WKttsx^ 
 
SPEECHES 
 
 OF 
 
 FISHER AMES 
 
 IN CONGRESS, 
 
 1789-1796. 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 PELHAM W. AMES. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY. 
 1871. 
 
E50S- 
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the j-ear 1871, by 
 
 PELHAM W. AMES, 
 
 In the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington. 
 
 Two hundred and fifty copies printed. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: 
 PRESS OF JOHN WILSON AND SOX. 
 
P E E F A C E. 
 
 THE first edition of the "Works of Fisher Ames" was pub 
 lished, under the direction of a number of his friends, in 1809. 
 A second edition, edited by his son, Seth Ames, was published in 
 1854. The two editions are substantially identical, except that 
 the later one contains a valuable and interesting collection of 
 letters, which are arranged by the editor so as to make the writer 
 of them " act as his own biographer." But of his speeches, only 
 three are given in his works ; and of these three, two only were 
 delivered in the halls of Congress. A very cursory glance, how 
 ever, at the records of the early Congressional debates, shows 
 that Mr. Ames was a constant speaker. Hardly any subject, of 
 any importance, was brought before Congress, that he did not 
 take an active part in its consideration. His speeches bear marks 
 of close application and study, as well as of earnest convictions. 
 He was evidently not content to urge his opinions, without being 
 able to enforce them by facts and figures. A noticeable feature in 
 his manner of reasoning is the occurrence of historical parallels 
 and of the weighty testimony of actual calculation. At the same 
 time, his vivid imagination supplied the images and metaphors of 
 a more brilliant rhetoric ; and, if his arguments were cogent, his 
 style was always elegant and easy. 
 
 By the judgment of his contemporaries, his rank as an orator 
 was very high, and deservedly so. Even if his fume rested wholly 
 on his speech on the British Treaty, it would be established on a 
 firm basis. He received from " the fond partiality of his country 
 men," says the "London Quarterly Review" (December, 1840), 
 
 M15793 
 
" the name of the American Burke ; and there are passages in his 
 speeches which might go far toward accounting for, if they do not 
 quite justify, the appellation." In a parallel between Burke and 
 Ames in the "American Review" (Philadelphia, 1811), the 
 writer says : " Ames is generally concise, always energetic, fre 
 quently pointed ; though he is also figurative and magnificent. 
 His metaphors and figures are, however, for the most part 
 original ; and he is, in my opinion, even more happy than Burke 
 in the use of them. He does not pursue them so far. His genius 
 occasionally blazes out like the lightning of heaven. Its corrusca- 
 tions dazzle the eye, and electrify the nerves. He sees his subject, 
 not only clearly, but with the eye of prophecy and inspiration ; 
 and by a single figure, bold, new, and striking, brings it before 
 you. It is not merely perceived ; it is tangible ; it has life and 
 body and substance. In fine, his style, like his thoughts, is 
 original and his own. His mode of reasoning is also peculiar to 
 himself; or if a resemblance can be found, it is in that of Lord 
 Chatham. He rarely descends the regular steps of a logical deduc 
 tion ; but his arguments are, nevertheless, extremely forcible and 
 conclusive. He is always glowing and energetic, and, where the 
 subject admits of it, pathetic and sublime. What gave peculiar 
 force to his eloquence was the strong conviction he always mani 
 fested. This is discoverable in all his speeches, even to a reader ; 
 and must have been much more strongly felt by a hearer." 
 
 Such disinterested testimony from contemporaries led the 
 present writer to examine more carefully the records of the time 
 when Mr. Ames was a Representative from Massachusetts, an 
 examination that more than repaid the search. It must be borne 
 in mind that legislation, at that time, was in a great measure ten 
 tative. The Constitution had but just been adopted by the States, 
 and the new-fledged government was passing through that ordeal 
 that is so severe to the oldest powers, the recovery from a long 
 and exhausting war. And not only was the government called 
 upon to decide the vexing questions of revenue, finance, com 
 merce, tariff, and the like, but the very machinery of the govern 
 ing power was yet to be set in motion. The executive, legislative, 
 
and judicial departments were yet to be organized and made ready 
 to act. And this, too, in a time of universal doubt and change, 
 in a period like that between sleeping and waking, of singular 
 apathy and listlessness on the one hand, and of exaction and 
 jealousy on the other. Such an epoch cannot fail to be an inter 
 esting part of the history of our country. It was in this construc 
 tive period of our government that Mr. Ames served as a Repre 
 sentative in Congress. He was a member of the first four 
 Congresses, between the years 1789 and 1797. During that time, 
 his speeches, were, of course, numerous. It would not be practi 
 cable nor advisable to give them all. But a few have been 
 selected from the many ; and in the selection it has been thought 
 best to include two speeches that have already been published; 
 viz., those on Madison s Commercial Resolutions, and the British 
 Treaty. Without them, a collection of Mr. Ames s speeches in 
 Congress would be incomplete ; and, as the editions that contain 
 them are now out of print, it is hoped that no apology is required 
 for their introduction. This volume also includes the " Answer 
 to President Washington s Address to the Houses of Congress," 
 which was written by Mr. Ames. The collection is now given to 
 the public, in the hope that it will not be without interest to those 
 who are interested in the early history of our national develop 
 ment, and also with a sincere desire to add something to the fame 
 of Fisher Ames, as well as to offer a testimonial of respect and 
 admiration to his genius and his character. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 I. SPEECH ON THE IMPOST ON MOLASSES 9 
 
 II. SPEECH ON THE PUBLIC CREDIT 19 
 
 III. SPEECH ON THE ASSUMPTION OF STATE DEBTS 32 
 
 IV. SPEECH ON THE COD-FISHERIES 57 
 
 V. SPEECH ON MADISON S COMMERCIAL RESOLU 
 TIONS 72 
 
 VI. SPEECH ON THE BRITISH TREATY 113 
 
 VII. ANSWER TO WASHINGTON S ADDRESS 163 
 
SPEECHES. 
 
 i. 
 
