ocean, at his discretion, not exceeding arsenals and docks, for the accommodation and speedy repairing of public armed ships and vessels that may be rendered unfit for service by gales of wind, or in action with the enemies of the United States; and that they have leave to report by bill, or otherwise :

The House proceeded to consider the said resolution and the same being twice read, was, on the question put thereupon, disagreed to by the House.

NATIONAL DEFENCE.

The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business of yesterday, being the report of a committee on fortifying our ports and

harbors.

The question was taken on the amendment offered by Mr. VAN CORTLANDT, which was disagreed to-ayes 51, noes 54.

The question then recurred on filling the blank in the 2nd resolution with "$250,000," for building fifty gunboats.

H. of R.

serious, to suffer his friends and fellow-citizens on these shores to be forsaken and abandoned to their fate. I will assure that gentleman, if his part of the country were attacked by any enemy, foreign or domestic, from the Western country, or anywhere else, I will vouch that he shall have every protection and aid New York can afford.

Mr. SMILIE said he was willing to divide the appropriation; to apply $150,000 to the building of gunboats, and $100,000 to the fortification of New York.

Mr. THOMAS observed that, to get at this course, it would be proper in the first instance to disagree to the proposition to fill it with $250,000.

Mr. Cook hoped they would disagree to this proposition. He believed that $250,000 was a larger sum than was wanted for the fair trial of the experiment whether gunboats would be efficacious. They were not, he added, held in much repute in the Eastern country,

The filling the blank with $250,000 was disagreed to-ayes 4.

Mr. THOMAS moved to fill the blank with one hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

Mr. MUMFORD.-I hope a majority of this House will agree to strike out the whole resolution respecting gunboats, with a view to appropriate that money to solid and durable fortificaMr. J. RANDOLPH hoped this motion would not tions. I was opposed to it in Committee of the be agreed to. He was too unwell to go far into Whole. I did then, and do now consider, that the subject, but he would ask the House whether there is no necessity for any more gunboats. they were acting with their accustomed caution There are, in my opinion, a sufficient number al- and distrust, where the expenditure of public moready for the Southern sections of the Union, for ney was involved? He thought not. If he were which places they appear to be only adapted, ex- convinced that the expenditure of $150,000, or cept in a very few places to the North, where even $1,500,000 would answer the proposed end, there is shoal water. They may answer a he would cheerfully give it. But, as had been obvery good purpose in shoal water, but are inad-served, the system of gunboats was matter of exequate for the defence of your ports and harbors to the north of the New Jersey shore; and I very much doubt, whether, in a gale of wind, they would not even sink at their mooring at the entrance of either of the harbors of Portsmouth, Salem, Plymouth, Newport, or New York.

It has been asserted that this was an electioneering scheme, and that as soon as our Spring elections were over, no more would be thought of it, until the next election. I wish, sir, to put this question to eternal rest, by stating the plain matter of fact. Why, sir, it has been considered of so serious a nature in its consequences, and of so much importance, that the Legislature of the State of New York, in their last session, did enter into formal resolutions, instructing their delegation, in both branches of the Legislature of the United States, to use their utmost endeavors for the defence and protection of the port and harbor of New York-the whole State is alive on this subject and the memorials now lying on your table from the Mayor and Corporation of that city, together with the petitions from the citizens of all political parties, tend to one and the same object, protection to their persons and to their property-there is not, there cannot be any dissenting voice with them on this subject.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania on my right says, he would not defend your Atlantic shores if it was to be done with ships of war. I have too good an opinion of that gentleman's patriotism, to indulge even the idea that he can possibly be

periment, and if they should eventually turn out good for nothing, the House would be of opinion that they had vested as large a capital in a worthless project as would be deemed necessary. He would not undertake to say they were good for nothing-far from it. But there was no information before the House which entitled him to say they were good for much. When you compare, said Mr. R., the lavish appropriation made on this subject in Committee of the Whole, and view the economy this House always practises on every branch of expenditure, relative to the regular army and navy, looking with an eagle eye on every dollar before they part with it-it surprises me to see them voting away hundreds of thousands of dollars for a species of vessel, which, in all human probability, may be used for river craft in a few years. One thing has been ascertained. Ships of war are defensive and offensive, too, but the House will vote no money for an addition to them. I do not censure them for it; but if they will not appropriate for objects, the physical powers of which are ascertained, why vote the public treasure by handfuls for vessels, the powers of which have never been tried? Let the experiment be made, and, if it succeeds, let us appropri ate liberally; but, till then, let us not vote more money than has been already appropriated. I believe there is one situation in which they may be useful-in the Mississippi. I wish, however, not to be understood as speaking as a man of science on this business. I only wish some evidence of

the value of this machine, before I vest so large a
capital in it. I hope, therefore, the blank will not
be filled with $150,000. As it has been stated, I
think it will be extremely disproportionate to vote
$20,000 for the fortification of all our harbors, and
$150,000 for gunboats.

