce an effect diametrically opposite, will unite with me in the effort to expunge this section.

I say, sir, that this measure, authorizing the Executive to institute a blockade, can operate on none but neutral states. A war measure practised in peace is an anomaly, such as history no where records, and where parallel even prescience has never yet foretold. We have no standard, then, by which to try its character or ascertain its effects, and there is no reasoning that can be applied to this non-descript. I think, however, I shall approximate the truth in contending, that a blockade, in time of peace, can confer no more right, and impose no more duties, than a legitimate blockade exercised in war, by one of the belligerant parties. I assume this as a postulatum, then, that this war measure, practised in peace, places all parties in the predicament a similar measure practised in war would do. I know well, sir, what are the rights and duties given and imposed by a blockade deThe advocates of this measure, at the very moment clared in time of war, but, in relation to this peace meathey recommend its adoption to the Senate, acknow-sure, I am ignorant of its consequences, and can bring ledge it is a war measure. They acknowledge, more-it to no other standard than that I have thus stated. Ï over, that the United States maintain, at this moment, can reason on it in no other way than by supposing that the most cordial relations of amity, not only with this this blockade, instituted in time of peace, gives to all power, but with every nation upon the globe, and they the parties, on whom it may operate, just the same declare that it is not their purpose to change, in any rights and no more, than a blockade in time of war way, these relations of peace and amity, whilst they prac- would do. tise this measure of war. The argument my friend and colleague urges on this subject, is this: "We have just cause for war against Spain, and therefore, although at peace ourselves, we have a right to practise against her this war measure." It is not necessary, sir, for me, at this time, or in this place, to inquire whether the proposition, which asserts we have just ground of war against Spain, is correct or not; but I think I am authorized in saying, if the statement my friend and colleague made yesterday is well founded, that the existency of piracy within her dominions, is ascribable to the weakness and not to the will of Spain, it belongs not to a just or generous people to declare this weakness a just ground for war. Parcere subjectis, et debellare superbos, was the maxim the poet teaches as that which was inculcated by the wisdom of the dead upon the magnanimous enterprise of the living, in past times; and trust me, sir, whenever we depart from the course this advice re

If it be contended that it gives more, I call upon its advocates to shew from whence they derive the excess. I might, perhaps, contend that it did not confer so many rights, but I am content to concede this, and to place the two measures on the self-same footing.

Mr. President, wherever war exists, all the inhabitants of the world must occupy one of two relations : either they are belligerants, or they are net. In the former case, there can also exist but two relations: those claiming and practising the right of blockade, and those against whose ports the right of blockade is directed. This blockade, if it acts at all, must, therefore, operate on one of three parties: 1st, On the citizens or subjects of the nation declaring the blockade; 2dly, On the citizens or subjects of the power whose port is blockaded; 3dly, On any others, that is to say, on neutrals.

Let us now consider the case of citizens or subjects of the blockading nation. It has never been said, it has

JAN. 21, 1825.]

Suppression of Piracy.

never been thought, it has never been even dreamt, I believe, by any, before this day, that a belligerant blockade ever did or ever could act upon these.

[Senate.

er reason but that. You say he is your enemy; therefore, you have a right to seize his person as well as his property, wherever you find either out of the protection of a neutral state. This right existed before the blockade was instituted, and exists in equal force after it is taken off; and during its continuance, wherever you find your enemy beyond the limits of a neutral state, although not attempting to violate your blockade. If so, a blockade which bestows no right, and imposes no new disability, cannot be considered as acting in any manner directly upon him; your right of action on him is derived from public law; it was perfect the instant war existed between you, and it is a right entirely independent of blockade.

