Gazette Of The United States, & Philadelphia Daily Advertiser

FRIDAY. APRIL 20.

The House having resolved itself into a committee of the whole on the state of the Union, on the Bill to provide an additional armament for the protection of the trade of the United States, and for other purposes, when the consideration of Mr. Gallatin's amendment to the first section being resumed, viz, to insert "provided they shall not, in time of peace, be employed as convoys to any port or place."

(Continued from yesterday's Gazette.)

Mr. Otis would not pretend to judge of the sincerity of gentlemen who declared themselves ready to adopt effectual measures for the defence of the country according to their conception of that object, but he thought their construction of the terms, "defence of the country," was extremely limited and partial. If in ordinary cases, it was requisite for the illustration of a question, to agree upon the definition of terms, it was still more important on the present important occasion—When the gentleman from Pennsylvania and others speak of the defence of the country, they evidently mean to confine their ideas to a defence of the soil. He on the other hand conceived that the essential part of a country was the people; and when he considered the subject of defence, he wished that it might be such a defence as would embrace the whole mass of the citizens distributed into different professions, and together constituting what he called the country. The soil was no otherwise deserving of protection, than as it formed a portion of the property of the citizens. It was without doubt the principal and most valuable portion; but there were other kinds of property which for the same reason had also claims to protection. The ship of a merchant is not less the property of the country than the house of a farmer—The sailor who ploughs the ocean is not less a citizen than the husbandman who ploughs the soil—There is nothing sacred in the soil, distinct from the people who inhabit it. Many extensive tracts of the soil of this country; deep morasses, trackless swamps and howling deserts were of no value whatever; yet they belong to the people; they are a part of our public or private property, which no man would feel authorized formally to abandon.

Mr. O. would agree that sometimes the resources of a country would not be found equal to the protection of all the citizens or of all their property. In such instances he allowed that a preference was due to the most numerous class of citizens and to the most valuable part of their property; If all were equally exposed to danger. But when a government is unable to extend its protection to the whole community; it is sufficient to be silent with respect to that part of it which is left defenceless and exposed. It is an aggravation of the misfortune to declare this imbecility to the world; to depress the spirits of your own citizens, and point them out as victims to your enemies. In the bill before us, it is sufficient to provide such a number of vessels as are nearly equal to the defence of the coast, without saying to our merchants, "your country cannot protect you." It is enough, to leave them to take care of themselves, or to permit the Executive to allow them convoy or not, as circumstances may arise: but to declare to the merchants of the United States; to fifty thousand Seamen; to the manufacturers, tradesmen and labouring poor dependent on them, in explicit terms that they are abandoned and expatriated; to say in the mournful language of gentlemen, "we wish to God we could protect you, but we cannot do it;" to pronounce this tremendous sentence upon a number of persons, equal upon a moderate computation to the inhabitants of the largest state in the Union, would be an impolitic, unjust and dishonourable insult. Let us, said Mr. O. try this principle by another test. Great sums of money have been appropriated for the, fortification of ports and harbours, and for the defence of the coasts—till no gentleman believes that every part of our extensive coast is capable of defence, or that our resources will enable us to fortify all our ports and harbours. But have we said to any part of the people of our country, "It will be too expensive to protect you?" Or have we said to foreign nations, "Look here or there and you will find us vulnerable and defenceless" No. The means of defence will be employed and apportioned to the best advantage; but if it were doubtful whether Georgia or Maine could be put into a posture of defence, we should hardly declare to those districts, or to the world, that we thought them untenable. Yet this is the amount of the proposition of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and it is in this view of it, he was astonished to find it introduced. He had often heard from gentlemen the assertion that we were not able to protect our own commerce; and that our utmost means were equivalent only to a territorial defence. He would not comment upon the truth or policy of such remarks. He did not however expect that a proclamation of them in the form of this amendment would have been offered for the sanction of the house. Yet this is strictly the fact. We are invited to say that we will guard against an invasion of our shores, but not against the wanton and unjust attacks of our property at sea. That we will defend what is not exposed to danger; and desert what is every moment liable to destruction. If this system is to be adopted upon the eve of a war, we may as well submit at once to the proud and oppressive nation, of whose conduct we complain.