Mr. STANTON said that, in the last French war,
a system of this kind had been adopted, and had
proved highly beneficial. In a calm, two gunboats
would sink a frigate, and if they were obliged to
retreat, they could run out of danger at any time.
Mr. J. RANDOLPH rose for information. He
wished some gentleman, acquainted with the sub-
ject, would inform the House what number of
seamen would be requisite to man these gunboats
in case they should be built; not merely to sail
them along the coast, but to fight them; and what
number of seamen would be required for other
vessels. Where could be the use of building, if
it were not intended to man them? Was it not
evident that, in a few years, they would rot, and
the money expended upon them be lost? He said
he might be wrong, and he hoped if they were
built, he should be proved to be so.

Mr. SMILIE said, it was true that he was neither a military nor a naval man, nor did he pretend to say that gunboats were the best means of defence. The proper departments, however, ought to be the best acquainted on this subject, and they were of opinion that this species of defence was necessary. Whether they were right or wrong, he would not pretend to say; but he would observe, that the Secretary of the Navy had informed them that the President had deemed it expedient to authorize the building of sixty additional gunboats. Now, whether the President or the Secretary of the Navy was competent to a correct decision on this point, he did not know. This was, however, clearly their opinion. He did know, however, that it was their duty to provide the necessary means; and if they granted but half the sum required by the President, it appeared to him it would be descending as low as was proper under existing cir

cumstances.

Mr. ELMER said that, under existing circumstances, he was opposed to appropriating 150,000 dollars to building additional gunboats. The House had determined that they would not authorize the President to man those already built. It appeared to him very bad economy to suffer the public vessels to lay in dock, and to build other vessels, the utility of which was not ascertained. There might be situations in which gunboats would be useful, but had they not enough of them already? If it should be ascertained that thirty or forty gunboats should be wanted for any particular purpose, Mr. E. said it might be prudent to authorize their erection. He said, he had been in favor of giving authority to the President to man and equip the armed vessels and gunboats. The House had, however, refused this. If, then, they would not authorize the President, whatever the emergency, to man the present vessels, why build additional vessels ?

FEBRUARY, 1807.

ing authority to man the armed vessels. The nation was in a state of profound peace, and he did not see that these vessels would have anything to do. He was opposed to this appropriation on another ground. He believed, whenever the necessity should occur, they would be able in one, two, or three months, to build as many gunboats as would be wanted.

Mr. GREGG said, from the discussions which had taken place, and the votes of the House, there might be a propriety in postponing the business for the purpose of obtaining information. For his own part, he was willing to acknowledge that he was altogether in the dark. He did not know in what situation gunboats would be useful, or the number of men required to man them; nor did he know whether land fortifications were necessary. in connexion with them, to defend the port of New York. Before he could act understandingly on the subject, it was necessary for him to have this information. Some gentlemen say that gunboats will answer valuable purposes, while there are others of opinion that there are so few places, on the coast of the United States, where they will answer, that a small number of them will be sufficient. I believe, said Mr. G., under these circumstances, that it will be best to postpone the further consideration of the subject, and, in the meantime, call on the Secretary of the Navy to say at what points gunboats will answer, together with the number of them necessary, and on the Secretary at War to say whether he is in possession of any plan for the protection of New York, together with its expense, and the number of men required. It will be next to madness to erect fortifications without putting in them sufficient men to keep them in repair. Many fortifications, commenced some years ago, for want of this provision, are now as useless as if they had never been begun. Mr. G. said, he was particularly desirous to obtain information from the Executive as to the practicability of defending the port of New York. If it could be defended, he would not be backward on the subject.

Mr. FISK hoped the motion would prevail. Experience had proved gunboats to be useful. In their late war with Tripoli, they had been obliged to borrow a number of them, which had proved not only an instrument of defence, but likewise of offence. It was true, also, that, in other cases, they would be useful. Indeed, they appeared to be peculiarly adapted to the United States, who had a large extent of seacoast and numbers of shoals, enabling them to act with effect; that they would rot in time was true; it was also equally true that other shipping would rot; and that the loss of fifty or sixty gunboats would not be equal to that of a single frigate. It was also equally true that gunboats did not require the same expense in manning and equipping as other vessels; they were also so situated as to be capable of being instantly manned, which was not the case in regard to other vessels. The Secretary of the Navy had stated the number of men necessary Mr. HOLLAND was opposed to filling the blank for each gunboat at twenty-seven. Take three with so large a sum. He was also opposed to giv-hundred and fifty men as necessary for a frigate;

of course thirteen gunboats will not require more men than one frigate. Mr. F. said, he thought gunboats, in every point of view, the preferable defence. The Secretary of the Navy had stated sixty gunboats to be requisite. For the purpose, however, of accommodation, it is proposed to lessen the number of gunboats to thirty, and to apply the remaining sum to fortifications. He hoped this motion would prevail.

