The National Intelligencer And Washington Advertiser

WASHINGTON, February 24.

The bill making further provision to the Corps of Engineers was read the third time, and passed. This bill provides for the removal of the Military Academy, now at West Point, to this place in July next, and appropriates 2,000 dollars.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 24.

NON-INTERCOURSE.

The House again in committee of the whole, Mr. Bassett in the chair, on the bill from the Senate, for interdicting commercial intercourse, &c.

Mr. D. R. Williams's amendment under consideration, viz. to strike out the part of the law relating to non-importation and insert a provision for discriminating duties.

Mr. D. R. Williams rose to rescue himself from an imputation of intending, indirectly to harass the bill by this amendment because he intended even to vote against it. He solemnly abjured any such an intention. Any member who would at this time make such a motion with a view to embarrass the proceedings of the House, would deserve a halter. Perceiving that a large majority of this House was determined to repeal the embargo and not to fight, he had been induced to offer to the House that which to his understanding appeared the best plan that had been presented. Mr. W. offered many reasons against the non-intercourse bill—amongst others, that, instead of being coercive, it would operate as a premium to the navigating interest of G. Britain, that two years continuance of it would be worth millions to G. Britain; that it also injured the agricultural interest of this country, laying additional obstructions on the sale of its produce; that it seemed as though lest the people should believe the embargo was a wise measure, they were about to pursue the very course which would prevent the people from receiving a conviction of its protecting policy. The course which he proposed would at least prevent this evil, by practically demonstrating to the people the effect of the orders in council and decrees, which were the causes of the embargo.

Mr. Sloan regretted that this deceptive measure was proposed nominally contemplating a repeal of the embargo, but which would produce little or no benefit. He described the body politic to be laboring under a disorder as an individual with a dreadful cancer. When he beheld the situation of this distressed country, he felt it his duty again to address the House, and call their attention to the remedy. Instead of the inveterate passion for war with the belligerents, which existed in a part of the House, he recommended another species of war—a war against the passions, in which, though no friend to war, he had no objection to engage as a volunteer. He agreed with the gentleman from S. C. that if this bill passed it would be just what the court of G. Britain would wish. Mr. Sloan said he should proceed in his remarks without any fear of falling under the late substitute for common law, viz tar and feathers, even tho' he was promised "a full suit of home-spun from head to foot," by some tories of Philadelphia, and although he was well acquainted with the power and disposition of the Executives of some states to screen offenders from punishment. Mr. S. stated various objections to the bill. If it were continued long there would be no occasion for employing a committee to enquire what disposition should be made of the surplus money in the treasury. He was in favor of Mr. Williams's amendment as tending to increase revenue, to promote union and secure the happiness of the U. States. Mr. Sloan spoke more than half an hour.

Mr. Lyon also spoke against the non-intercourse system and in favor of Mr. Williams's amendment at some length. Mr. Lyon was opposed to the bill, as tending to destroy revenue and navigation. He never had wanted a substitute or the embargo, an evil for another; but rather than continue the embargo, he would take such a modification of this bill as that proposed by Mr. Williams, or even the bill itself. The former plan might be operative on G. Britain, whilst the non-intercourse would be wholly inefficient.

Mr. Taylor next spoke on the subject. He considered the bill upon the table not to have the merit of resistance; it was submission to trade in the track pointed out by the orders in council. And yet gentlemen said they would not submit. Could gentlemen so deceive themselves as not to see that they were in fact submitting to the British orders in council? It was a surrender of the navigation of the world to G. Britain: it made her the carrier of our produce. That this was the effect could not be concealed. It was wonderful that, like the ostrich, hiding its head and supposing its whole body out of sight, gentlemen should thrust their heads into a bunch of brambles, and suppose that they hid the effect of this system. Gentlemen said that they would

not legalize a trade to G. Britain under the orders in council; at the same time that they authorize a trade with her through the depots, the circuit of the voyage only tending to the benefit of G. Britain, by giving to her the carriage of our produce. Might not Sweden and Spain too want a little profit, since monopoly was the order of the day, and impose duties at the entrepots? It was a great objection to this system too that it could not be maintained; and he called upon the House not to take a position like this, which their successors might be obliged to abandon with disgrace. France and England could see as well as ourselves that the system could not be maintained; and if they should accumulate injuries on our heads, the sinews of war being relaxed, we should not be in a situation effectually to resist. It was also throwing all advantages into the hands of Britain, whilst France was deprived of any portion—being submission to the one and opposition to the other. The exclusion from French ports too would be severely felt by the planters of cotton; for besides the loss of a market for such a proportion of the crop, the glutting of the British market with so large a surplus would depreciate its value enormously. He called upon gentlemen not at this time to give a monopoly to Britain at our own expense. Desirous to do equal justice to both nations, as we would not fight them, and to do equal justice also to ourselves, and not to follow the very meanderings of the orders in council, he was opposed to the bill. He also objected to the phraseology of the bill—"G. Britain and France, and their dependencies." Who was to judge what nations were dependencies? Whether did the term include Holland, Spain, Portugal? In relation to Mr. Williams's amendment, he considered it to be one which the U. S. could stand by, which would increase our revenue, and have some effect also on the interests of the belligerents. It would be better than any other system proposed as a measure of resistance; would benefit our merchants, and enrich the treasury. Mr. T. spoke about half an hour.