We have been told of a blockade by statute, but my honorable colleague is mistaken, I believe, when he traces the rights and duties it creates to this source. No, sir, the power to declare it is derived from no such paltry municipal spring; it flows directly from the great and pure fountain of the public law. And when so derived, its influence extends over all upon whom this high law acts, that is to say, over the whole civilized world. Deriving its powers thus from the law of nations, how idle would it be for a Government to invoke the aid of such powers when it would act upon its own subjects! Sir, the relation which subsists between sovereignty Now, Mr. President, if the blockade does not act on and subjection, between a nation and its own people, is your own citizens, or on your enemy, on whom can it that which enjoins and requires all power on the one act? If it act at all, it must act upon none but neutrals. hand, and all subjection on the other; and the only doubt I know very well, sir, that, although the direct action of which ever has, or ever will exist, is, in what hands this un- a blockade is upon the neutral, yet the consequences limited sovereignty, demanding unlimited obedience, may be felt by the enemy, and perhaps by yourselves; might most properly be confided. We say, (and, I think, but that is merely an incident, a mere consequence, of say truly,) it can be trusted no where with propriety but the direct action, and you entitle yourself to the chance to the people. But whether it resides with an Autocrat, of inflicting this indirect injury upon your enemy, by enwith a King, Lords, and Commons in Parliament assem-titling yourself to the right of acting directly upon neubled, or in the People, wheresoever it is found, it is equal, trals. If such be the operation of a blockade, instituted and it is equal only because it is supreme. jure belli, as fixed and settled by the public law, and if a peace blockade can bestow no other rights, then, as it is a measure designed to act not against the United States and Spain, but upon all the other nations of the civilized world, the question is, are we prepared thus to act upon them? The advocates of this measure seem to have looked only on one side of it; but this is not right. The effect of blockade is, to shut out all who are out, and keep in all who are in. It prevents egress as well as ingress. The neutral can no more go in than he can come out; and the only exception to this rule is, that he may, if he chooses, quit the port the moment he is notified of the blockade, provided he leaves it in the condition he was when that notice was received, in ballast or half loaded, if such was his situation at that time. And if he dares to put the smallest article on board after he is notified, he then acts as an enemy, by assisting the enemy in his commercial purposes, and subjects himself to confiscation thereby. Perhaps the advocates of this measure can explain why it is that neutrals are thus to be made to suffer, all of whom feel as we feel upon this subject, and some of whom have done their utmost to put down piracy, and whose efforts I grieve to be compelled to say, have been much more efficacious than our own.

The language of this sovereignty, addressed to its own subjects, must, therefore, ever be the language of command, “sic volo, sic jubeo; stet pro ratione voluntas." And this language we, the people of the United States, acting in our sovereign capacity, are as much authorized to address to our own citizens, as the most puissant sovereign on earth is authorized to employ it towards his vilest serfs. For our sovereign rights are not less than his: they are both supreme.

If, then, you wish to prevent your people going to the Island of Cuba, pass an act to that effect-an act of Congress, with sufficient sanctions, will secure the object. Do they violate it? Enforce your municipal regulations by municipal means; nobody can complain of this, because they are your own people, and you may govern them as you think proper. But, it may be asked, what will you do with one of your people who should attempt to violate this blockade? Will you not capture him? Yes, and condemn him too-(I am speaking of a war blockade, with which this peace blockade must be compared)-we do not condemn him, however, for violating the blockade; with this he has nothing to do; we touch him on a spot far more delicate; we strike a chord that reaches to his very heart; we touch him on his allegiance, and say that he is a party holding intercourse with the enemy, and endeavors to give them aid and comfort. Your power over him is not then derived from the public law; the public law cannot operate on him; it is a mere municipal power derived from your own municipal code, directed against a traitor who eludes and violates the municipal authority.

I can imagine many arguments that might be suggested by ingenuity in favor of a blockade of ingress, but for a blockade of egress there can be none.