 THE debate in the First Congress on the " duties on imports " 
 was a protracted one, as may be imagined. But the nature of it 
 was not such as to give rise to any important rhetorical effort 
 from any of the participants in it. It was an earnest effort to 
 thoroughly comprehend the effect of all the proposed provisions, 
 with an honest view to adopt what was for " the greatest good of 
 the greatest number." Mr. Ames was a constant speaker on 
 these important subjects, which were to him matters of careful 
 consideration and study. The speech here given, in opposition to 
 the " impost on molasses," was delivered on the 28th of March, 
 1789. " 
 
 I APPEAL, Mr. Speaker, with confidence to the 
 justice of this House, though I am far from being 
 convinced that any liberality has been shown in 
 fixing the duty on molasses ; but I am persuaded that 
 Congress will adopt no measures but those they can 
 justify on principle to their constituents. 
 
 I conceive, sir, that the present Constitution was 
 dictated by commercial necessity more than any other 
 cause. The want of an efficient government to secure 
 the manufacturing interests, and to advance our com 
 merce, was long seen by men of judgment, and 
 pointed out by patriots solicitous to promote our gen 
 eral welfare. If the duty which we contend against 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 is found to defeat these objects, I am convinced the 
 representatives of the people will give it up. I trust 
 that gentlemen are well satisfied, that the support 
 of our agriculture, manufactures, navigation, and 
 fisheries are objects of very great moment. When 
 g ent]e^ i(Ai/pntemplate the fishery, they admit its 
 rifli^ortance, arid -the necessity we are under of encour 
 aging and- : protecting it, especially if they consider 
 its declining situation ; that it is excluded from those 
 advantages which it formerly obtained in British 
 ports, and participates in but a small degree of the 
 benefits arising from our European allies, whose mar 
 kets are visited under severe restrictions ; yet, with 
 all these discouragements, it maintains an extent 
 which entitles it to the fostering care of the gov 
 ernment. There are taken, upon an average, 400,000 
 quintals of fish ; in this branch of business, as was 
 stated by my colleague,* there are employed 24,000 
 tons of shipping in the transportation of the fish to 
 market ; and in the returns of molasses near an equal 
 tonnage is employed. The building of these vessels 
 furnishes no inconsiderable employment to another 
 important interest. The vessels, it is true, are but 
 small ; yet, after every deduction on this account, the 
 concern will be found interesting to the public wel 
 fare. If it is true, and I believe it is, that agriculture 
 and commerce are mutually dependent upon each 
 other, and there is a probability that the additional 
 burden we have imposed will injure the latter, gen 
 tlemen ought to be cautious how they persist. If 
 they even doubt of its effects being hurtful, they ought 
 not to vote for its continuance. Now, I think I can 
 
 * Mr. Gerry. 
 
11 
 
 raise such doubts in gentlemen s minds, and dare 
 commit myself to their candor for the consequences. 
 Notwithstanding gentlemen have expressed a uniform 
 desire to encourage manufactures (and I have been 
 with them in accomplishing this object), they now 
 desert their principles. When it has been contended 
 that the duty ought to be low, inasmuch as molasses 
 is a raw material, it has been replied that the manu 
 facture is pernicious. It has been said that promot 
 ing OUL- own distillation will exclude foreign rum, 
 and consequently affect the revenue ; but does not 
 the same argument apply to every article of domestic 
 manufacture] Has it not all along been contended, 
 that it is proper in the General Government to 
 nurture those interests which have had the particular 
 regard of the individual States, upon the principle 
 that the State legislatures knew feelingly what were 
 the best means to advance their own interests I Has 
 not the position been fully established, that promoting 
 the interests of particular States increases the general 
 welfare ? After this, can gentlemen tell us we are 
 advocating a local policy] That we are sacrificing 
 the interest of three millions of people to the estab 
 lishment of a few New England distilleries \ For my 
 part, I ground my opinion upon national principles; 
 and from these I conclude that molasses ought not to 
 be taxed, or taxed but very lightly. 
 
 The gentleman from Virginia* fears the loss of 
 revenue from the success of this manufacture. To 
 quiet his apprehensions, it will be only necessary for 
 me to remind him of what he ingeniously urged a 
 few days ago on this point, in order to obtain a dis- 
 
 * Mr. Madison. 
 