Mr. Gardner was apprehensive that the remainder of the session would be consumed in debating this bill, and that Congress would separate without removing the embargo at all. The consequence of such a procedure he deprecated. He had been in hopes that when the embargo was repealed, if a substitute was considered necessary, it might be a measure which would benefit the country, and not be equally obnoxious with the embargo. He deprecated the effects produced by these laws on the people, and the consequence which must result from a further continuance of them. He described the New England states. He concluded his observations by reading an extract from the inaugural speech of the present President of the United States, the sentiments contained in which he fully approved.

Mr. Gholson said that the bill on the table was not a favorite plan with him: but as he should probably vote for it, he wished to rescue it from some of the imputations cast on it. Both the gentlemen from South Carolina (Messrs. Taylor and D. R. Williams) had advocated the resolution reported by the committee of foreign relations, proposing this very plan. As to the argument that this bill operated to carry into effect the orders in council, the same objection might in the same manner be made to the embargo system, of which both those gentlemen were strenuous supporters. This argument therefore had no weight. He denied that we submitted to British taxation by the bill. For, supposing our produce to go to the entrepot, the British capitalist there purchasing it would have to pay in Great Britain the tax on our produce destined for the continent, instead of our paying it. In this way therefore we did not as directly come under the operation of the orders in council, as by trading direct to Great Britain. Was there any American who would be willing to resume our usual intercourse with the belligerents, while all the black catalogue of our injuries were unatoned? Surely not; and yet this appeared to be contemplated by the amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina. The discriminating duty would affect not the belligerents but our own citizens—it would fall wholly upon the consumers of our imports. Sooner than trade thus he would make a bonfire of all our produce, as the gentleman himself had before proposed in an eloquent speech. It would also be a direct submission to trade under the orders in council: it could not be denied. Commerce must at some time be resumed. If we were to have war, we must have some commerce. Let gentlemen point out a system by which commerce could more honorably be pursued in the present convulsive state of the world, than it could under the proposed law; for, as it had been observed in the course of the debate, it was easier to find fault with a system than to invent one.

Mr. D. R. Williams rose to rescue himself from any imputation of inconsistency. He had been extremely happy when the gentleman rose, to hear him avow his intention of rescuing the bill from some of the imputations cast on it; for really it was somewhat necessary, as no reasons had yet been offered in favor of the bill. But he denied that the gentleman had succeeded in his efforts. The resolution for non-intercourse which had been adopted at the commencement of the session had been intended to go in aid of the embargo; it did not contemplate a repeal of the embargo, as this bill did—and there was, therefore, no inconsistency in voting for that resolution and against this bill. As to the additional duty being a burden, if the law passed as it now stood and was executed, it deprived the people of the article altogether; if not executed, the premium to the smuggler would amount, in some cases, to 500 per cent. instead of 50 or 25 per cent. And unquestionably it could not be executed; for notwithstanding the existence of actual war between Great Britain and France, and all the revenue officers and military force of both, the British market had always been supplied with French claret and Spanish wool. The gentleman from Virginia had endeavored to saddle him and his friend (Mr. Taylor) with inconsistency because he could not defend the bill—for it could not be defended.

Mr. Bacon, however he might be prepared to urge arguments against the bill, said he could not in charity push the argument any further upon gentlemen; for no gentleman had attempted to defend it except the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Gholson) who with the characteristic gallantry of a young and active soldier, had done the best he could for it. Mr. Bacon however only rose as he had been alluded to as having an amendment in his possession, to read it to the House. Mr. B. read the following section as an amendment which, in connection with other sections containing details, he intended to propose if Mr. Williams amendment should be carried:

"And be it further enacted, That the commander and crew of any merchant vessel of the U. States, owned and navigated wholly by a citizen or citizens thereof, may oppose and defend against any unlawful restraint or seizure not authorized by the customary and acknowledged law of nations, which shall be attempted upon such vessel, or upon any other vessel armed and navigated as aforesaid, by the commander or crew of any foreign armed vessel, and may repel by force any assault or hostility which shall be made or committed on the part of such foreign armed vessel pursuing such attempt, and may subdue and capture the same; and may also retake any vessel owned and navigated as aforesaid, which may have been captured contrary to the customary and acknowledged laws of nations, by any foreign armed vessel."

