Supplemental Journal-Embargo.

COOPER, were appointed a committee to give information thereof to the Senate.

[While the above bill was under discussion, Mr. KING, of Massachusetts, submitted the following observations upon his propositions to amend the bill; which were negatived:]

Mr. KING observed that it was not his intention or wish to consume much of the time of the House; that indeed from the silence of the majority he had a right to conclude that the arguments of his friends in the minority were unanswerable; that the majority were thereby convinced of the inexpediency of the measure, and would abandon it. However, as this silence is equivocal, and as I may have drawn too favorable a conclusion therefrom, I will add a few observations to those already advanced by my friends; but I shall not go over the ground which they have with such ability occupied; vain indeed would be the attempt to add to the general arguments which they have advanced; mine, therefore, shall be of a local nature, as to the probable bearing and effect of this measure upon that part of our country with which I am more particularly acquainted.

track of the human foot through them. It is impossible, I repeat it, sir, that you should thus supply the wants and exigencies of that part of our country.

But an honorable gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. CLAY) has said, if provisions cannot be transported by land to a people thus situated, they must go to the provisions; they must even quit their country, their farms, and their endeared firesides, and go to a more hospitable, more favorable climate.

[The gentleman from Kentucky here explained his observations, as having been confined to the thinly inhabited country near Mobile; that it was better that the inhabitants there should suffer some deprivations, or even be compelled to leave that part of the country, than that the enemy should receive essential supplies through them, or that the effective operations of an important measure should be prevented.]

Mr. KING continued: As, Mr. Chairman, a part of the District of Maine is, and other parts of our country may be, like Mobile, thinly inhabited and exposed to the same inconveniences in point of situation, the principle of the gentleman was equally applicable to the inhabitants of those parts of our country, and they fell of course under the same condemnation and proscription. At all events, sir, such must be the operation of this measure upon them. Pass this bill into a law, and enforce it in all its rigors and horrors, and they must emigrate or starve. But, indeed, sir, I do not think they will do or suffer either, until they shall have made use of all the means which God and nature have put into their hands for redress.

I know the people of Maine well. I was born among them. I am one of them, and feel a conscious pride in representing their interest, their feelings, and their views. Yes, sir, I well know their hardy sons; rough as their climate, unpolished as their country; treat them as freemen, and they are like their own ocean in a calm; but oppress them, treat them as slaves, and "the tempestuous sea of liberty" is not more violent and unmanageable. What must you expect from such a people when you attempt, with the stroke of a pen, to cut them off from all their accustomed modes of industry and enterprise? I suggest not this as a threat, but as a solemn caution to gentlemen how they raise a storm, which it will not be in their power to calm or direct.

Since you have stricken from the bill, as originally reported, the seventh and eleventh sections, which permitted a limited coasting trade, it has become more harsh in its features, and its operation must be infinitely more oppressive. Pass the bill, sir, as it now stands, and it will not be possible for the inhabitants on the seaboard, in the Eastern section of the Union, to subsist for six months. The interior of that country may have, at the last very productive season, raised sufficient for their immediate support, but this is not the case on the seaboard; there they are in want of articles of the first necessity. A part of that country has been recently settled-other parts are not suitable for cultivation. The inhabitants have always been accustomed to draw their principal support from the ocean, from their fisheries, lumber, and coasting trade. It is thus they have been compelled to obtain their weekly and monthly supplies. I fear that gentlemen are not sufficiently acquainted with that part of our country, and do not realize the calamities they will, by this measure, inevitably bring upon it. With our extended seacoast, our rough, and in many parts, sterile country, it will, sir, be impossible by land to carry sufficient supplies into every part of the District of Maine; the state of our roads and the face of our country forbid it. You I well remember the slander which has been may with some facility proceed as far as the industriously propagated against this people-of Kennebec; there, on the seaboard, you meet want of attachment to the Union-of a disrewith a natural barrier to land carriage. Sup-gard of its Constitution and laws. But believe pose you pass that river, and with difficulty proceed to the Penobscot; you must then transport your wagons thirty miles by water, or drive them for a long distance upon the margin of that river, over a broken and mountainous country; but if, with all this hazard, labor, and trouble, you pass the Penobscot, what will you then encounter? After leaving the vicinity of the river, you meet with few settlements, a thinly inhabited country, extensive wildernesses, with scarcely a

me, sir, if that Union ever be dissolved, it will not be for want of their attachment to it, but because this Government, the bond of that Union, discards them, and sacrifices their interest and their happiness, and turns protection into oppression. They do not disregard our Constitution or laws, but they do in vain look to them for that protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, which they have a right to expect and demand. Of most of their external commerce

Supplemental Journal-Embargo.

