lectors respecting the execution of the laws, and which they were bound to obey, unless a different construction should be established by a legal decision. This indeed was essentially necessary, in order to secure an uniform construction and execution of the laws. But the provision now alluded to makes the detention to rest on the opinion of each Collector, and this must necessarily produce a great diversity in the manner in which the power should be executed. All has been done that can be done to obviate that evil; and the President being authorised to decide on the detentions when made, the opportunity was taken to inform the Collectors of what in his opinion should be a proper cause of detention. This however could be given only as opinion, and operate as a recommendation, and not as an order. Nor does it appear practicable to establish uniformity, and to prevent partiality, and either laxity or too great severity in practice, unless the power of prescribing general rules in that respect by which the Collectors will be bound to abide, be vested in the President. I am aware that there is another mode of evasion, by regular coasting vessels, which will not be prevented by either of the preceding provisions. Either whilst in port or on their way down our rivers and bays, coasting vessels may receive articles not entered on their manifest, which they put on board other vessels ly ing off the coast for that purpose. But it is not perceived that any legal provision can prevent that infraction, nor that any other remedy ean be found than the vigilance of the officers. Another general regulation will, however, be suggested perhaps useful as a permanent mea sure, but which would at all events, under existing circumstances, give additional security for the observance of the laws, and afford some relief to our own seamen; to wit, a prohibition to employ any aliens either as masters or part of the crew of any coasting vessel. It is still more difficult to guard against violations by vessels departing without clearance, in open defiance of the laws. The following provisions, on mature consideration, appear the most efficient that can be devised against infractions, which it is the more necessary to repress, as they may be daily expected to increase, and threaten to prostrate the law and government itself. 1st. To forbid expressly under pain of forfeiture (the penalty now being only implied) the lading of any vessel without the permission of the Collector, and without the bond for a coasting voyage being previously given;-authorising the Collectors to refuse permission, unless the object be that of a lawful coasting or fishing voyage. The great num ber of vessels now laden and in a state of readiness to depart, shews the necessity of this provision. If there be cases in which the indulgences of converting vessels into warehouses ought to be granted, there will beno hardship, where the intention is fair, to require a bond similar to that given for a coasting voyage. And the Collectors should likewise in such cases be expressly authorised to take such efficient precautions as will put it out of the power of such vessels to sail without warning. 2. In order to prevent those fraudulent sales of vessels by which ostensible owners of no responsibility are substituted to those from whom penalties penalties might be recovered, it is necessary to provide that those owners of vessels whose names appear on the register or licence, should continue to be reputed as such, and liable to the penalties in case of infraction of the laws, until the register or licence shall have been actually surrendered and new papers shall have been regularly granted by the Collector to the purchaser, and in every such case of purchase, a sufficient bond that the embargo shall not be infringed, to be previously required. 3. The power to seize unusal deposits now vested in the Collectors of districts adjacent to the territcries of foreign nations should, as well contemplated in the Bill passed by the House of Representatives, be extended to all the districts. That this is an arbitrary power which no thing but the unremitted efforts in some places to evade the law can publicly justify, cannot be denied; and it should, like that of detention, be placed under the controul of the President, and be executed only in conformity with such general rules as he would prescribe. 4. Exclusively of the assistance which may be derived from gunboats and from the armed vessels of the United States, it would be advisable to authorise the President to add ten or twelve cutters to the present establishment, Fast sailing vessels of every draft of water, and requiring only from 15 to 30 men each, are mostly wanted, and would, for the object contemplated, be as useful as the largest frigates. 5. It is with regret that the necessity of authorising, on the application of the Collectors, an immediate call of the local physical force of the country, must also be stated. But such partial acts of violence as have taken place in some of the seaports, cannot be prevented by the circuitous manner in which the public force must now be brought out in support of the laws. And no doubt exists that the mass of the citizens, whether they approve or disapprove of the Embargo, would in every port instantaneously suppress any such outrage, they can be called upon to act in a legal manner. Some other provisions appear also necessary for the purpose of carrying the laws more completely into effect along our land frontiers. 