Mr. B observed, however, even if the bill should not be amended, he should vote for it, chiefly because the term of its duration was limited, and it might produce a little good.

Mr. J. G. Jackson conceived that the expedient proposed was even worse than the non intercourse bill. He rose however to expose the evil tendency of the amendment suggested by Mr. Bacon, which contemplated giving to merchants the power to choose what attacks or seizures they chose to consider unlawful, and thus involve the United States with whom they chose. He warned gentlemen against adopting it. If war was to be made, let it be declared according to the constitution.

Mr. Williams's motion was then negatived, 51 to 50.

Mr. Cook renewed the motion to strike out the same part of the bill, for the purpose of inserting an amendment for arming our merchant vessels as a substitute for it. In support of his motion Mr. Cook urged a number of arguments. He was opposed to the non-intercourse system. There was no fear of the arming system driving the nation into war; for whatever acts should be committed by our armed vessels, would be the acts of individuals and not of the nation. He had heard from parts of the union, from people not to be interested in or injured by such a course, cries for war, war, war—at whose expense? Not at theirs, but of those on the margin of the ocean, who all wished for peace. Mr. Cook again deprecated the continuance of the embargo, and expressed his concurrence in opinion with Mr. Randolph, that our administration was pursuing a course somewhat similar to that of Lord North under the British government. The course which he proposed would promote union and again unite a divided people. The following is the amendment which Mr. Cook proposed to insert:

"And be it further enacted, that from and after the 20th day of May next, the merchant vessels owned wholly by a citizen or citizens of the United States, and navigated wholly

by citizens of the United States, and not in any part laden with goods contraband of war, and not bound to any port or place actually blockaded and invested, and pursuing a commerce permitted by the laws of the United States, may be armed and equipped, and may defend their neutral rights by resisting the late decrees of France and orders of Great Britain, which violate the long established rights of neutrality; and may repel by force any assault or hostility which shall be made or committed on the part of any French or British vessel of war, in pursuance of such decrees or orders. And to subdue and capture the same; and to retake any vessel of the United States, owned, navigated, laden and bound as aforesaid, which may have been captured pursuant to such decrees or orders by any vessel sailing under French or British colors, and acting or pretending to act by or under authority of such decrees or orders from the French or British governments."

Mr. Holland thought it would be better at once to withdraw all our measures, to undo every thing that had been done, than to adopt the gentleman's amendment. Of all others the system of arming our merchant vessels was the most futile that could be conceived. The merchants would again come forward and call upon the government to take up the cause. And was the government again to be duped by them? No; for if the government had done wrong, in his opinion it was by going too far for the support of commerce; and their efforts were rewarded by the exclamations of the same people who by their cries had induced the government so to do. Sooner than again attempt to protect them, if they deserted their own cause, he would leave commerce and the rights of the seas to the mercy of the winds and waves. He would repeal all our discriminating duties and drawbacks; that the merchants should be hereafter precisely on the same footing as foreign merchants.

The question was then taken on Mr. Cook's motion and negatived 50 to 45.

Mr. Marion moved to amend the bill by striking out the fourth day of March, and inserting the 15th day of March, as the day on which the partial repeal of the embargo should take date, and thus to place all the ports in the union on an equality—Negatived 56 to 45.

The bill was then read through.

Mr. D.R. Williams enquired whether, the bill extending credit on revenue bonds, the continuance of which depends on the continuance of the embargo, would be continued after the passage of this law.

Mr. Nicholas said he could only state his individual opinion that it would be still in force.

Mr. D. R. Williams asked whether it had been considered expedient by the committee of Foreign Relations that that bill should continue in force hereafter?

Mr. Nicholas replied that the committee had not had the subject under consideration.

The committee then rose and reported the bill as amended.

Mr. W. Alston hoped that the House would not now consider the report but take up the appropriation bill for the navy.

The House agreed, however, now to consider the report.—Ayes 60.