But the question recurs;—Do the United States possess the means of protecting their commerce? He believed that no country was naturally more competent to afford this protection. Our country abounds with the principal materials requisite for building a navy. This opinion is not novel, but, has received the sanction of great men and wise legislatures. Examine the journals of Congress in the year 1775. it will there appear that resolutions were passed for building six or eight frigates and other vessels of war, and at the close of the session no difficulty appeared in providing the ways and means. They resolved that the money should be provided after having decided that the expense was necessary. Such was the mode of doing business at that period, such ought to be the mode of effecting it now, under circumstances beyond comparison more auspicious; with double the population, an immense addition to our mercantile and agricultural capital, and a regular government.
It is true that towards the end of the war the navy of the United States was diminished by captures; but not before it had more than indemnified the government for the cost of its construction and maintenance by prizes. So firmly persuaded was Congress of its utility, that in the year 1783, immediately after the conclusion of a peace; upon a recent view and fair estimate of the gain and loss of a naval establishment, a resolution was then adopted declaring a respectable marine to be a desirable object, and recommending to the states, to provide funds for its accomplishment. In the notes on Virginia (an authority he was fond of quoting) the expediency of a naval armament is also advocated. Besides, Sir, said he, why have we not equal ability to build and maintain a navy, with the states of Denmark or Sweden, whose population and resources are inferior to ours? Why cannot this country provide a fleet, as well as Peter the Great of Russia, at a time when his people were just emerging from barbarism, and when the arts were imperfectly known in his country? It may be said, indeed, that this was achieved by the force of despotism; but he believed that the force of patriotism could effect much greater miracles; that the free American could serve his country more effectually than the Russian Boor, and that the impulse of liberty was a greater stimulus than the lash of the Knout.

But it is objected to this power of granting convoy, that this employment of the vessels would be a cause of war. Mr. Gallatin said he did not see it would be a cause of war, but that it would be war. Mr. Otis replied that he could not conceive that an act perfectly consistent with the laws of nations and a state of neutrality should be considered as actual war—no principle was more indisputable than this right of convoy. It had been denied with great audacity, but it could not be doubted by any man moderately conversant with the law of nations, or who had read a history of modern Europe. A difference had been hinted between the situation of the northern powers of Europe at the period of the armed neutrality, and the state of this country; but this right had been exercised prior to the formation of the armed neutrality, and has been uniformly asserted and adopted in practice during the present war. On the 27th of March 1794, a new convention was framed between Denmark and Sweden, recognizing this right and resolving upon a naval force to maintain it. [He read this convention] In the same year we find that a demand was preferred by these powers to the British Government for an indemnity for their captured ships and property. An ample compensation was made, yet the fleets of Sweden and Denmark were not equal to the British fleet: but the equipment discovered a determination to defend and vindicate their rights and it produced its effect. But how was this convoy, Mr. Otis asked, equivalent to actual war? Is it because our vessels will not submit to be searched by the French? If this be deemed by gentlemen equivalent to an actual state of war, it will not be induced but may be prevented by convoys; or under present circumstances a private vessel may resist the attempt to search when destitute of a convoy. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania then intend, that this bill will amount to a declaration of war? That cannot be pretended—Or will it afford a pretext for war? It is too late to think of avoiding pretexts. France wants no pretexts, she waits only for convenience. She threatened to ravage your coasts; she warned you of the fate of Venice; the fleets of the nation are raised to trample on your necks, their bayonets are burnished to plunge into your bosoms. The war with England affords her sufficient employment at present; let them succeed in their enterprise against her, and then see whether you will escape from oppression and war.

Great reliance has been placed upon the assertion that the late decrees of the Directory affect only an inconsiderable and disadvantageous part of our commerce. Our carriage of British goods and our direct trade with the British dominions: in which branches of commerce the British will exclude us, from their ability to convoy and to carry at a cheaper rate. It is further said, that if we remain at peace, our trade will be unmolested, except in the cases specified in those decrees, but that a rupture with France, will deprive us of not only her trade, but of all the nations in alliance with her or under her control. He wondered greatly that gentlemen did not perceive the simple answer to these objections—In all those cases if their arguments were just, there would be no occasion for the employment of convoy, and the vessels would either not be purchased or they would be destined to some other use. To defend the coast, or to protect the transportation of our troops and military stores. But he did not believe in the solidity of these arguments—France did not mean to permit this country to carry on any species of commerce, that she could prevent—no gentleman could seriously believe that she would confine herself, though unjust and cruel in a high degree, to the letter or spirit of her late decrees. We have authentic information that she captures all the meets, and the Arch Buccaneer of the West Indies has published an edict purporting that nothing must be suffered to escape—neither was it to be imagined that in the event of a war with a nation, we should be shut out from the ports of the other European nations. Of fifty one millions of our annual exports; a moiety consists of the produce of other countries, of sugars, teas, coffee, cotton and other articles, the demand for which in Europe is constant, and must be supplied: This supply must be obtained from those countries who can carry cheapest. At present for this reason, it is principally derived from this country. It is a monstrous supposition that France should acquire such an ascendancy in Europe as to compel Spain, Holland, the Hanse Towns, Russia and the Italian states to foreclose our commerce, and to deprive themselves of the advantages of purchasing supplies from those who can furnish them with the best advantage—such a system could never be enforced—All those countries would be interested to elude it—That trade which was obstructed in a direct course would be carried on circuitously; but still it would continue, and if protected, it would flourish. The effect therefore of denying convoy to our merchants will be to destroy this great and beneficial carrying trade; to transfer its emoluments to other nations; to annihilate forty millions worth of shipping and to starve or banish sixty thousand sailors and their families upon the value of our lands and produce, the operation of this amendment would be highly pernicious. The farmers have been amused with the idea, that if our own vessels are embargoed, the British and neutral ships will come hither for their produce, and that their interest will not suffer. But it should be remembered that with respect to the produce of our country, there is a great difference between seeking and waiting for a market. It chiefly consists of provisions and the necessaries of life, with which nature in some measure, provides all countries;—as the seasons vary, as the harvest is more or less abundant; the demand for this produce also fluctuates, and, one nation may accidentally possess an immense surplus, while another is threatened with famine. The enterprise of the exporter enables him to discover and avail himself of such circumstances, and when trade is free the amount of our produce will be the greatest quantity which our industry can raise; but when exportation is restrained; the demand is uncertain; the merchant will not risk the purchase of great quantities which may perish on his hand, and an immense diminution both of quantity and value is the unfailing consequence. Besides said he, admitting that other nations should send vessels sufficient to take off all our produce; they must provide convoys; they will not venture unarmed; and unless your produce can be bought on terms that will defray the expense of arming they will not come at all. The question therefore remains, whose convoy will you pay for -that of foreign nations or that of your own country? Honor and interest give one answer; humiliation and meanness another.