1. The exportation of specie by land should be expressly prohibited. 2. The power of detaining deposits should be so expressed as to leave no doubt of the authority to detain waggons and other carriages laden and actually on their way to a foreign territory. Although I cannot perceive any reason for the distinction, it has been supposed in one of the districts, that the law which authorised the detention, of flour, beef, or potash deposited in a warehouse, did not extend to the case of their being deposited in a waggon although evidently on its way to Canada. 3. The offence now published by law is that of exportation. This is not consummated till after the property has been actually carried beyoud the lines, where being in a fo reign jurisdiction, it cannot be seized, so that forfeiture, which is the most efficient penalty, can never apply to exportations by land; and the bond being required, as in the case of vessels, the only remedy is the uncertain one of recovering penalties against apparent offenders who either absconded or have no pro perty. perty. How far it may be practicable to make the act of preparing the means of exportation punishable, or provide some other remedy, is submitted to the Committee. But it must also be observed, that every degree of opposition to the laws, which falls short of treason, is now with but few exceptions, an of fence undefined and unprovided for by the laws of the United States.Whence it follows that such offences remain unpunished when the state authorities do not interfere. The necessity of defining those offences by law as misdemeanors, and of providing an adequate punishment, appears obvious. I will beg leave here to add that it does not appear necessary to continue any longer the indulgence granted to the British merchants to import for the use of the Indians articles of which the importation is generally prohibited by law, as that privilege is liable to great abuse, and affords just ground of dissatis faction to American citizens, Whether it be adviseable to continue the permission given to those Indian traders to export furs and peltry, is a question to be decided by political considerations. The last branch of the subject to which I wish at present to call the attention of the committee, relates to interruptions and certain injurious proceedings attempted under colour of law. 1. Vexatious suits are brought against Collectors, which not only perplex faithful officers, but have the effect of intimidating others, and prevent an energetic perform ance of their duties. The only provisions which have occurred to me on the subject, are to enable the Collectors who may be sued, always to remove the cause before a court of the United States; to make a certificate issued by the proper authority, that there was reasonable cause of detention, protect them against damages in cases of detention, in the same manner as is now provided in cases of seizures; and to provide for the safe keeping, and restoring when proper, and on security being given, the vessels and property which may be detained. 2. Attempts have in several instances been made to wrest from the Collectors, by writs of replevin, issued by the state courts or officers, property detained or seized by said Collectors, or which, in any other manner, is in their possession in conformity with some law of the United States. It is evident that such attempts, if submitted to, would defeat not only the embargo, but also the revenue laws of the United States; that whenever property is by virtue of the la v of the United States in the possession of a Collector, Marshal, or any other of their officers, no process in rem, which will take the property away, whether of replevin, attaclument, or any other, can be legally issued by a state authority; and that the sheriff or other person executing the same must be considered as a mere trespasser, and be resisted accordingly. But there is no other way at present to resist such illegal process but actual force. And it appears necessary that another remedy should be afforded, by providing a summary mode of su perceding any such process, through the interference of the courts of justice of the United States; and by making it penal for any sheriff or other person, to execute the sanie, or in any manner to attempt to take property property which by virtue of any law of the United States is in the Collector's possession. 3. In some instances where vessels and cargoes libelled for infractions of the embargo have been restored to their owners on their give ing security for the appraised value, the valuations have been so low as to reduce the forfeiture to an inconsiderable sum, thereby defeating altogether the law. It is suggested that this might be prevented by a provision authorising and directing the district judges to set aside on motion of the district at torney, such valuation, whenever in their opinion falling short of the true value. On the subject of mandamus, I will only observe that, in the only instance which has taken place, the court, supposing they had jurisdic tion, could not, from the manner in which the question was brought be fore them, have decided otherwise than they did, but that it is desirable that the question of jurisdiction, as it relates either to the courts in whom the power ought to be vested, or to the courts to