The amendment made in the committee, by striking out all that part of the bill relating to letters of marque & reprisal, being read, was concurred in as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Alexander, W. Alston, Bacon, Barker, Bibb, Blackledge, Blake, Blount, Boyd, Butler, Champion, Cook, Culpepper, Dana, Davenport, Durell, Elliot, Ely, Eppes, Findley, Franklin, Garnett, Gholson, Goodwyn, Harris, Helms, Humphreys, Ilsley, R. S. Jackson, Jones, Kelly, Kenan, Lambert, Lewis, Livermore, Lloyd, Lyon, Macon, Marion, Masters, Milnor, John Morrow, Moseley, Mumford, Newbold, Pugh, Quincy, Randolph, Riker, Rowan, Sharp, J. K. Smith, S. Smith, Southard, Stanford, Stedman, Storer, Sturges, Swart, Taggart, Tallmadge, Thompson, Upham, Van Allen, Van Cortlandt, Van Dyke, Van Horn, Van Rensselaer, Verplanck, Whitehill, Wilbour, D. R. Williams, M. Williams, N. Wilson—74.

NAYS—Messrs. Bard, Bassett, Boyle, Brown, Calhoun, Clay, Cutts, Deane, Desha, Fisk, Green, Holland, Holmes, Johnson, Love, McCreery, J. Montgomery, N. R. Moore, T. Moore, Newton, Nicholas, Porter, Rex, (Pen.) Rea, (Ten.) J. Richards, M. Richards, Say, Seaver, Smilie, J. Smith, Taylor, A. Wilson, Winn—38.

Mr. Gholson moved to strike out the fourth day of March and insert the 20th May as the time at which the partial repeal of the embargo should take date. He said he had taken this day in preference to the first day of June, which he had before moved, because it would give an indubitable pledge to the people that the repeal should take place, by fixing on a period anterior to the convocation of the next Congress for the commencement of the operation of the law. If the non intercourse system was to be a substitute for the embargo why should there be an interval from the 4th of March till the 20th of May? It

was a recession of such a time from our ground, without any intermediate measure. He called upon gentlemen to show to him that it was not receding, that it was not submission.

Mr. Lyon said that the nation was tired enough of the embargo, and he hoped that they would not continue it any longer.

Mr. Boyd rose to observe to those within his hearing that he was not willing to submit to the dictates of Great Britain or France, nor of any gentleman on the floor, and that he despised denunciations, come whence they would.

Mr. Macon moved to strike out all that part of the bill relating to the repeal of the embargo, which motion superseded that of Mr. Gholson.

The question was then taken on Mr. Macon's motion by Yeas and Nays as follows.

YEAS—Messrs. Bard, Bassett, Bibb, Blackledge, Blount, Boyle, Calhoun, Clay, Deane, Desha, Franklin, Holland, Holmes, Howard, J. G. Jackson, Johnson, Kenan, Macon, Marion, J. Montgomery, Newbold, Porter, Rea, (Pen.) Rhea, (Ten.) Say, Smilie, Stanford, Taylor, Troup, Verplanck, Whitehill, D. R. Williams, Winn—32.

NAYS—Messrs. Alexander, W. Alston, Bacon, Barker, Blake, Boyd, Brown, Butler, Champion, Chittenden, Cook, Culpepper, Cutts, Dana, Davenport, Durell, Elliot, Ely, Eppes, Findley, Fisk, Gardenier, Gardner, Garnett, Gholson, Goodwyn, Green, Harris, Heister, Helms, Hogg, Humphreys, Ilsley, R. S. Jackson, Jenkins, Jones, Kelly, Lambert, Lewis, Livermore, Lloyd, Love, Lyon, Masters, McCreery, Milnor, N. R. Moore, T. Moore, Moseley, Mumford, Newton, Nicholas, Quincy, Randolph, J. Richards, M. Richards, Riker, Rowan, Russell, Sawyer, Seaver, Sloan, J. K. Smith, J. Smith, S. Smith, Southard, Stedman, Storer, Sturges, Swart, Taggart, Tallmadge, Thompson, Upham, Van Allen, Van Cortlandt, Van Dyke, Van Horn, Van Rensselaer, Wilbour, M. Williams, N. Wilson—82.

The question recurring on Mr. Gholson's motion, a division of the question was called for, so as to take the question first on striking out the words "4th of March."

Messrs. Macon, J. G. Jackson and Troup advocated a protraction of the date. It would be the greatest injustice to the ports at a distance from the seat of government not to give notice of the passage of the law, & was in the face of the provision of the constitution which requires equal privileges to every port. Messrs. Masters, Randolph and Quincy contended for an early or immediate repeal on the ground that the embargo was originally laid without notice: that if our produce was exported, it ought to be exported immediately; and that the people of Canada or the smugglers at Amelia island or elsewhere should not have an opportunity to take advantage of the honest part of our citizens.