12 
 
 crimination in favor of the brandy of France. He 
 told us, that, although the State of Virginia had 
 imposed no duty on brandy, but a heavy one on West 
 India rum, yet under this encouragement there were 
 not more than 10,000 gallons of brandy imported, 
 while there were 600,000 gallons of rum ; inferring 
 from this fact that there was no probable ground for 
 suspecting the consumption to change from the one 
 to the other article. If no danger is to be appre 
 hended from brandy, much less can New England 
 rum stand a competition with West India spirit ; the 
 force of habit will not be more easily overcome in this 
 case than in the other. Besides, it is well known, 
 that a great proportion of the people will not drink it 
 at all ; it is a kind of genteel thing to affect disgust 
 and loathing at the very name, much less will they 
 surfer the despised liquor to pollute their mouths. So 
 far are we from having ground to dread the effect of 
 a competition on this side, that the contrary may be 
 justly apprehended. The custom and fashion of the 
 times countenance the consumption of West India 
 rum. I consider it good policy to avail ourselves of 
 this means to procure a revenue ; but I treat as idle 
 the visionary notion of reforming the morals of the 
 people by a duty on molasses. We are not to consider 
 ourselves, while here, as at church or school, to listen 
 to the harangues of speculative piety ; we are to talk of 
 the political interests committed to our charge. When 
 we take up the subject of morality, let our system 
 look toward that object, and not confound itself with 
 revenue and protection of manufactures. If gentle 
 men conceive that a law will direct the taste of the 
 people from spirituous to malt liquors, they must 
 
13 
 
 have more romantic notions of legislative influence 
 than experience justifies. 
 
 When it was asked, What is the occasion of a high 
 duty I it was answered, that it is necessary in order to 
 come at the proper tax on rum ; but I insist that 
 there is no such necessity, while an excise is within 
 our reach ; and it is in this mode only that you can 
 obtain any considerable revenue. The gentleman 
 from Virginia has said that the manufacture of coun 
 try rum is in no kind of danger from the duty on 
 molasses. Pie has stated to the House the quantity 
 made before the Revolution, and goes on to argue 
 that as West India rum paid no duty, and molasses 
 paid some, if the manufacture thrived under these 
 disadvantages, why should it not continue to support 
 itself in future] I believe this matter easy to be 
 accounted for, though I fear it will not be in my 
 power to make a proselyte on the occasion. I should 
 be vain of such success, and therefore I shall proceed. 
 There were many very considerable markets for New 
 England rum cut off entirely by the Revolution ; even 
 in those that remain we have to encounter rivals, 
 who successfully contend for a preference. Previous 
 to the late war, we had a market in Nova Scotia, 
 Newfoundland, and Canada, all the southern colonies, 
 Europe, and Africa. We are now obstructed from 
 going to many of those, to Quebec, and Newfound 
 land ; and our trade gains no ground in others to 
 make up the difference. Consider the state of the 
 fisheries. At that time we possessed them unri 
 valled ; it was the policy of Britain to favor our 
 efforts ; believing that our success tended to increase 
 her maritime strength, she dealt out to us an annual 
 
14 
 
 bounty equal to 20,000 sterling for the fish we took. 
 All her ports were open to us ; w r e could carry it to 
 what market we pleased, and obtain molasses at a 
 low price for the distilleries. But the present state 
 of the business bears no comparison with its former 
 situation ; the trade is confined to a less channel, in 
 which, instead of bounties, we meet with restrictions. 
 Our fish pay a duty of twelve dollars a quintal, which 
 is given by government as a premium in favor of 
 their own fisheries. This imposition amounts to 
 more than the value of the article ; yet, even under 
 all these discouragements, there are but six ports in 
 the West Indies that we can go to, St. Lucia, three 
 in Hispaniola, one in Gaudaloupe, and one in Marti- 
 nico. This being the case, the duties are rigidly 
 exacted of us ; and we have no other means of vend 
 ing it but by the exchange of molasses. Nor is this 
 the end of the evil ; I fear it is seriously to be appre 
 hended that we may be shortly deprived of this mar 
 ket also. The merchants of L Orient have repre 
 sented to the king, that it would be for the interest of 
 their colonies to distil the molasses in the islands. 
 Upon the strength of this idea, distil-houses are erected 
 there, and bid fair to rival us in the business of sup 
 plying not only Europe and Africa, but even our own 
 country. Now, from this view of the ground on 
 which we stand, will gentlemen say we can maintain 
 and defend ourselves as well as we did before the 
 war ? If we even had the same advantages in vend- 
 
 o 
 
 ing the rum, the business would not be equally prof 
 itable, as the price of molasses has increased, and our 
 fish has fallen. In short, unless some extraordinary 
 measures are taken to support our fisheries, I do not 
 
15 
 
 see what is to prevent their inevitable ruin. It is a 
 fact that near one-third of our fishermen are taken 
 from their profession, not for want of skill and abili 
 ties in the art, for here they take the rank of every 
 nation on earth, but from the local, chilling policy 
 of foreign nations, who shut us out from the avenues 
 to our market. If, instead of protection from the 
 government, we extend to them oppression, I shudder 
 for the consequences. But I will not enlarge on this 
 head, trusting that gentlemen are convinced of the 
 importance of the interest, and do not mean to de 
 stroy it. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, we are not to consider molasses in 
 the same light as if it were in the form of rum. We 
 are not to tax a necessary of life in the same manner 
 as we do a pernicious luxury. I am sensible an at 
 tempt to draw a critical line of distinction in this case, 
 between what is necessary and what is a luxury, will 
 be attended with some difficulty ; but I conceive the 
 distinction sufficient for our present purpose, if it 
 prove molasses to be necessary for the subsistence of 
 the people. No decent family can do without some 
 thing by way of sweetening ; whether this arises 
 from custom or necessity of nature, is not worth the 
 inquiry ; if it is admitted to be a requisite for the sup 
 port of life, a tax on it will be the same as a tax on 
 bread ; it is repugnant to the first principles of policy 
 to lay taxes of this nature in America. What is it 
 that entitles the United States to take rank of all the 
 nations in Europe, but because it is the best country 
 for the poor to live in I If we go on taxing such ar 
 ticles as salt and molasses, these advantages will not 
 long continue to be ours. It may be said that sugar 
 