When you see your friend about to run into unknown ways, and press towards a precipice which, if overstepped, must bring him to destruction, you may, nay it is your duty, to warn him of his peril, to advise, to entreat, perhaps, in some individual cases, to prevent him from Do you want further evidence of this? Do you want rushing upon destruction. But surely you act not a to be further satisfied, that the right of blockade is friendly part towards him, when you find him suddenly never exerted by a nation against its own citizens? You and unexpectedly surrounded by appalling dangers, if will find it in these considerations. Would you not cap-you require and compel him to continue in this situation, ture him before the blockade began, or after it was from which he would and has the means to escape, if raised, or even during its continuance, if he is found you would permit him to do so. But yet this is the very any where engaged in this purpose, although not seek course you will pursue, if you adopt this bill in its preing to violate it? Yes, and the principle is always the sent shape. You blockade the port into which you same; you always capture and condemn him as a trai- have pursued the pirate, and will suffer none to enter tor, holding intercourse with the enemies of his coun- there, because it contains the monster; and while you try, contrary to his allegiance, and never as a mere block- do and say this, you prevent all from escaping thence, ade breaker. As, then, the institution of a blockade pro-although it contains the very beast of prey whom you duces no new effect upon the subjects of the nation declaring it, will it act upon the power whose ports are The Dominican friars of old, when they clothed their blockaded? This is a fallacy still greater than the other. victim in the habit of San Benito, and led him to the in war, you capture and condemn your enemy, it is true, auto-da-fe, while he writhed in the midst of the connot because he is attempting to break the blockade, how-suming flames, calmly told him it was for his own good. ever, but because he is your enemy. You assign no oth- We seem disposed to act the same part, and arrogating VOL. 1.-20

have thus hunted into these formerly peaceful recesses.

Senate.]

Suppression of Piracy.

[JAN. 21, 1825.

to ourselves these inquisitorial rights, wish to clothe eve- | derived the right of taking his property wheresoever it ry neutral power in such garments, and leading them to the flames, tell them we do so for their good. But will they believe us? If it be true, as my honorable colleague yesterday asserted, that necessity and right go hand in hand, then their necessity will be as strong as ours; and while it gives us the right to enforce, equally bestows upon them the right to resist, our assumed functions. And if it be true, as my honorable friend yesterday contended, that we have the right to interpolate a new principle in the public law, they have, at least, as strong a claim to do so.

And what, sir, must be the inevitable effect of all these various readings of the holy text, under which different and discordant rights are claimed? No one can doubt it must be war, horrid, interminable war, unless we are content to return to the fold from whence we shall be said to have strayed, to come again within the pale of civil society, and consent to be governed once more by the ancient rules which the necessities, not of one, but of all, produced, which the wisdom, not of one, but of all, digested, and for the preservation of which, unaltered by any, the peace of all requires the guarantee of each.

Mr. President, my colleague and myself differ very much in the idea we entertain respecting this right of instituting a blockade. He considers it as an independent, substantive right, "which may be exerted, (to use his own words,) per se.' But is this so? Can it be so? The right of instituting blockades is not a substantive right, nor will its exercise be permitted per se. The right of instituting blockades is a mere incident, a consequence growing out of the exercise of the higher right of war, and can be exerted only by those placing themselves in a state of war.

If a nation has just cause of war, the question whether she will wage it or not, is one resting solely on its own discretion; and if, in the exercise of this discretion, it is found expedient to waive the right of waging war, then the moment it waives the right of waging war, it waives its right to the exercise of all the incidents, consequences, and accessorial rights of war. To urge the contrary, would be to argue that you had a right over the shadow, after having given up the substance. No, sir. Nations waive all the benefits when they avoid all the risks of war.