The question on striking out was negatived 66 to 47.

Mr. J.G. Jackson moved to strike out that part of the bill giving the President power to raise the embargo, whenever the decrees of the belligerents are so modified as to render the commerce of the United States sufficiently safe; to make way for the amendment which he yesterday offered authorising the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal against the power retaining in force orders and decrees wherever the other shall revoke its edicts. He observed that there could be no doubt that gentlemen would agree to strike out this clause whether they agree to insert the substitute or not: for almost every member who had voted for striking out the clause relating to letters of marque and reprisal, had assigned as one great reason that it gave the President a legislative power, by making him judge of the events which might call into action that provision of the law. The same objection certainly attached to that part of the section which he now proposed to strike out.

The House adjourned, 60 to 36, without taking a question.

SATURDAY, FEB. 25.

NAVY AND ARMY APPROPRIATION.

On motion of Mr. W. Alston, the unfinished business was ordered to lie on the table. When the House resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. Desha in the Chair, on the bill for amending the acts establishing the war and naval departments, and making an appropriation for the support of the military and naval establishments for the year 1809.

Amongst other appropriations proposed by the bill, is one for fortifications, in addition to the sum already appropriated at this session. Mr. Alston proposed to appropriate one million of dollars. It was observed by Mr. Blount that all the money had been already appropriated which was required by the department of war.

The appropriation was supported by Messrs. W. Alston, Van Cortlandt, Cook, Masters, Troup, Nicholas and Smilie, and opposed by Messrs. Blount, Stanford, Boyd and D. R. Williams.

The arguments in favor of this appropriation were the importance of permanent defence; the defenceless state of many ports, particularly of New York, which was the pride and boast of the state; the probability of war, which appeared now only to be delayed on our part from the defenceless state of the sea ports; that if war was now to take place, the people of the cities must fly to the mountains: that it might be sufficient to compromise
The committee agreed to insert one million of dollars by a majority of 11 votes.

The bill being gone through, the committee rose and reported it.

The question on the appropriation of one million of dollars for fortifications was taken by Yeas & Nays as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Alexander, L. J. Alston, W. Alston, Bacon, Blackledge, Blake, Boyle, Champion, Chittenden, Cook, Cutts, Davenport, Dawson, Eliot, Ely, Findley, Gardner, Harris, Helms, Holmes, Howard, Humphreys, B. Idey, J. G. Jackson, R. S. Jackson, Jenkins, Kelly, Lewis, Livermore, Masters, McCreery, Milnor, J. Montgomery, N. R. Moore, T. Moore, Mosely, Mumford, Newbold, Newton, Nicholas, Quincy, Riker, Rowan, Russell, Sloan, Smilie, Stedman, Storer, Sturges, Swart, Taggart, Tallmadge, Thompson, Upham, Van Allen, Van Cortlandt, Van Dyke, Van Horn, Van Rensselaer, Verplanck, Wilbour, N. Wilson—61.

NAYS—Messrs. Bard, Barker, Bibb, Blount, Boyd, Brown, Burwell, Butler, Calhoun, Clay, Culpepper, Deane, Desha, Durell, Eppes, Fisk, Franklin, Gholson, Goodwin, Green, Heister, Hoge, Holland, Kenan, Lambert, Lloyd, Macon, Marion, Jr. Merrow, John Morrow, Porter, Rea of Pen. Rhea of Ten. M. Richards, Say, Seaver, Shaw, J. K. Smith, J. Smith, Stanford, Taylor, Whitehill, D. R. Williams, M. Williams, A. Wilson—45.

The appropriation of $450,000 for repairing the frigates was objected to by Mr. Macon, but concurred in—Ayes 68.

Mr. Blount moved to amend the section appropriating for fortifications, by striking out the words "in addition to" and inserting "including"—so as to include in the appropriation the sum of $450,000 dollars already appropriated instead of adding one million to that sum. He afterwards withdrew this motion, and moved an amendment, so as to authorize the contemplated line of blocks and chains across the harbor of New York. He did this to ascertain the sense of the House on this point; for he should not have the same objection to this appropriation, if that were the object of it. A sufficient number of members not rising to give the Yeas and Nays on this question, Mr. Blount withdrew the motion and renewed his former motion; which was negatived, by Yeas and Nays—62 to 49.

The bill was then ordered to a third reading.

NON-INTERCOURSE.

The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business of yesterday.