16 
 
 is also a necessary of life : true, but molasses, inas 
 much as it is cheaper, can be more easily obtained, 
 and enters more into consumption, at least of the 
 poor. They apply it to various uses ; it is a substitute 
 for malt, in making beer ; and shall it be said that 
 the General Government descends to small beer for 
 its revenue, while strong beer remains duty free ? 
 Why shall this difference be made between the com 
 mon drink of one part of the continent and the other, 
 unless it be with a view to drive the people to drink 
 ing simple water ? The gentleman from Virginia 
 contends that the consumers of eight pounds of sugar 
 pay more than those who use eight pounds of mo 
 lasses ; this may be true, but from the variety of ways 
 in which molasses is used, eight pounds is sooner con 
 sumed than six or four pounds of sugar, which makes 
 up the difference. But do gentlemen mean that the 
 poorest and weakest part of the community shall pay 
 as much for what they use as the richer classes? Is 
 this the reward of their toil and industry ? 
 
 It has been stated as a fact by my colleague,* that 
 Massachusetts will pay more by the impost on mo 
 lasses than Pennsylvania will on both rum and sugar. 
 The population and strength of these two States are 
 nearly equal ; then why should this disproportion be 
 contended for? Is it supposed that Massachusetts 
 will not contribute her proportion on other articles ? 
 This, on examination, will be found not to be the case. 
 Gentlemen say that the State which exports least, im 
 ports least ; but does it not follow that this State pays 
 according to her ability to pay? If the products of 
 Massachusetts are neither so rich nor valuable as those 
 
 * Mr Goodhue. 
 
17 
 
 of the Southern States, ought she to pay the impost in 
 the same proportion? 
 
 The question is plainly reducible to this : Shall we 
 tax a necessary of life in the same proportion as a 
 luxury ? Gentlemen will not contend for either the 
 justice or policy of such a measure ; but they say the 
 necessity of the case obliges them ; they cannot come 
 at the luxury but through the raw material. They 
 say they cannot lay an excise. I ask, Why not? 
 People may justly think it burdensome to raise all our 
 supplies from impost. Much can be obtained from 
 this source, to be sure, by touching every thing ; but 
 I would recommend touching such things as are es 
 sential to subsistence lightly, and bring in the excise 
 as a means of obtaining the deficiency ; it will be the 
 more certain way of making country rum contribute 
 its proportion. I am not against a duty in this shape ; 
 but if the hand of government is stretched out to 
 oppress the various interests I have enumerated by an 
 unequal and oppressive tax on the necessaries of life, 
 I fear we shall destroy the fond hopes entertained by 
 our constituents that this government would insure 
 their rights, extend their commerce, and protect their 
 manufactures. Mothers will tell their children, when 
 they solicit their daily and accustomed nutriment, that 
 the new laws forbid them the use of it ; and they will 
 grow up in a detestation of the hand which proscribes 
 their innocent food, and the occupation of their 
 fathers ; the language of complaint will circulate uni 
 versally, and change the favorable opinion now enter 
 tained to dislike and clamor. 
 
 The House will not suppose we are actuated by 
 local interests in opposing a measure big with such 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 dangerous consequences to the existence of the Union. 
 They will admit we have reason for persisting in our 
 opposition to a high duty, and may be inclined to join 
 us in reducing it either to five per cent or at most to 
 one cent per gallon. If the apprehensions we have 
 expressed shall be realized, let it rest upon the advo 
 cates of the present measure ; we have done our 
 duty, and it only remains for us to submit to that ruin 
 in which the whole may be involved. 
 
II. 
 
 ON the 8th of February, 1790, the House of Representatives 
 " resolved itself into a Committee of the whole on the state of the 
 Union. The report of the Secretary of the Treasury relative to a 
 provision for the support of the public credit was before them." 
 In the course of the consideration of this subject, Mr. Madison 
 offered an amendment (Feb. 11, 1790) to the original resolu 
 tions on the Secretary s report, as follows : 
 
 " Resolved, That adequate funds ought to be provided for paying 
 the interest and principal of the domestic debt, as the same shall 
 be liquidated ; and that, in such liquidation, the present holders of 
 public securities, which have been alienated, shall be settled Avith 
 according to the highest market rate of such securities ; and that 
 the balance of the sums due from the public be paid in such pro 
 portion to the original holder of such securities." 
 
 On the loth of February and subsequently, the House again 
 took up the subject of the public credit ; and Mr. Madison s motion 
 for a discrimination was considered and debated. 
 
 The subjoined speech of Mr. Ames was made on that date, in 
 opposition to~tnat resolution. 
 
 I AGREE, Mr. Speaker, with the gentleman from 
 Virginia in regard to the validity of the debt. There 
 was propriety in saying the nation is the same, though 
 the government be changed. The debt is the price 
 of our liberties, and cannot be diminished a farthing, 
 the gentleman from Virginia says ; and why I Because 
 
20 
 
 the government, as one of the contracting parties, 
 cannot annul or vary the bargain, without the con 
 sent of the other. If the measure proposed by that 
 gentleman corresponds with that sound principle, I 
 shall have the pleasure of agreeing with him on the 
 ultimate decision ; but if the measure should be found, 
 on a fair discussion, to be subversive of that prin 
 ciple, it will not merit the countenance of the Com 
 mittee. 
 