No. 10. June 28, 1809, Mr. Madison.-"An act to amend and continue in force certain parts of the act, entitled 'An act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France and their dependencies, and for other purposes."

they have been for a long time deprived; their No. 9. March 1, 1809, Mr. Jefferson.-"An act vessels, by thousands, are now rotting at their to interdict the commercial intercourse between wharves, their sailors abandoned to misery and the United States and Great Britain and France want; their fisheries, for which they are indebted and their dependencies, and for other purposes." to God and their own industry only, are ruined; and all by the restrictive and war acts of their rulers; and now the scanty, the miserable remnant of their once extensive and flourishing commerce, even their friendly coasting trade, from port to port and State to State, by which they earn their daily bread, is by this bill to be taken from them. Under your Constitutional right to regulate commerce, you will destroy all commerce, and drive our seamen into foreign service. Instead of free trade and sailors' rights, we have no trade and sailors' wrongs.

Permit me here, sir, as a necessary caution to gentlemen, as a solemn warning to this country, as an impressive lesson to the American people, to read a catalogue of these restrictive, not to say oppressive laws; I could wish deeply to engrave them on the hearts of my fellow-citizens, in perpetual remembrance of the causes of their sufferings.

No. 1. February 28, 1806, Mr. Jefferson.-"An act to suspend the commercial intercourse between the United States and certain parts of the island of St. Domingo," to wit: those parts "not in possession, and under the acknowledged Government of France."

No. 2. April 18, 1806, Mr. Jefferson.-"An act to prohibit the importation of certain goods, wares, and merchandise," from Great Britain and her dependencies, after the 15th of November

then next.

No. 3. February 24, 1807, Mr. Jefferson.-"An act to continue in force for a further time an act, entitled 'An act to suspend the commercial intercourse between the United States and certain parts of the island. of St. Domingo,' extending to Gonaives and Tortuga, and other dependencies of St. Domingo, not in possession and under the acknowledged Government of France."

No. 4. December 22, 1807, Mr. Jefferson.-"An act laying on embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States."

No. 5. January 9, 1808, Mr. Jefferson. "An act supplementary to the act, entitled 'An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States."

No. 6. March 12, 1808, Mr. Jefferson.-"An act in addition to the act, entitled 'An act supplementary to the act, entitled An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States."

No. 7. April 23, 1808, Mr. Jefferson.-"An act in addition to the act, entitled 'An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States,' and the several acts supplementary thereto, and for other purposes."

No. 8. January 9, 1809, Mr. Jefferson.-"An act to enforce and make more effectual an act, entitled 'An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States,' and the several acts supplementary thereto."

concerning the commercial intercourse between No. 11. May 1, 1810, Mr. Madison.-"An act the United States and Great Britain and France and their dependencies, and for other purposes."

No. 12. March 2, 1811, Mr. Madison.-"An act supplementary to the act, entitled 'An act concerning the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France and their dependencies, and for other purposes."

No. 12. June 18, 1812, Mr. Madison.-"An act declaring war between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the dependencies thereof, and the United States of America, and their Territories."

No. 14. Mr. Madison.-And now, "A bill laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States."

Here, sir, you have a catalogue of the restrictive acts of an American Congress, enacted ostensibly for the benefit of a free commercial people! If, sir, a parallel can be found in all the annals of ancient or modern despotism, (always excepting that of France,) of equal commercial God I could erase from your statute books this oppression, let her abettors show it. Would to record of oppression, with the same facility as I now cast this schedule of the acts from me, and tread it under foot. Sir, the American people cannot, they will not submit to be thus oppressed. You tempt them too far; you abuse their noble and generous nature; clouds and thick darkness may, for a time, rest upon their spirit and their burst forth with renovated splendor. patriotism, but, like the sun of heaven, they will

of our fellow-citizens as are likely greatly to sufAs an attempt to gain a partial relief for such fer by the suspension of the coasting trade, Mr. KING moved to amend the fourth section of the one port in any State to another port in the same bill so as to permit coasting vessels to go from State.