Mr. J. G. Jackson withdrew his motion of yesterday with a view to offer another in place of it which looked more like a manly stand. He said that the amendment proposed was no offer made to either power to take sides with the other. There was nothing like threat in the proposition, any more than in the resolutions submitted to the House some time since. It would be a warning to the merchants under what peril they would go out, which they would not otherwise conceive, reposing in false security on this bill. He would not go precipitately into war; for he had the best reason to believe that Great Britain would be disposed to listen to the dictates of justice towards us; but if she did not, he was for immediate war. The amendment now proposed by Mr. Jackson, is as follows:

"Sec. 19. And be it further enacted, That after demand made and refusal on the part of his Britannic majesty to withdraw his decrees and orders infringing the lawful commerce of the United States, the President of the United States shall be authorized and required to employ such a portion of the volunteer militia of the United States not exceeding fifty thousand, and of the regular troops, as may be necessary to take possession of the territories of his Britannic majesty, bordering on the United States, and to hold the same, and to instruct the commanders of the public armed vessels which are or shall be employed in the service of the United States to subdue, seize and take any armed or unarmed British vessel on the high seas or elsewhere; and such captured vessel, with her apparel, guns, and appurtenances, and the goods or effects which shall be found on board the same, being British property, shall be brought within some port of the United States, and shall be duly proceeded against and condemned, as forfeited, and shall accrue and be distributed as by law is or shall be provided respecting the captures which shall be made by the public armed vessels of the United States."

"Sec. 20. And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States shall be and he is hereby authorized and required, after demand and refusal as aforesaid, to grant to the owners of private armed vessels of the United States who shall make application therefor, special commissions in the form which he shall direct, and under the seal of the United States, and such private armed vessels, when duly commissioned as aforesaid, shall have the same license and authority for the subduing, seizing and capturing any armed or unarmed British vessel, and for the recapture of the vessels, goods and effects of the United States, as the public armed vessels of the United States may by law have; and shall be, in like manner subject to such instructions as shall be ordered by the President of the United States for the regulation of their conduct. And the commissions which shall be granted, shall be revocable at the pleasure of the President of the United States."

"Sec. 21. And be it further enacted, That after demand made and refusal on the part of the Emperor of France to withdraw his decrees and orders infringing the lawful commerce of the U. States, the President of the U. S. shall be authorized and required to instruct the commanders of the public armed vessels, which are or shall be employed in the service of the U. S. to subdue, seize, and take any armed or unarmed French vessel on the high seas, or elsewhere, and such captured vessel with her apparel, guns, and appurtenances, and the goods or effects which shall be found on board the same, being French property, shall be brought within some port of the U. S. and shall be duly proceeded against and condemned as directed, and shall accrue and be distributed as by law is or shall be provided respecting the capture which shall be made by the public armed vessels of the U States."

"Sec. 22. And be it further enacted, That the President of the U. S. shall be and he is hereby authorized and required, after demand made and refusal aforesaid, to grant to the owners of private armed ships and vessels of the U. S. who shall make application therefor, special commissions in the form which he shall direct and under the seal of the U. S. and such private armed vessel when duly commissioned as aforesaid shall have the same license and authority for the subduing, seizing and capturing any armed or unarmed French vessel, and for the recapture of the vessels, goods and effects of the people of the United States, as the public armed vessels of the United States may by law have; and shall be in like manner subject to such instructions as shall be ordered by the President of the U. S. for the regulation of their conduct, and the commissions which shall be granted as aforesaid, shall be revocable at the pleasure of the President of the U. S."

Mr. Eppes said that this was a proposition which he hoped might unite all parties in the House. It authorized the President to demand the recall of the injurious acts of the belligerents, and on a refusal it declared that we would use all the force which we possess against the decrees and orders, which under whatever aspect they could be viewed, were calculated to produce total ruin to all the great interests of the country. The bill under consideration, he feared, would afford no relief to the Southern country; their produce would still be lying on their hands. And indeed take three dollars a hundred from the price of tobacco, (as the orders in council do) and the cultivation of it is out of the question. If we allowed Great Britain to say that we shall not trade without coming and paying her a tax, where would be the limit to her extortion? If we were such dastardly wretches as to permit her to tax at will the great staples of the country, could it be supposed that she would ever allow us hereafter even to be the carriers of our own produce? Whatever present relief the bill might afford to the shipping interest, ruin would ultimately fall on every man who had any thing at stake in the country. If we took no means to resist taxation he should be compelled to believe that what had been said was correct; that "the majority cannot be kicked into a war." And if some such measure as that proposed was not adopted, the assertion would stand as a damnable record to future ages. If we should hereafter be refractory, a foreign nation ought therefore not to send troops but men armed with whips to scourge us into obedience. He concluded by saying that he hoped the House would agree to postpone the consideration of the subject till Monday, that the amendments might be printed.