 A claim upon our justice is made on behalf of the 
 original holders of securities who have transferred 
 them. Does the plighted faith of the country stand 
 charged to pay the difference between the price their 
 securities sold for in the market and their nominal 
 sum ? In order to make the affirmative appear, the 
 worthy gentleman has said that the paper is the only 
 evidence of a prior contract ; and while the paper 
 was sold, the residuary right to the debt still remained 
 in the seller. Supposing this novel doctrine to be 
 true, which cannot be conceded, it will not warrant 
 any conclusion in prejudice of any purchaser of the 
 Loan-office debt ; for the paper was given when the 
 loan was made ; as no prior debt existed, the paper is 
 the very debt. The gentleman ought, therefore, to 
 confine his motion to the army debt, as his principle 
 seems inapplicable to any other. And even on liqui 
 dating the army debt, the certificate extinguished the 
 prior debt; otherwise the public would be twice 
 charged. As when one man owes another an ac 
 count, and gives his bond for the balance, the account 
 is no longer of force. By the terms of the certificate, 
 the person transferring has lost his claim against the 
 public. He has freely transferred ; for, if violence or 
 
fraud were practised, the law will afford him redress. 
 In society, as well as in a state of nature, property is 
 changed by the consent of the last occupant. He may 
 dispose of it by gift or at half-price, and give a com 
 plete title. Nor will the pretence that this transfer 
 was free only in appearance avail ; for the motives 
 which disposed the owner to sell cannot affect the 
 right of the purchaser. Every such creditor risked 
 something, either that the government would not pay 
 him at all, or not in due season. The risk, computed 
 in free and open market, will be nearly right. It is a 
 kind of insurance against these risks, and the insurers 
 and insured will calculate the rate of insurance better 
 than government can do it. If there is a new risk of 
 government interposing, it seems that the purchaser, 
 who may be called the insurer, did not rate his risk 
 high enough. It seems pretty clear, therefore, that 
 there is no claim on the stipulated justice of the 
 country. 
 
 Another sort of justice is set up ; a different sort 
 from that which we were taught in the churches and 
 schools : it is called abstract justice, and it is said to 
 demand allowance for the loss sustained by the failure 
 of public payments. No man respects more than I 
 do the merit of the army; but the soldiers, at least, 
 had something towards justice by their bounty. 
 
 Stock has sold in England at fifty per cent discount, 
 and yet no retribution has been made. Where, then, 
 does this new line of justice begin ? It can scarcely 
 be denied that their claim, if they have any, is not a 
 debt. The arguments alleged by the gentleman are 
 addressed merely to the compassion and generosity of 
 the government. Nor do I know that there is any 
 
22 
 
 ground for saying that public opinion is in their favor. 
 It will be allowed that if justice is to be done, it 
 should be impartial justice. Partiality would be more 
 cruel than total neglect. Will you refuse to make 
 amends for paper money ? For property taken by 
 our army in Canada ] For losses sustained by the 
 war ] For towns burned ? In this last case it is to be 
 observed that government has promised protection ; 
 and inability to protect is as much a debt as the case 
 in question. The intermediate holders, who bought 
 at six shillings and eight pence, and, despairing of 
 government, sold at two shillings and six pence, have 
 an equal claim. Are all these to be excluded ] Let 
 us not break contracts for half justice. The example 
 of paper money is adduced to show that the pub 
 lic made up losses ; but this is an example of the 
 public fulfilling its contracts, not annulling them. 
 Paper money is a bad source to draw examples 
 from. 
 
 But is it true that justice requires the public to pay 
 for all losses sustained in times of calamity ? I think 
 not ; for by fraud the government would be obliged to 
 pay for more than was lost. The resources of the 
 sufferers will more easily repair such losses than the 
 government can make them good ; and besides, in 
 extreme cases, it would extend and prolong the evil. 
 If an army should invade England, and the city of 
 London should be burned, and the country laid waste 
 by the order of the king, all Europe could not pay for 
 it. What is justice ] A line of public conduct which 
 necessarily tends to utility. No pretence of abstract 
 justice can be valid, if it tends to evil rather than to 
 good. 
 
But if there subsists a claim on the public justice, 
 it cannot impair the debt in the hands of the present 
 holder, for which the public faith is pledged. It is 
 alleged that the seller, who sold for a trifle, will be 
 taxed to pay the purchaser. He certainly ought to 
 fare as other citizens do. But taxes are in proportion 
 to property. If he has property, then the plea of 
 necessity is destroyed ; if he has none, then his taxes 
 will be a mere trifle. 
 
 The project is not justice, even to those whom it 
 pretends to relieve. If you allow less to the pur 
 chasers than they gave, it is downright robbery ; if 
 you allow more, it is half-way justice to those who 
 have sold. 1 would not risk every thing to do justice, 
 as it is called, and then riot do it. 
 