If, in the exercise of its discretion, a nation having just cause of war, sees fit to use its perfect right of waging war, the instant war exists, it requires no statute to give the right of blockade, and none can take it away. It is then derived from the high law which the wisdom and convenience of the whole world dictated, and which is consecrated by the holy hand of time. Let no audacious editor dare to pollute, by any blot, erasure, or interpolation, the sacred page. The common good of all mankind requires, that what the common wisdom of all dictated, and the common and long acquiescence of all has sanctioned, should neither be repealed nor abridged by any. If you choose to judge for yourselves, and blot one page, every nation will have a right to follow your example, and then indeed we shall behold the Prophet's scroll alluded to yesterday, written on the inside and out with nothing but lamentation and woe.

is found beyond the protection of a neutal state. Under this right of preventing any augmentation of these resources, is derived the right of capturing even neutral property when found upon the high seas, destined for the enemy's port, and being contraband of war. Under these rights of capturing the property of the enemy, and the contraband property of neutrals, destined for his ports, is derived the right of visitation and search. For it would be vain to allow such rights, unless the only means by which they could be enforced were also conceded.

And, under this right of limiting the enemy to his own resources, is derived the right of investing his cities by land, and his ports and harbors by sea, and so cutting off his intercourse with the rest of the world.

The right of visitation and search, and the right of blockade, are three twin sisters, born of the same mother-war. They come into being at the same moment, with the existence of war; they continue during the same period while war continues; and, unlike the twins of the heathen mythology, they die at the same instant, when peace returns. Now, sir, if we are justified to exercise in peace one of these rights of war, we are justified in exercising the other; and if we claim the right of blockade in peace, we cannot deny to any nation the right of visitation and search in peace also. Is the Senate prepared to make this concession?

My honorable friend may say, perhaps, that the circumstance of the existence of piracy makes this case peculiar. He may contend, that this bill does not assert the right of blockade generally in times of peace, but only when piracy exists. This is certainly so: but are there not other pirates in the world besides those who infest the coast of Cuba? Have you not declared the slave trade piracy? and has not Great Britain, at your invitation, done the same? and is he not as much a pirate who deals in slaves, then, as he who takes a vessel off Cape Antonio?-and if the existence of piracy in Cuba justifies you in undertaking a blockade there, to suppress that piracy, can you deny to Britain, or any other nation, the right of visitation and search-to suppress the other piracy, the slave trade?

My honorable friend yesterday described, in language of true pathos, the horrid atrocities perpetrated by the monsters of Cuba. The picture was drawn by a master's hand, its colors were most vivid, and its similitude, I doubt not, most just. If, Mr. President, I dared to borrow his pencil for a moment, and to exhibit a more rapid sketch of the slave trade, I could present you a scene, over which philanthropy cannot but weep, at which the human heart sickens, and the bare representation of which rouses even calm justice, and makes her cry aloud for vengeance on the wrong-doer. Yes, sir, in the scale of moral beauty, the vilest wretch who haunts Cape Antonio, prowling for rapine, and delighting in blood, compared with the slave trader who traffics on the coast of Africa, is as Hyperion to a Satyr. He stands as a pure angel of light to the foulest demon of darkness-and every circumstance which can be urged to justify you in claiming the right of practising this measure of war in times of peace, in order to exterminate one pirate, may be urged "a fortiori," to justify every other nation in using the other measure of war in order to exterminate the other pirate.

If, in the exercise of her discretion, having a just cause of war, a nation declares war, she thus immediately invests herself with the right of straitening her enemy by every means in her power. She may limit him exclu- Mr. President: for half a century we have been strugsively to his own resources. She may diminish these as gling, sincerely, I know, and I hope successfully, to estafar as she can, and take care that they receive no aug-blish the reputation of being a just people-to acquire mentation from any other power: and all this she is allowed to do to attain the only legitimate end of war-a just and honorable peace. To secure the benefits of peace, the right of war is given, and war justifies the belligerants in employing all those means to accomplish this its great end.

Under this right of depriving him of his resources, is

the character of doing unto others what we would to be done to ourselves in similar circumstances. If we mean to preserve this character, we must take special care to act cautiously and consistently; for, if it is found in any one page of our history, that we are asserting for ourselves a privilege, which elsewhere we had denied to others, we forfeit this character of moral rectitude.

« ForrigeFortsett »