And in favor of neutrals, who had been, or should be induced to visit our ports, Mr. K. also moved to amend the amendment of the Senate, by striking therefrom the following words, in the first section of the bill:

such foreigners as did belong to nations in amity with "Whose officers and crews shall consist wholly of the United States, at the time of the arrival of said ship or vessel in the United States, and which shall not have, nor take on board for the voyage, any citizen of the United States, except such as may produce a passport therefore, to be furnished under the authority and direction of the President of the United

States."

Supplemental Journal-Embargo.

APPENDIX

TO THE HISTORY OF THE THIRTEENTH CONGRESS.

[FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS.]

COMPRISING THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS ORIGINATING DURING THAT CONGRESS, AND THE PUBLIC ACTS PASSED BY IT.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

July 12, 1813. The Secretary of State, to whom were referred several resolutions of the House of Representatives of the 21st ultimo, requesting information on certain points relating to the French decree of the 28th of April, 1811, has the honor to make to the President the following report:

In furnishing the information required by the House of Representatives, the Secretary of State presumes that it might be deemed sufficient for him to state what is now demanded, what part thereof has been heretofore communicated, and to supply the deficiency. He considers it, however, more conformable to the views of the House, to meet, at this time, without regarding what has been already communicated, every inquiry, and to give a distinct answer to each, with the proper explanation relating to it.

and also any correspondence between Mr. Russell, in possession of the Department of State; whether the Minister of France to the United States ever informed this Government of the existence of the said decree, and to lay before the House any correspondence with the said Minister relative thereto, not improper to be communicated, with any other information in possession of the Executive, which he may not deem it injurious to the public interest to disclose, relative to the said decree, tending to show at what time, by whom, and in what manner, it was first made known to this Government, or to any of its representatives or agents; and lastly, to inform the House whether the Government of the United States has ever received from that of France any explanation of the reasons of that decree being concealed from this Government and its Minister, for so long a time after its date; and if such explanation has been asked by this Government, and has been omitted to be given by that of France, whether this Government has made any remonstrance, or expressed any dissatisfaction to the Government of France at such concealment ?

These inquiries embrace two distinct objects. The first relates to the conduct of the Government of France, in regard to this decree. The second, to that of the Government of the United States. In satisfying the call of the House on this latter point, it seems to be proper to meet it The House of Representatives has requested | in a two-fold view: first, as it relates to the coninformation when, by whom, and in what man- duct of this Government in this transaction; ner, the first intelligence was given to this Gov-secondly, as it relates to its conduct towards both ernment of the decree of the Government of belligerents, in some important circumstances France, bearing date on the 28th of April, 1811, connected with it. The resolutions do not call and purporting to be a definitive repeal of the de- specially for a report of such extent; but as the crees of Berlin and Milan; whether Mr. Russell, measures of the Executive, and the acts of Conlate Chargé d'Affaires of the United States to the gress founded on communications from the ExGovernment of France, ever admitted or denied ecutive, which relate to one of the belligerents, to his Government the correctness of the declara- have, by necessary consequence, an immediate tion of the Duke of Bassano to Mr. Barlow, as relation to the other, such a report seems to be stated in Mr. Barlow's letter of the 12th of May, obviously comprised within their scope. On this 1812, to the Secretary of State, that the said decree principle the report is prepared, in the expectahad been communicated to his (Mr. Barlow's) pre-tion that the more full the information given on decessor there; and to lay before the House any every branch of the subject, the more satisfactory correspondence with Mr. Russell on that subject will it be to the House. which it may not be improper to communicate;

The Secretary of State has the honor to re

Relations with France.