H. OF R

what reasons they had for thinking a smaller number sufficient, and whether the mere ipse dixit of a member of this House ought to stand in competition with the deliberative opinion of the heads of departments? They were peculiarly responsible to the nation, and must be considered as having taken more pains to inform themselves on such a subject than an individual member of the House.

Mr. C. said he considered some of the arguments urged on this occasion unfair. It had been asked what comparison there was between appropriating $20,000 for the protection of our ports and harbors, and $150,000 for building gunboats? The truth was, that for repairing our ports and harbors, there had been appropriated not merely $20,000, but at least half a million, a considerable part of which remained unexpended, to which the sum of $20,000 was only proposed to be added. Mr. C. said, as he understood the subject, gunboats were intended to supply the deficiency existing in other fortifications. It was the opinion of some of our best informed men that some of our ports could not be defended by batteries, and the system of gunboats was consequently brought in aid of fortifications. But it was asked whether we should build these boats without manning them. Mr. C. said he could scarcely view this as a serious argument. Was the inquiry made with regard to batteries? The an

Mr. EARLY moved to postpone the further consideration of the second resolution to Monday. week. In common with other members, he felt the necessity of information, before he agreed to carry further the system of gunboat defence. It appeared from the report of the Secretary of the Navy, that there were built, or on the stocks, seventy gunboats. He, for one, was of the opinion that this was a number amply sufficient, to justify the requiring at least some information on the subject, either as to the ports capable of being defended by them, or their general capability of yielding defence to the United States. All the information before the House was embraced in a single paragraph, giving the opinion of the President, that it was expedient to build sixty gunboats. The House had already determined the question of manning these gunboats; even if they should be built, they have determined not to make an appropriation for that purpose. Mr. E. said, to build, without equipping or manning, appeared to him to carry on the face of it a wanton extrav-swer made by gentlemen on that subject is, that agance. Are they to be suffered to lie not only unmanned, but unprotected? He presumed that no gentleman contemplated this; and yet the House had refused any appropriation for manning or equipping them.

On another account, Mr. E. considered this measure improper. Where was the occasion, or necessity, of this expense at this time? He knew they had, on some recent occasion, an alarm sounded in their ears as to the probability of being engaged in war. But, for himself, he was ready to declare that he did not, in the smallest degree, see the probability of such an event. On the contrary, so far as he was enabled to judge, from official information, he did not recollect any period of the Government when there was less cause for such apprehension. Whether, however, the measure was necessary or not, he presumed all gentlemen would agree in the propriety of obtaining information.

The motion to postpone was disagreed toayes 49, noes 58.

Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL said he was in favor of filling the blank with $150,000, as from all the official information before the House this appeared to be the best mode of defence which had been devised. He observed that some time since a majority of the House had considered the gunboat system as the best means of defence. He would ask gentlemen who were then in favor of this system, and were now opposed to it, what reasons they had for their change of opinion. If the President and Heads of Departments were of opinion that such a number of gunboats was necessary, as had been named, he would ask them

in case of danger we will man them. The same answer might be given in the case of gunboats. The answer was as complete in one case as in the other. The only true inquiry was, whether in case of an attack we have a sufficient number of gunboats? It was true they might rot, and so also might frigates and fortifications. If this mode of arguing was correct, it afforded sufficient grounds for putting down all the armed vessels of the United States.

Mr. PITKIN, in reply to Mr. FISK, observed, that he had compared the estimates of a frigate and gunboats, from which he inferred that the equipment and annual expense of a frigate of 44 guns, compared to that of gunboats, was as eighteen to one.

Mr. ELLIOT said, that if the opinion of the President should be complied with, there would be one hundred and twenty-nine gunboats built, which in actual service would transcend the expense of the Navy of the United States, and would cost more than a million of dollars. Mr. E. said he considered the reproach cast upon those who were formerly the advocates of gunboats as strong evidence of their inutility. Gunboats had been lately thought much of; what was the result? That gunboats might be considered as a kind of vessel guarding a little deposit of national spirit, if any there was left to put on board; but as soon as they were assailed by the wind or waves, their maiden purity was gone. They were of no use whenever there was wind or tide, and could only float in a time of profound tranquillity.