Mr. Bassett also expressed his approbation of the proposition. There must be one of two intentions in the House, either to glide smoothly down the current of submission or to take a higher ground, which must be war. Could it be believed, that if G. Britain maintained her system of excluding our commerce from the ocean, or subjecting it to heavy taxation, war was not inevitable? No man could conceal this fact from himself or from the nation.

Mr. D. R. Williams wished to offer an amendment to the amendment, for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of the House on the subject of fighting. For this purpose he moved so to amend the bill as to authorize the President forthwith to use the public force, &c.

Mr. Masters opposed the postponement; he hoped the business would be finally concluded to-night.

The question being taken by Yeas and Nays on Mr. Eppes' motion for the postponement of the further consideration of the subject till Monday, there were for it 60—against it 60.

The House being equally divided, the Speaker decided in the negative.

Mr. J. G. Jackson wished to postpone the consideration of this amendment, so as not to delay the progress of the bill. The Speaker declared that a part of a subject before the House could not be postponed.

Mr. D. R. Williams rejoiced in the opportunity of registering his vote for war. He observed that the embargo must be considered as perfectly failing except as the precursor of war. We had a much greater hold now on the belligerents than we should ever have again. We had changed the balance of the ledger completely during the embargo. They had before an immense property of ours in their hands; we now had of theirs. Permit the embargo to be removed, and they would again have the same hold on us, and we should not go to war next session. Rather than give them notice that we meant to make war upon them at a certain time, he would seize all their citizens and set them to work on our fortifications—act the Algerine to them. Their governments played the Algerine on us, and would not we do the same to them? He would seize every thing but the funds. If the House could abandon our rights in this manner, when every square foot of our ground was laid under contribution, they deserved to be scoffed at by the world.

Mr. Gardenier declared the amendment offered by Mr. J. G. Jackson, to be unconstitutional; because the power of declaring war belonged to Congress, and was a power which they could not delegate.

The question being about to be put on Mr. Williams's amendment, a division of the question was called for, so as to take it first on striking out—

Mr. Randolph observed that he should vote for striking out, to destroy the hypothetical character of the proposition. If we were to have war at all, it ought to be direct.

Mr. Eppes observed that the proposition of Mr. Jackson was not contingent, but complete. It authorized the President to say to each nation "withdraw your orders or decrees." If not, it was war and immediate war. Means for it were at hand; and nothing was wanting but spirit on the part of the House to use them.

Mr. Lyon was in favor of striking out. If we were to have war, he wanted to have the first blow.

The question on striking out a part of Mr. Jackson's motion, to make way for Mr. Williams's amendment was negatived by Yeas and Nays, 67 to 56.

Mr. Jackson renewed his motion for postponement—for it 61, against it 61. Another count being called—for it 64 against it 62. Another count being called for, tellers were named by the Speaker, who reported.. that there were for it 62, against it 63.

Mr. Burwell moved that the bill lie on the table.—For it, by Yeas and Nays, 64 to 63. The Speaker (Mr. Varnum) observed that the subject had been so long under debate and so many questions had been taken on it that he felt compelled by duty to vote in the negative. So the motion was lost.

Mr. G. W. Campbell moved an adjournment.—For it by Yeas & Nays, 57, against it 70.

Mr. D. R. Williams moved to strike out the words in Italic in Mr. Jackson's motion and insert "to adjust the disputes with the"—For the motion by Yeas and Nays 25, against it 94.

Mr. J. Montgomery, moved to adjourn—Yea 50—Nays 70.

The question was next taken on the first section of Mr. Jackson's amendment as follows:

Yeas.—Messrs. W. Alston, Bard, Bassett, Bibb, Blackledge, Blount, Boyle, Brown, Burwell, Butler, Calhoun, Clay, Cutts, Dawson, Deane, Desha, Eppes, Franklin, Gholson, Goodwin, Holland, Holmes, Howard, J. G. Jackson, Johnson, Kenan, Love, J. Montgomery, Jer. Morrow, Newton, Nicholas, Porter, Pugh, Rea of Pen. Rhea of Ten. J. Richards, Sawyer, Say, Seaver, Shaw, Smilie, J. K. Smith, J. Smith, Taylor, Troup, Whitehill, M. Williams, Winn—48.

