Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 (4 of 16 vol.)

"Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer;And, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer."

But let us inquire if the President had any knowledge that Mr. Erskine had no full power; for if I show, beyond all doubt, that the President did not know it, all this insidious fabric, which is designed to produce so many delusions, will vanish at once. I think it is to be presumed that the President had no knowledge that Mr. Erskine had not full powers, because he entered into the arrangement. What object could he have in view which should induce him to conclude an arrangement, except with full confidence of its being carried into effect? Not to get rid of the embargo – that had long before been interred by its fathers with a truly Christian spirit. Not to get rid of the non-intercourse – because the moment the arrangement was disavowed, the President breathed life and spirit into that act, and gave it renewed existence. It was not from any hostile disposition to England, because he could have no reason to wish for a war. And because, if he had desired a war with that country, he had no occasion to seek a pretext therefor, inasmuch as long antecedents, and up to the very time of making the arrangement, the causes for war against Great Britain were great and numerous, as has been agreed by all parties. If not to get rid of the embargo, nor of the non-intercourse, nor for war, what object could he have, with such knowledge as has been imputed to him, not expressly, but by inference, in making the arrangement of April? Will gentlemen be good enough to condescend so far as to assign some object that the Executive could have had in view from such conduct? For it is not to be presumed that men, in or out of office, act without motive and without object. Therefore, hearing no reason assigned why the President should act thus preposterously, as it is attempted to be insinuated he did, by those in opposition, it would be reasonable to conclude that he had no such knowledge. But, in opposition to this insinuation, also, you have the solemn declaration of the President of the United States, through the Secretary of State. Humiliating in the extreme must it be to hear this solemn asseveration questioned, even in a side-way, in order to support the insolence of a British Minister! Was it not enough that the country has been enabled to endure, in order to secure the great object of remaining in peace, insult after insult, outrage after outrage, and even that the Government should be insulted by foreign diplomatic characters, without doubts and suspicions being insinuated by members of this House? Pray, sir, let me ask this House, or the whole of the United States, what the President of the United States has ever done in any official character, among the many which he has filled with honor to himself and reputation to his country, that the correctness of his declarations, made through his Minister of State, should be disputed? But I might suffer the humiliation of going still further into the subject. We have the word of the recalled Minister, if that be considered more conclusive by gentlemen than that of the President of the United States, that he did not communicate his instructions to Mr. Smith. We have, 1st. The presumption that the Executive had no knowledge of Mr. Erskine's instructions, because he could have no object in view in concluding an arrangement with that knowledge; 2d. We have his declaration to that effect through the Secretary of State; 3d. We have the declaration of the Minister, whose act was disavowed, to the same effect. What have we to destroy this proof? The deceptive, poisonous insinuations of Mr. Jackson. Mr. Erskine repeatedly declared that he had ample powers. On the news being received during the last session of the issuing of the order of the 26th April, he declared that he had no doubt his arrangement would be carried into effect. He, to the last moment, declared that he acted in the spirit, if not in the letter, of his several letters of instructions. How, therefore, was it possible for the President to receive information from Mr. Erskine that he was not invested with competent power, when Mr. Erskine himself declared and believed he was, and acted accordingly.

From these considerations I apprehend it most clearly appears that the President of the United States had not a knowledge, neither was it his duty to have had a knowledge that Mr. Erskine did not possess powers to make the arrangement which he did.

Tuesday, December 26

Two other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, Benjamin Pickman, jr.; and from Virginia, William A. Burwell, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

Thursday, December 28

Conduct of the British Minister

The House again resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of the Whole on the resolution from the Senate approving the conduct of the Executive in refusing to receive any further communications from Francis J. Jackson.