Mr. ALSTON said he possessed little informa

H. OF R.

National Defence.

FEBRUARY, 1807.

tion with regard to the advantages or disadvanta-information that was desired, to enable them to ges that were likely to flow from building the determine whether gunboats are a proper defence number of gunboats that was proposed. He mere- for the United States? They might apply to ly rose to ask the attention of gentlemen to the the President or the Secretary of the Navy, and grounds taken at the last session. The building | get information from them that they think them of gunboats had been instituted on the recom- necessary. Mr. L., however, said that he was of mendation of the President made at the last ses- opinion that they ought to judge on this subject sion. Gentlemen would there find the reasons on from what had already taken place. For himself which that system had been begun. They were he was free to declare that he was opposed to the not intended to be set afloat on the ocean, to com- gunboat system. He had carefully attended to mit depredation or attack vessels at sea, but as an the arguments of gentlemen, and to what did aid and support to our fortifications, and to pre- they amount? Have they adduced an argument vent an enemy from annoying our seaports. It to show their utility, or produced an instance to was, he believed, the opinion of the House at the show where they have been useful? It has been last session, that gunboats constituted the best said that their utility is established by the use system that could be devised for this purpose. made of them against Tripoli. But he would Mr. A. said he had since seen no reason to change ask whether they would have been of any use if his opinion on this subject. He trusted in God the vessels of Tripoli had left the shore? It was the time would not arrive when these gunboats admitted that gunboats were not useful on the would be called into operation. But could this ocean. It was evident, then, that they were in fairness be considered as an argument against building a navy for a state of perfect calm; and them? This system of defence having been were gentlemen disposed to expend millions for adopted, before it was abandoned gentlemen ought vessels that would be only useful under such cirto show their inutility. The language of the cumstances? President on this subject was stronger than any It is said, however, that they will aid our fortihe could use. He would, therefore, take the lib-fications. To this, however, it might be replied, erty of laying it before the House. that it would be high time to build them after the erection of the fortifications. Several years have elapsed since the first gunboats have been built, and what have they done? Have they, in a single instance, proved themselves to be of the least utility? Let us, then, until they are proved to be useful, refrain from building any more.

"I cannot, therefore, but recommend such preparations as circumstances call for. The first object is to place our seaport towns out of the danger of insult. Measures have been already taken for furnishing them with heavy cannon for the service of such land batteries as may make a part of their defence against armed vessels approaching them. In aid of these it is desirable we should have a competent number of gunboats, and the number to be competent must be considerable."

Mr. SMILIE said he had voted for the postponement, to give gentlemen an opportunity of getting information. He had not heard a single gentleman on either side profess to have any information with regard to the power of gunboats. Was it not then singular, that when this measure was recommended by the proper officer, and every member acknowledged his ignorance, that it should be objected to? It was not their duty to be minutely acquainted with the subject; he would respect the opinions of those who were best acquainted with it. He said he had been informed that our naval officers were of opinion that gunboats were the best system of defence, and it was evident that so far as they had been under the necessity of using them, they had not been disappointed in their expectations.

Mr. EARLY moved to postpone the further consideration of the resolution until this day week. Mr. LLOYD said he should have no objection to the postponement, if he knew any mode of obtaining the information desired. It appeared that the Committee had applied to the Secretary of the Navy, who ought to possess full information on the subject. What was his reply? Waiving altogether the expression of his own opinion, he merely confined himself to stating that the Pres ident thinks it expedient to build sixty additional gunboats. Whence, then, were they to get the

Mr. L. concluded by observing that when he heard arguments weak as these to induce them to adopt this measure, they were sufficiently strong to convince him that it ought not to be adopted.

Mr. EARLY observed that the only information received from the Executive on this subject was as to the number of gunboats in their opinion requisite. This was not the point on which at present they wished for information. He added, that if they got no further information, he should withhold his vote from giving a single cent for this purpose.

Mr. MUMFORD. The gentleman from North Carolina on my right, said that if any gentleman can show us any better mode of defence we shall be glad to hear it, and although I think it incumbent on him to show us the utility of gunboats, I will not detain the House but a few minutes to recommend what I conceive to be a far better mode of defence, I mean solid and durable fortifications that will last for ages, and block-ships similar to the draught now held in my hand, and which any gentleman may examine at his leisure if he chooses. Sir, the experience off Copenhagen is an evidence of their real utility. Witness the engagement with the British fleet and the Crown battery, (somewhat similar to the plan of Montalembert, recommended by me in debate yesterday,) and the block-ships. That fleet was actually silenced, and nothing saved the proud navy of old England on that memorable day but the game of flag of truce played off so successfully