Nays.—Messrs. Alexander, Bacon, Barker, Blake, Boyd, J. Campbell, Champion, Chittenden, Cook, Culpepper, Dana, Davenport, Durell, Eliot, Ely, Gardenier, Gardner, Garnett, Gray, Green, Harris, Heister, Helms, Hoge, Humphreys, Ilsley, R. S. Jackson, Jenkins, Kelly, Key, Lambert, Lewis, Livermore, Lloyd, Lyon, Macon, Masters, M'Creery, Milnor, N. R. Moore, Jno. Morrow, Mosely, Mumford, Newbold, Quincy, Randolph, M. Richards, Riker, Rowan, Russell, Sloan, S. Smith, Southard, Stanford, Stedman, Storer, Sturges, Swart, Taggart, Tallmadge, Thompson, Trigg, Upham, Van Allen, Van Cortlandt, Van Dyke, Van Horn, Van Rensselaer, Verplanck, Wilbour, D. R. Williams, A. Wilson, N. Wilson—74.

Mr. Fisk entering after his name was called, was not permitted to vote. He wished to vote in the affirmative.

No question was taken on the remaining sections offered by Mr. J. G. Jackson.

Mr. Blount offered a new section in substance declaring the first capture of any vessel under the decrees and orders to be an act of war, authorizing the President of the United States to issue letters of marque and reprisal against the nation so committing war. The question on agreeing to this amendment was decided as follows:

Yeas—Messrs. Alexander, Bassett, Boyd, Blount, Boyle, Brown, Burwell, Butler, Calhoun, Deane, Desha, Eppes, Fisk, Franklin, Gholson, Green, Holmes, Howard, J. G. Jackson, Johnson, Kenan, Kirkpatrick, Love, J. Montgomery, N. R. Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, Newbold, Newton, Nicholas, Porter, Pugh, Rea of Pen. Rhea of Ten. J. Richards, M. Richards, Sawyer, Say, Seaver, Shaw, Smilie, J. K. Smith, J. Smith, Taylor, Troup, Wharton, Wilbour, M. Williams, A. Wilson, Winn—49.

Nays—Messrs. W. Alston, Bacon, Bibb, Blackledge, Boyd, Burwell, J. Campbell, Champion, Chittenden, Clay, Cook, Culpepper, Dana, Davenport, Dawson, Durell, Elliot, Ely, Findley, Gardenier, Gardner, Garnett, Goodwin, Gray, Harris, Heister, Helms, Hoge, Holland, Humphreys, Ilsley, R. S. Jackson, Jenkins, Kelly, Key, Lambert, Lewis, Livermore, Lloyd, Lyon, Macon, Masters, M'Creery, Milnor, T. Moore, John Morrow, Moseley, Mumford, Quincy, Randolph, Riker, Rowan, Russell, Sloan, S. Smith, Stanford, Stedman, Storer, Sturges, Swart, Taggart, Tallmadge, Thompson, Trigg, Upham, Van Allen, Van Cortlandt, Van Dyke, Van Horn, Van Rensselaer, Verplanck, D. R. Williams, N. Wilson—73.

Mr. Macon moved to strike out that part of the bill authorising a suspension of it on the rescinding of the orders and decrees; with a view to have no intercourse with the belligerents till all our differences were redressed.—Ayes 24.

Mr. J. G. Jackson moved to amend the bill so as to make a total revocation of the orders and decrees necessary previous to a renewal of intercourse. For it 48 against it 66.

Mr. J. G. Jackson renewed this motion in substance for the purpose of getting the Yeas and Nays on it. Yeas 31, Nays 91.

Mr. Eppes moved to strike out of the bill the section for the repeal of the non-importation act. Yeas 50. Nays 70.

Mr. Dawson moved to adjourn—Ayes 40.

Mr. Bibb moved to strike out the fourth of March and insert the 15th. A division of the question being called for, the question was taken on striking out and carried, Yeas 59, Nays 56. The 15th of March was then inserted, Yeas 86. Nays 30.

Mr. Randolph moved to strike out "March next." and insert "March, 1809."

Mr. Macon moved to amend this motion by inserting September instead of March. Motion lost, Ayes 25.

Mr. Randolph's motion was then agreed to, Ayes 79.

Mr. Wharton moved to strike out the section limiting the duration of this act & the several embargo laws to the end of the next session of Congress—Ayes 12.

Mr. J. G. Jackson moved to strike out "till the end of the next session of Congress," the term to which the law is limited, and insert "till the first day of January next." For it 42, against it 60.

The bill was then ordered to a third reading on Monday next—

And the House adjourned at half past eleven, after a session of thirteen hours and a half.

During the proceedings this evening considerable debate took place, which will be noticed hereafter. We have not room in this paper to notice even the Speakers.