The motion for indefinite postponement being still under consideration —

Mr. Stanford said, so many were the objectionable features of the present resolution before the House, he should vote for its indefinite postponement, and with permission of the House he would give his reasons for his vote. In the first place, he thought the language and style of the resolution highly objectionable, and calculated to render that which was already bad enough still worse; that it was, in the second place, a strange innovation upon all former practice and usage under our present Government; and lastly, that it was clearly unconstitutional. Thus much he should endeavor to show, and trusted he would be able to do it to the satisfaction of the House.

Mr. S. then premised that he had disapproved the introduction of the resolution of approbation at the last session; that he considered unnecessary; but the present he considered not only unnecessary, but even pernicious. That was a pacific one; this belligerent in all its aspects. He had suggested a mode to one or two gentlemen, of getting rid of that one, if they had thought proper, and in which case he would have contributed his vote to have got clear of it. But, had the question been put in a direct form, he should have differed from his colleague, (Mr. Macon,) inasmuch as he should have voted for it. He could not have done honestly otherwise, as he had most cordially approved the arrangement made by our Government with Mr. Erskine. Further, that as respected the rejection of Mr. Jackson, he thought entirely with his colleague, that he might well have been dismissed on the receipt of his first letter. He tells us for what he had been sent and commanded to do. In the case of the Chesapeake, to make "declarations" and to receive counter "declarations" simultaneously. In other words, for the arrogance, insults, and murders, we had borne and suffered, he came to stipulate atonement, if we would stipulate a sort of counter atonement at the same time. Stipulation for stipulation, at any rate. It had "not appeared to His Majesty necessary to command him to propose to our Government any formal agreement" to take place of the rejected one. For the matter, said Mr. S., of Mr. Jackson's instructions, much rather than for the manner of his negotiation, might the communication have been cut off with him. Both matter and manner were, to be sure, objectionable, but the former, in his estimation, formed much the most solid ground of dismissal. It was but too obvious the mission of Mr. Jackson would end as the former one had done. That he did not come to propitiate us was but too manifest.

While the resolution before us, sir, affects to support the Executive Government against insult, and language "highly indecorous," it descends into a style of expression, itself more culpable and degrading; unworthy, indeed, of the country and the dignity of its Government. It was a flattering truth to know that in the style of diplomatic correspondence the American side of the question suffered not in comparison with that of any other. In the late, as well as former instances, the advantage has been calculated, as he presumed, to inspire every American bosom with just sentiments of pride. Had it, therefore, been recommitted, as his colleague (Mr. Macon) had advised, he had no doubt it could have been amended, and rendered more worthy of consideration as a State paper, than it is likely to be in its present dress and form.

Besides, Mr. Speaker, if the measure be intended to have any effect, it must be a bad one. It looks toward war. Already are our difficulties with Great Britain critical enough, but if gentlemen wish war, the thing is altogether appropriate to its end; well calculated not to support, but to thwart the pacific views and intentions of the Executive. We may, in this way, foreclose the door of amicable negotiation which the Executive by his first Message showed us he had kept open. If rudeness of expression had been resorted to on the part of the British Minister, in his correspondence with our Government, had it not been repelled on their part? Had they not amply redressed the insult of the individual? It might well afford some consolation to ourselves and the country, if other wrongs and insults have been even as well repaired as this. Besides the murder of Pierce, the more horrid murders on board the Chesapeake, the continuation of impressments for years, we have had instances, more than one, it is said, of other Ministers conspiring with your conspirators, menacing you with war, and putting your Government at defiance, here in the ten miles square, and the sensibility of Congress had never before been awakened to a resolution of this kind in defence of the Executive. The truth is, sir, it never needed it, nor does it now. We have, in very deed, Mr. Speaker, refined upon the more substantial insults we have suffered, till we have literally reduced it to a war of words. It is the expressions of the individual we are combating, and pledging the whole force of the country to protect the President against the consequences of, and not the more palpable injuries received. Would to Heaven, sir, such a resolution had not been brought forward! It is unworthy of us – unworthy of the political professions we heretofore made, even those made at our last session.