port, in reply to these inquiries, that the first intelligence which this Government received of the French decree of the 28th of April, 1811, was communicated by Mr. Barlow, in a letter bearing date on the 12th of May, 1812, which was received by this Department on the 13th of July following; that the first intimation to Mr. Barlow of the existence of that decree, as appears by his communications, was given by the Duke of Bassano in an informal conference on some day between the 1st and 10th day of May, 1812, and that the official communication of it to Mr. Barlow was made on the 10th of that month, at his request; that Mr. Barlow transmitted a copy of that decree, and of the Duke of Bassano's letter announcing it, to Mr. Russell, in a letter of May 11, in which he also informed Mr. Russell that the Duke of Bassano had stated that the decree had been duly communicated to him; that Mr. Russell replied, in a letter to Mr. Barlow of the 29th of May, that his first knowledge of the decree was derived from his letter, and that he has repeatedly stated the same since to this Government. The paper marked A is a copy of an extract of Mr. Barlow's letter to the Department of State of May 12, 1812;* B, of the Duke of Bassano's letter to Mr. Barlow of the 10th of the same month; C, of an extract of Mr. Barlow's letter to Mr. Russell of May 11th; D, of an extract of Mr. Russell's answer of the 29th of May; and E, of Mr. Russell's letter to the Department of State of the 30th.

ment of France, long depending, and said to have been brought nearly to a conclusion at the time of Mr. Barlow's death, was suspended by that event. His successor, lately appointed, is authorized to resume the negotiation, and to conclude it. He is instructed to demand redress of the French Government for every injury, and an explanation of its motive for withholding from this Government a knowledge of the decree for so long a time after its adoption.

It appears, by the documents referred to, that Mr. Barlow lost no time, after having obtained a knowledge of the existence of the French decree of the 28th of April, 1811, in demanding a copy of it, and transmitting it to Mr. Russell, who immediately laid it before the British Government, urging, on the ground of this new proof of the repeal of the French decrees, that the British Orders in Council should be repealed. Mr. Russell's note to Lord Castlereagh bears date on the 20th of May; Lord Castlereagh's reply on the 23d, in which he promised to submit the decree to the consideration of the Prince Regent. (See papers marked F.) It appears, however, that no encouragement was given at that time to hope that the Orders in Council would be repealed in consequence of that decree; and that, although it was afterwards made the ground of their repeal, the repeal was, nevertheless, to be ascribed to other causes. Their repeal did not take effect until the 23d of June, more than a month after the French decree had been laid before the BritThe Secretary of State reports, also, that no ish Government; a delay indicating in itself, at communication of the decree of the 28th of April, a period so momentous and critical, not merely 1811, was ever made to this Government by the neglect, but disregard of the French decree. That Minister of France, or other person than as above the repeal of the British Orders in Council was stated, and that no explanation of the cause of its not produced by the French decree, other proofs not having been communicated to this Govern- might be adduced. I will state one which, in: ment, and published, at the time of its date, was addition to the evidence contained in the letters ever made to this Government, or, so far as it is from Mr. Russell herewith communicated, marked informed, to the representatives or agents of the G, is deemed conclusive. In the communication United States in Europe. The Minister of France of Mr. Baker to Mr. Graham, on the 9th of Auhas been asked to explain the cause of a proceed-gust, 1812, marked H, which was founded on ining apparently so extraordinary and exceptionable; who replied, that his first intelligence of that decree was received by the Wasp, in a letter from the Duke of Bassano of May 10, 1812, in which he expressed his surprise that a prior letter, of May, 1811, in which he had transmitted a copy of the decree, for the information of this Government, had not been received. Further explanations were expected from Mr. Barlow, but none were given. The light in which this transaction was viewed by this Government was noticed by the President in his Message to Congress, and communicated also to Mr. Barlow in the letter of the 14th of July, 1812, with a view to the requisite explanation from the French Government. On the 9th of May, 1812, the Emperor left Paris for the North, and in two days thereafter the Duke of Bassano followed him. A negotiation for the adjustment of injuries and the arrangement of our commerce with the Govern

structions from his Government, of as late date as the 17th of June, in which he stated that an official declaration would be sent to this country, proposing a conditional repeal of the Orders in Council, so far as they affected the United States, no notice whatever was taken of the French decree. One of the conditions then contemplated was, that the orders in Council should be revived at the end of eight months, unless the conduct of the French Government, and the result of the communications with the Government of the United States should be such as, in the opinion of the British Government, to render their revival unnecessary; a condition which proves incontestably that the French decree was not considered by the British Government a sufficient ground on which to repeal the Orders in Council. It proves, also, that, on that day the British Government had resolved not to repeal the Orders on the basis of that decree; since the proposed repeal was to depend, not on what the French Gov* These two letters were transmitted with the Pres-ernment had already done, but on what it might ident's Message of January 26, 1813.

do, and on arrangements entered into with the