 But this fragment of justice cannot be given to 
 some without wronging others ; you impair the prop 
 erty in the hands of the present original holders. It 
 is not supposed that the alienated property is nearly 
 equal to that which is still in the hands of the first 
 holders. Be that as it may, I believe, with confidence, 
 that it would be cheaper for the present holders to pay 
 the market price of the paper proposed to be given to 
 the former holder, than to suffer the shock which 
 this measure would give to the credit of their paper. 
 I will not enter now into the merits of the Secretary s 
 plan ; but I think it not difficult to show that he pro 
 poses better justice to the present original holders than 
 is contained in the motion, and that the debt, funded 
 on this plan, would sell for more in the market. 
 Great sums have been lent to the public by trustees, 
 who acted for others, and only lent their names. 
 Many original creditors were not first holders ; sup- 
 
plies were furnished to contractors for the army, who 
 got credit, and afterwards paid in paper, as they 
 received it of the public. Many towns hired soldiers 
 for a gross sum, and agreed to take the wages. Pri 
 vate debts have been paid at par. A man in embar 
 rassed circumstances, instead of compounding with his 
 creditors for ten or a dozen years forbearance, paid 
 them at par, or near it, in public money, which, in 
 that period, was supposed to be as likely to be paid as 
 his private note. No less a sum than two hundred and 
 fourteen thousand dollars were paid in this way to one 
 mercantile house, at about fifteen shillings in the 
 pound. Compare the gross injustice of these cases 
 with the pretended justice of the motion ; consider 
 what it pretends to pay the purchaser. But Loan- 
 office certificates have sold from fifteen and eighteen 
 shillings in the pound to five shillings. Foreign pur 
 chasers gave more than our market price. Before 
 they bought, they got certificates of the nature of the 
 debt, that it was not liable to any deduction, and that 
 the transfer would be valid. People in the first offices 
 in this country and abroad signed them. Five hun 
 dred thousand dollars were bought for one Dutch 
 house, and registered, and the partners in the sum 
 have divided the certificates by giving their own bonds. 
 What will be the effect I Justice or injustice ? In 
 this case, the gentleman will admit that the rights of 
 these people are perfect. The debt, he says himself, 
 cannot be diminished a farthing ; property is sacred ; 
 the right to a single dollar cannot be violated. Let 
 the gentleman, then, acknowledge that he must give 
 up his project or his principles. 
 
I have endeavored to show what sort of abstract 
 justice this is. But if it should be allowed that there 
 is a claim of justice, what then] Let them claim 
 justice of those who have done them injustice, not of 
 the fair purchaser. 
 
 Let us examine the claims of the purchasers. The 
 gentleman s argument on this point merits attention ; 
 if it is right, for its novelty in Congress ; if wrong, 
 for its tendency. Here I think it necessary to apolo 
 gize, not for my sentiments, their apology must 
 spring from their propriety, but for the manner in 
 which I express them. My zealous conviction may 
 seem to arraign the opinions of other gentlemen, 
 whom I respect as I ought. I know that men of the 
 best intentions entertain a favorable opinion of a dis 
 crimination. There is a wish to do more than justice 
 to the one, and the heart, betrayed by its sympathy, 
 consents to injustice to the other. But, sir, I cannot 
 claim the merit of moderation on this point. I will 
 not pretend that I doubted first, and then decided. 
 The principles of my education, and the habits of 
 life, predisposed me to believe, and my short experi 
 ence and reading have confirmed it, that nations cannot 
 admit cunning into their councils, without its shedding 
 a malignant influence on their affairs. Experience 
 teaches government as well as men that nothing is safe 
 that is wrong. We have endured tender-laws and 
 the pitiful expedients of a trickish policy. Our expe 
 rience has cost us dear. The old Congress, however, 
 were guided by other maxims ; with little power, and 
 scarcely retaining the mock representation of it during 
 the whole year, they prosecuted the objects of an 
 honest policy, with a zeal which repulses and despair 
 
 4 
 
26 
 
 could not extinguish. They could say, with Francis 
 the First, after the battle of Pavia, " We have lost all 
 except our honor." They resolved against discrimi 
 nation, and foreigners as well as citizens bought 
 securities under the public faith. But when the Con 
 stitution was framed, adopting the debts as valid, 
 restraining ex post facto laws and laws impairing con 
 tracts, who entertained any suspicion 1 The speech 
 of the President, and the resolutions of the House in 
 favor of public credit, banished it. Does this look as 
 if public opinion was hostile to these purchasers ? If 
 it really is, it is more a duty on government to protect 
 right when it may happen to be unpopular. That is 
 what government is framed to do. If, instead of pro 
 tecting, it assumes the right of controlling property, 
 and disposing of it at its own pleasure, and against 
 the consent of the owner, there is a cheat in the 
 compact. 
 
 It will be admitted that there is a right vested 
 in the purchaser. Government cannot diminish it a 
 farthing, says the gentleman ; but he says we cannot 
 pay both. Then abide by your word of honor ; pre 
 fer perfect rights, by solemn compact, to claims on 
 your compassion. The claims of the present holders, 
 you say, are just: are the others more than just? 
 Treat all just claims alike, and do not rob on the high 
 way to exercise charity. Why make one creditor pay 
 another ] He says government is to get nothing by 
 this ; and yet he says we owe these people, and our 
 creditors shall pay them. Is paying a debt in this 
 way not getting money ? He talks of rival claims : 
 there is no rivalry ; the sellers agreed that there should 
 be none. If government is bankrupt, compound 
 
27 
 
 with your creditors. Will this act of violence console 
 the sufferers] Will they enjoy, as a favor, the viola 
 tion of rights for which they fought I The South 
 Sea and Mississippi schemes have been adduced as 
 examples. In the former, government interposed to 
 fulfil the contract. The Mississippi is not parallel. 
 What the gentleman calls public justice I am sure he 
 would not practise in his own case. 
 