That a resolution of approbation, Mr. Speaker, is against all example for the last eight years; that it is an innovation upon all usage and practice, reference need only be had to the speeches of gentlemen during the last session. They afford the most ample proof. They were then unwilling to pour out the oil of adulation upon the Executive head. It was deemed unnecessary, anti-republican, to do so. He hoped gentlemen understood him. He was using their own language upon that occasion, and not his own. He borrowed it for its excellence and fitness upon the present occasion. Such language conveyed his sentiments then, and still did; and, for his part, he could not comprehend how it could be correct then, and now the reverse of correct. Some gentlemen on the floor perfectly remembered that when Mr. Jefferson came into the Presidency, eight years ago, he changed the mode of personal address into that of written message. "In doing this," said he, in his first Message, "I have had a principal regard to the convenience of the Legislature, to the economy of their time, to their relief from the embarrassment of immediate answers on subjects not yet fully before them, and to the benefits thence resulting to the public affairs." All acquiesced in this new course, and from that time to the late instance mentioned, no time had been wasted in pouring back the oil of adulation or approbation, in any form, on the Executive head. The only instance which could be cited during the last eight years, was found incidentally incorporated in a resolution relating to the navigation of the Mississippi. The words were, "and relying with, perfect confidence on the vigilance and wisdom of the Executive." This, then, was the only drop of this oil which the last Administration produced, and has been called up at this first ordinary session of a new Administration to form an example to follow; or rather, might we not say, to resume the exploded practice of former times, and thus echo back messages in this new form of joint resolution. But what was the style in which gentlemen spoke at our last summer session, when the subject of approbation was then before us? The language of one was, if it were the object to bring before the House a discussion upon the Message of the President, and to return an answer to his Excellency's most gracious Message, he should certainly be opposed to it. If there had ever been a particular part of the former Administration which had met the approbation of the Republicans generally of this country, it was the discontinuance of the practice. Another had told us that he was "opposed to a deviation from what he conceived to be the duty, and becoming the dignity of the House." He thought the House had nobler duties to perform than passing abstract resolutions, out of which no legislative act is contemplated, merely for the purpose of pouring the oil of adulation upon the head of the Chief Magistrate. And again, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Findlay,) whose opinions are always so much relied upon and respected in this House, and he, Mr. S., trusted by few more sincerely than himself, had, upon that occasion, with singular happiness and force, spoken thus: "Law," said the gentleman, "is the only language of a Legislature. It is the only language that can command obedience and respect. Any equal number of citizens met in a tavern, and there passing a resolution of approbation, would have equal force with such a resolution passed in this House, and would be more in character. They are acting without authority from the constitution or the rules of the House." It would be for that gentleman to tell us, to tell the House, and he would beg the gentleman's pardon for the particular request – but he must request that he would take the occasion to let us all know how his doctrine then is now to be got over. For his own part, he could not comprehend how right and wrong could change their respective sides in so short a time.

His colleague, (Mr. Macon,) in referring to former times, had expressed some doubt whether the majority were the same party now they were then. He felt no doubt himself they were the same; but there was no room to doubt, from the present question itself, they had undergone some strange modification since former times. The doctrines then must be well remembered by him, yourself, Mr. Speaker, and a few others on this floor. The advocates of this sort of adulation must go back beyond the times of the late and last Administration, if they would introduce the fashion again. At the opening of the fifth Congress, in the answer of this House to the speech of the President, these words are used: "We cannot omit to testify our approbation of the measure, and to pledge ourselves that no considerations of private inconvenience shall prevent, on our part, a faithful discharge of the duties to which we are called." And again, this sentence: "Whilst we view with great satisfaction, the wisdom, dignity, and moderation, which have marked the measures of the Supreme Executive of our country in its attempt to remove, by candid explanations, the complaints and jealousies of France, we feel the full force of that indignity which has been offered our country in the rejection of its Minister." This language was too much in the style of adulation for us then to brook, and our names, sir, stand recorded together against it. Let gentlemen compare for themselves.