which it should extend, should be precisely defined by law. I have not in this communication taken into consideration the technical defects of the existing embargo laws, because prosecutions do not fall within my immediate cognizance, and I do not feel competent to the task of pointing out the necessary alterations. Measures have, however, been taken to procure on that subject and from the proper sources, information which will hereafter be laid before the Committee. To the remaining enquiry of the Committee, whether the inconve iences of the present system may not in some degree be removed, I can only answer, generally, that a law which lays such extensive re strictions as the embargo, cannot be carried into effect without imposing serious inconveniences even on the domestic intercourse of the United States; and that these must neces sarily be increased in proportion to the opposition and efforts to evade or violate the law. It has already been stated that provisions which will render the bond given by coasting vessels a complete security against violations of them, will diminish the necessity and extent of more arbitrary restrictions. An authority to permit on proper security being given, such vessels when they arrive in port, to keep their cargoes on board, would afford some relief. And I think that the credit on duties accruing on the importation of some articles which was allowed by the act of 10th March last, should be extended to all importations of the same articles made after the passing of the act, those made in vessels which sailed under special permission only excepted. With respect to this last class of importatious, as they were permitted by special indulgence, as it is understood that it has been impossible in many cases to prevent its being abused, and as in almost all the partieshaving a species of exclusive privilege, have made sufficiently profita. ble voyages, the propriety, particu larly in the existing situation of the revenue, of allowing them also the advantages of an extended credit on duties, is not perceived. Report of the Embargo Committee. After a period of 15 years of peace Peace hardly interrupted by transient hostilities, and of prosperity unparalleled in the history of nations; the United States are, for the first time since the treaty which terminated the revolutionary war, placed in a situation equally difficult, critical and dangerous. Those principles recognized by the civilized world, under the name of Law of Nations, which heretofore controuled belligerent powers, regulated the duties of neutrals, and protected their rights, are now avowedly disregarded or forgotten by Great Britain and France. Each of those two nations captures and condemus all American vessels trading with her enemies or her enemy's allies, and every European power having become a party in the contest, the whole, of our commerce with Europe and European colonies, becomes liable to capture by either one or the other. If there be any nominal exception, it is made on a condition of tribute, which only adds insult to the injury. The only plea urged in justifica tion of those hostilities, is that of retaliation, grounded on a presumed acquiescence of the United States in previous aggressions by the other party. Waving a discussion of the correctness of the principle of retaliation, a principle doubtful in itself and altogether inadmissible to the extent to which it has been carried, and when operating on the neutral rather than on the enemy: it is altogether untrue that the United States have voluntarily acquiesced in the unlawful aggressions of either ration; omitted or delayed any measures calculated to obtain redress, or in any respect deviated from that impartiality to which they wore bound by their neutrality, France has alluded to the violations of the national flag, and of the sovereignty of the United States, in the instances of Pierce's murder, of the outrage on the Chesapeake, and of the destruction of the Impetuous, The measures taken to obtain redress in those cases are of public no toriety, and it may be added, that with the exception of the last, those aggressions on the sovereignty of the United States did not affect their neutrality, aud gave no right to France either of complaint or interference. Setting aside irregulars ties of less importance, and equally chargeable to both nations, such as the British order of June 1803, and the decree of the French General Ferrand; the principal violations by England of the neutral rights of A merica, prior to the Berlin decree of November 1806, and which if a quiesced in might have given grounds of complaint to France are the cap ture of American vessels laden with colonial produce, founded on a renewal of that pretended principle generally called 'the Rule of 1756, the impressment of American sea men, compelled thereby to become the auxiliaries of England against France, and proclamation of nomi nal blockades, particularly that of the coast from the river Elbe to Brest notified in May 1806e It will not be asserted that the United States have ever tamely se quiesced in either of those prele sions. It will not be denied, that with respect to the two first, the most strenuous efforts were inces santly made to procure an alteration of the British system. It is true that to the nominal proclamation blockades of England, the United States had opposed only spirited and repeated remonstrances and |