 I have chosen to consider the principle of the 
 motion ; but it cannot be carried into execution. We 
 have seen that justice, in the abstract, will not be 
 done, nor can the measure proposed be effected. 
 We may very well suppose that innumerable diffi 
 culties will arise in practice which cannot be fore 
 seen. The detail will be endless ; an account must 
 be opened for each claimant, public offices must 
 be opened, officers multiplied, and great expense* 
 incurred; there is no clew, by the records, to, the 
 cases of money deposited by agents for other people. 
 I have inquired, and am told that it is not possible. 
 Will you admit oral evidence, and of persons inter 
 ested ? Will you fill the land with discontent, cor 
 ruption, suits, and perjury! The new paper, if not 
 transferable, will be no great relief; if transferable, 
 there will be a new harvest of speculation ; the after 
 crop will be more abundant than the first cutting. A 
 purchaser keeps his note for twenty shillings : by law 
 you make it a note for ten shillings. How many 
 frauds will be practised on the unwary ! If the mind 
 balances on these points, let policy turn the scale ! 
 
 Will not this measure shake government I Instead 
 of doing as it has promised, government is to do as it 
 pleases. Right is to depend, not on compact and 
 
28 
 
 sacred faith, and the Constitution, but on opinion, on 
 a major vote. Where nothing, not even right, is fixed, 
 will not the government be liable to perpetual com 
 motion ? 
 
 How will it affect our national character ] How 
 will it affect public credit 1 We shall have to pay 
 for meddling, if in future we have any credit. The 
 famous Colonel Chartres said he would give a hun 
 dred thousand pounds for a character ; not for its 
 own sake, but because he could get two hundred 
 thousand by it. Henry VIII. borrowed money on 
 his personal security ; and his base Parliament voted 
 that as he had done great things for the realm and 
 church, he should be discharged from these obligations. 
 Charles II. shut up the exchequer. What was the 
 consequence? King William paid fourteen per cent 
 on annuities, and at the rate of ten and twelve per 
 cent interest; but, by good faith, in five or six years 
 money fell to five per cent interest. By breach of 
 faith, we vote the government into a state of pupil 
 age, and deprive it of its powers. 
 
 I have thus endeavored to show that there is not 
 a debt subsisting against the public, in favor of the 
 original holders, who have sold out ; that the motion 
 is chargeable with partiality, and is inadequate to its 
 v pretended object ; that it will do injustice to many, 
 and violate the sacred rights of property; that the 
 purchasers are secured by the contract, by the faith 
 of government, and by the Constitution; that the 
 measure is not practicable, and will produce confu 
 sion, corruption, and expense ; and that it will weaken, 
 disturb, and disgrace the government, and impair its 
 credit. 
 
29 
 
 I have made this recapitulation of my argument, 
 in order to bring it into one view. If it is just or only 
 plausible, let us ask, What will be the effect ? Is this 
 what was expected under the new Constitution ] Did 
 we expect it? Is there any one here who has not 
 told the people that an end would be put to tender- 
 acts and paper money, and the ruinous effect of gov 
 ernments interposing in contracts ] Who, in or out 
 of government, did not suppose that the letter and 
 spirit of the Constitution said as much ] The spirit 
 of the times said more. Will not the people charge 
 us with violating the Constitution and the rights of prop 
 erty ? If we plead necessity, they will demand, How 
 came it that we were ignorant of it ? And if it exists, 
 what is there that breach of faith can save that good 
 faith would lose I Or, What will that be worth which 
 may be secured by a measure that will tarnish our 
 national honor, and transmit to our children an inher 
 itance of reproach ] Is there no refuge but in dis 
 honor^ We have borne adversity before, and we 
 had rather submit to the worst events of an honest 
 policy ; and this project is not to relieve any burdens ; 
 for government is to rob, not for plunder, but to get 
 the reputation of justice. 
 
 If our own citizens say this, what will foreigners 
 say] They will not be restrained, either by the 
 opinion of their fellow-countrymen, or by attachment 
 to our prosperity. They will detail their losses, and 
 the acts by which their confidence was gained ; 
 they will think that we have been taught a species of 
 moral philosophy; that we administer government 
 by a kind of cunning logic, which confounds right 
 and wrong ; they will rejoice that the Mahrattas and 
 
30 
 
 Americans are at a distance. The ocean has not hith 
 erto proved a barrier against our depredations. An 
 American abroad will be obliged to deny his country. 
 
 However, I still believe that justice is a law to Con 
 gress : but if justice and public faith and honor have 
 ceased to be things, let them cease to be names ; let 
 them be blotted from the vocabulary of our nation. 
 If they have no being, why should they be made use 
 of to conjure up church-yard terrors, to haunt the 
 hypochondriac imagination? 
 
 I will not be so uncandid as to charge the worthy 
 gentleman with such intentions. I think so highly of 
 his probity and patriotism, that if he can be made to 
 see that these consequences will follow, or only be 
 apprehended, he will give up his scheme. And if 
 government has this right, what right of private 
 property is safe \ In the East, government is said 
 to be the sole owner of property, and may resume it 
 at pleasure. This absurd doctrine will not find advo 
 cates ; for it would not do for practice, even where it 
 may not be denied to be true. Human nature revolts 
 against it ; it would shock the morality of Botany Bay ; 
 it would exasperate beyond sufferance the patient 
 slavery of Hindostan. And who can give a good 
 reason why one sort of property should be more sacred 
 than another? 
 