It is the peculiar misfortune, sir, of this system, if again to be revived, that the right of approbation fully implies the right of disapprobation and censure; and during the same Administration of which we are speaking this right of disapproving and censuring was also attempted to be exercised. The resolution was introduced at the first session of the sixth Congress, by a gentleman then from the city of New York, (Mr. Livingston,) in the case of Jonathan Robbins. The same gentleman is occasionally present here at this time, and seems yet to be a stickler for judicial decision, and still thinks the Executive, against an individual, matchless odds. The part of the resolution alluded to, runs thus: "that the decision of those questions by the President of the United States against the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, in a case where those courts had already assumed and exercised jurisdiction, and his advice and request to the judge of the district court, that the person thus charged should be delivered up, provided, only, such evidence of his criminality should be produced as would justify his apprehension and commitment for trial, is a dangerous interference of the Executive with judicial decisions." Hence, then, sir, it might be easily seen from a practice of this sort, that a whole session might be wasted without doing any part of the public business. The thing would be endless.

In the fourth Congress, on a subject of a call for papers in relation to the British Treaty, an unhappy difference arose between this House and the Executive. General Washington was the President. His reply to the House was, "that a just regard to the constitution, and to the duty of his office, forbid a compliance with their request." The House, again by resolution, asserted their right, disclaiming, however, at the same time, any agency in making treaties. Notwithstanding the violence and passion of the moment, this House did not then think they had any right to meddle with the making of treaties; but now it would seem the present House were disposed to join the Senate in this sort of interference in the negotiations of the Executive to form a treaty.

In all the cases alluded to, sir, it should be distinctly kept in view, that each House had acted for itself in voting their approbation and homage to Executive speeches and proclamations. He had reference to the proclamation of neutrality by General Washington. This was the first time Congress ever legislated approbation before.

Mr. Quincy. – It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to offer any common-place apology for the few observations I shall submit to the House on the subject now under consideration. Such is the character, and such the consequences of these resolutions, that no man, who had at heart the honor and happiness of this country, ought to continue silent, so long as any topic of illustration is unexhausted, or any important point of view unoccupied.

It is proposed, sir, that this solemn assembly, the representative of the American people, the depositary of their power, and in a constitutional light, the image of their wisdom, should descend from the dignity of its legislative duties, to the task of uttering against an individual the mingled language of indignation and reproach. Not satisfied with seeing that individual prohibited the exercise of his official character, we are invited to pursue him with the joint terrors of legislative wrath, couched in terms selected to convey opprobrium and infix a stigma. "Indecorum," "insolence," "affront," "more insolence," "more affront," "direct, premeditated insult and affront," "disguises, fallacious and false: " these are the stains we are called upon to cast; these the wounds we are about to inflict. It is scarcely possible to comprise, within the same compass, more of the spirit of whatever is bitter in invective, and humiliating in aspersion. This heaped up measure of legislative contumely is prepared; for whom? For a private, unassisted, insulated, unallied individual? No, sir. For the accredited Minister of a great and powerful Sovereign, whose character he in this country represents, whose confidence he shares; of a Sovereign who is not bound, and perhaps will not be disposed to uphold him, in misconduct; but who is bound, by the highest moral obligations, and by the most impressive political considerations, to vindicate his wrongs, whether they affect his person or reputation, and to take care that whatever treatment he shall receive shall not exceed the measure of justice, and above all, that it does not amount to national indignity.

Important as is this view of these resolutions, it is not their most serious aspect. This bull of anathemas, scarcely less than Papal, is to be fulminated, in the name of the American people, from the high tower of their authority, under the pretence of asserting their rights and vindicating their wrongs. What will that people say, if, after the passions and excitements of this day shall have subsided, they shall find – and find I fear they will – that this resolution is false, in fact; that a falsehood is the basis of these aspersions upon the character of a public Minister? What will be their just indignation, when they find national embarrassments multiplied, perhaps their peace gone, their character disgraced, for no better reason than that you, their representatives, following headlong a temporary current, insist on making assertions, as they may then, and I believe will, realize to be not authorized by truth, under circumstances, and in terms, not warranted by wisdom?