It has been asserted within these walls and echoed throughout this continent that we are going to war in support of British manufactures, and of a trade the balance of which is against us. To show the disadvantage of our trade with Britain, it has been insisted that in the last year France has taken eleven millions of our exports and Great Britain but eight millions and an half. But he would assert that either this comparative of our exports was not an infallible test of the relative advantages of our trade, or if it be so, the same principle taken for a series of years is in favour of our trade with Great Britain.—In the year preceding the last our exports to Great Britain were twenty three millions.—To France eleven millions only—By the report of Mr. Jefferson in 1794 formed upon a view of our commerce in peaceable times, we sent to Great Britain nine millions annually, and to France about four millions—In the year 1785 it appears by a memorial of the British merchants to the king, that such is the natural tendency of our export-trade in favor of Great Britain, that although Germany and Holland wanted annually 18000 hogsheads of tobacco, they could obtain but 5000, and that out of 9000 hogsheads for which the French market would afford a sale they would get from us but twelve hundred. The rest was sent to Great Britain. Gentlemen may contend that a great part of our exports to Britain is re-exported; but the quantity thus re-exported is not precisely known, nor can it conclude against the general position. The markets of other countries being open, we should carry these exports directly thither, if it were not convenient—and advantageous to permit them to center in Great Britain, and whether they are remitted in exchange for merchandize which we want and cannot obtain on equal terms from other countries; or as a fund to facilitate our negotiations and commerce in other parts of the world, it equally results that this bias proceeds from that commercial sagacity which is always acute to discern and active to pursue its true interest.

He would further add that the exports of the last year for another reason were not the true criterion of trade. The depredations of the French corsairs had already increased to a degree which induced many to clear out for the French dominions. when the actual destination was to some other country—and of the nominal eleven millions appearing to be thus cleared out, only three millions consisted of our own produce or manufactures.

Mr. O. said, that he would not take the wide range of the gentleman from Connecticut. (Mr. ALLEN) nor give the same scope to his feelings. Gentlemen agreed that the time was arrived, for placing the country in a state of defence, and declared themselves ready to adopt certain measures for this purpose. For these professions he gave them due credit, but their measures were not adequate to the object. He never would agree to declare that this country could not or would not protect its commerce, nor assent to a process of outlawry against all the merchants, mechanics and sailors in the United States. He thought it not very honorable to say to the merchants, "proceed in your commercial projects, and in the event of your success we expect a portion of your earnings to bestow upon the protection of the other classes of the community." The farmers of this country would never find an interest in holding this language and they had too much generosity to adopt it. From the nature of the landed interest, valuable as it certainly was and constituting the basis of all riches, it could not be pretended, that great sums could be drawn from it for sudden emergencies. If loans are wanted, the merchants are able and willing to lend, They cheerfully support a great share of the public burdens and if we could not shelter them from destruction it was a weakness over which he should mourn in silence but which he would never think it politic to publish to the world.

Mr. S. Smith wished to have risen before the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Allen) to have expressed a single sentiment, with the hope that the question might have been taken without further debate; but that gentleman had taken such a wide field of declamation and irritation, that he had lost all hope of speedily taking the question. He was of opinion with the gentleman from Pennsylvania yesterday (Mr. Sitgreaves) that this was a time in which they ought to act, and not to make speeches. The observation he wished to make was that we have already a Naval Establishment of three frigates and two cutters, in the law for providing which, nothing is said to restrict their being employed as convoys. There was a clause of this sort introduced into the bill; but the Senate disagreed to it, and this house concurred in the amendment. It would be an extraordinary thing, therefore, to prohibit these twelve vessels from being employed as convoys, whilst the three frigates and two cutters were liable to be thus employed. There would be a contradiction betwixt the two laws.

(This Debate to be continued.)