Let us not be deceived. It is no slight responsibility which this House is about to assume. This is not one of those holiday resolutions, which frets and fumes its hour upon the stage and is forgotten forever. Very different is its character and consequences. It attempts to stamp dishonor and falsehood upon the forehead of a foreign Minister. If the allegation itself be false, it will turn to plague the accuser. In its train will follow severe retribution, perhaps in war; certainly in additional embarrassments, and most certainly, in worse than all, the loss of that sentiment of self-esteem, which to nations, as well as individuals, is "the pearl of great price;" which power cannot purchase, nor gold measure.

In this point of view, all the other questions which have been agitated in the course of this debate dwindle into utter insignificance. The attack or defence of administration, the detection of fault, or even the exposure of crime, are of no importance when brought into competition with the duty of rescuing this House and nation from the guilt of asserting what is false, and making that falsehood the basis of outrage and virulence. I avoid, therefore, all questions of censure or reproach on either the British Minister or the American Secretary of State. I confine myself to an examination of this resolution, particularly of the first branch of it. This is the foundation of all that follows. I shall submit it to a rigid analysis, not for the purpose of discovering how others have performed their duties, but of learning how we shall perform ours. The obligation to truth is the highest of moral and social duties.

It is remarkable, Mr. Speaker, that of all the gentlemen who have spoken, no one has taken the precise terms of the resolution as the basis of his argument, and followed that course of investigation which those terms naturally prescribe. Yet the obvious and only safe course, in a case of such high responsibility, is first to form a distinct idea of the assertion we are about to make, and then carefully to examine how that assertion is supported, if supported at all, by the evidence. With this view I recur to the resolution, in the form in which it is proposed for our adoption, and make it the basis of my inquiries.

[The Resolution.]

This part of the resolution, it will not be denied, is the foundation of the whole. For if no such "idea was conveyed" in the letter of the 23d of October, then there could be no "repetition" of that idea, in the letter of the 4th of November; and if in the former part of his correspondence Mr. Jackson had made no such "insinuation," then the assertion in this letter that he had made none, was perfectly harmless and justifiable. This part, therefore, includes the pith of the resolution. If we analyze it, we shall find that it contains two distinct assertions. First, that the expressions alluded to convey a certain idea. Second, that this idea, so conveyed, is indecorous and insolent. Here again we are enabled to limit the field of our investigation. For, if no such idea, as is asserted, was conveyed, then the inquiry, whether such idea is indecorous and insolent, is wholly superseded. The true and only question, therefore, is whether the expressions alluded to, do convey the asserted idea. I place the subject in this abstract form before the House to the end that, if possible, we may exclude all those prejudices and partialities which so naturally and imperceptibly bias the judgment. In the light in which it now stands, it must be apparent to every one who will reflect, that the question has, so far as it respects the principles on which our decision ought to proceed, no more to do with the relations between Great Britain and the United States, than it has with those between the United States and China, and has no more connection with Mr. Francis J. Jackson and Mr. Robert Smith, than with the late Charles of Sweden, and the old Duke of Sudermania. It is a simple philological disquisition, which is to be decided by known rules of construction. The only investigation is, touching the power or capacity of certain terms to convey an alleged idea. However illy suited a question like this may be for the discussion of an assembly like the present, yet if we would be just to ourselves and the people, we must submit to an examination of it, in that form in which alone certainty can be attained. It is only by stripping the subject of all adventitious circumstances, that we can arrive at that perfect view of its nature which can satisfy minds scrupulous of truth, and anxious concerning duty. It is only by such a rigorous scrutiny that we shall be able to form that judgment which will stand the test of time, and do honor to us and our country when the passions of the day are passed away and forgotten.