 If we pursue another kind of policy, such as the 
 preamble to the Constitution declares to be the objects 
 of the government, this government and this country 
 may expect a more than Roman fortune. The gov 
 ernment may have more credit, the country more 
 knowledge, and the blessings of peace a longer dura 
 tion, than the world has ever experienced. That gen- 
 
31 
 
 tleman helped to frame the Constitution. I have no 
 doubt it is the better for his eminent abilities ; I hope 
 that the love of his own work, and his zeal for the 
 cause which he has so ably supported, will induce 
 him to abandon a measure which tends so fatally to 
 disappoint the first wishes of his own heart, and the 
 hopes of his country. 
 
III. 
 
 ON the 19th of May, 1790, the House of Representatives went 
 into a Committee of the Whole, to consider a bill " for making pro 
 vision for the debt of the United States." The bill was considered 
 daily for many days in succession, during which time many amend 
 ments were offered, debated, and voted on. After the consideration 
 of the twelfth section, Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts, moved (May 
 24th) to insert a clause providing for " the assumption of the State 
 debts by the General Government." On the following day, Mr. 
 Gerry s motion was again read, and was supported by Mr. Ames 
 in the subjoined speech. 
 j 
 
 MR. SPEAKER, I am obliged to obtrude my senti 
 ments upon the Committee under circumstances which 
 stifle the hope of procuring for them a welcome recep 
 tion. The curiosity of the assembly, in the first stages 
 of a public debate, will procure some indulgence, and 
 administer considerable aid to him who has to support 
 a part in it. But this subject has been debated until 
 it has become tedious; there is very little remaining 
 to be said that can excite curiosity or reward attention. 
 The feelings of the Committee will procure me belief 
 when I say that I obey the duty of attempting to 
 obviate the objections which have been urged by the 
 gentleman from Virginia,* and which I think is 
 imposed upon me by some of them, with unaffected 
 
 * Mr. Madison. 
 
33 
 
 reluctance. I will hope, however, that a candid con 
 descension to the necessity of my situation, and a 
 sense of public duty, will overcome, or suspend for a 
 time, the disgust which has attended the revival of 
 this debate. 
 
 The zeal of the gentlemen on both sides has led 
 them to draw aid to their cause from very remote 
 sources. But all the objections against assumption 
 may be comprised in these two, that the measure is 
 against justice and against policy. Both sides of the 
 question have been maintained with an uncommon 
 warmth of conviction ; in candor, and probably in 
 strict truth, this ought to be mutually understood as 
 the evidence of a sincere zeal for the public good. 
 
 To evince the justice of the assumption, I take, as 
 the ground of my reasoning, a proposition which is 
 admitted by both sides, that the expenses of the war 
 ought to be made a common charge upon the United 
 States. 
 
 It will illustrate my argument to observe that the 
 war was between this country and Britain, and not a 
 war of particular States. All America, Congress in 
 their resolves, the act appointing commissioners to 
 settle the accounts, the late amendment * to the prop 
 osition for assuming the State debts, and the objections 
 to that proposition, corroborate the idea that the ex 
 penses of the war ought to be equalized. Assume 
 the debts, and settle the accounts, and this is effected. 
 There is an end to the inequality as soon as this is 
 done. This answer is so plain and conclusive, that it 
 is attempted to take off its force by saying that the 
 
 * Mr. Madison s. 
 5 
 
34 
 
 accounts will not be settled. If this assertion is true, 
 the non-assumption is plainly unjust ; for the burden 
 is confessedly unequal now, and the only reason for 
 refusing to take this burden off some of the States is 
 the certain assurance that they will be relieved from 
 so much as shall be found to exceed their share, when 
 the accounts are settled. But, if the accounts are not 
 to be settled at all, the States, which are now over 
 loaded, have no justice to expect but from the assump 
 tion. It cannot be known with certainty which will 
 he a creditor, or which a debtor State, at present. 
 If the accounts should not be adjusted, we must 
 remain in ignorance ; we ought, therefore, to exclude 
 all consideration of the other claims, because it would 
 be useless, and apply the principle of equality to the 
 State debts. The debts to be assumed are either duly 
 proportioned among the States, or they are not. If 
 they are so proportioned, then it is certainly politic, 
 and not unjust, because it would be equal, to assume 
 them. If they are now unduly proportioned, it is in 
 terms even against equality to leave them upon the 
 States. 
 
 If the war has made a random distribution of debts 
 upon the States, it is best to make the amount which 
 is to be left unsettled as little as may be; for the 
 probability is that as you diminish the amoimts, you 
 make the inequalities less. This will serve as an 
 answer to those also who say that supposing a settle 
 ment to take place two or three years hence, a State 
 may be relieved from a light burden of its own debt, 
 and be obliged to bear, as its proportion of the as 
 sumed debt, one .more weighty. For it is not certain 
 that it will have, in that case, more to bear than its 
 
35 
 
 part ; and, if it should turn out to be more, the bal 
 ance may be known almost as soon as the interest will 
 commence. The assertion that the accounts will not 
 be settled has been made with confidence. To judge 
 how far we ought to guide our conduct by it, it is 
 enough to examine what State it comes from. Let 
 the gentlemen who make it a&k their own hearts, let 
 them look round and ask one another, whether their 
 States are more clamorous for their dues, or apprehen 
 sive of a settlement which will expose their delin 
 quency. In this place, where facts are known, this 
 question will be an argument. 
 
 But what ground is there for saying that the ac 
 counts will not be settled I This was positively 
 engaged by the former government. It is improper 
 for Congress to act as if Congress were not to be 
 trusted. Commissioners are employed in the business. 
 A motion to extend their time and powers has met 
 with no opposition, and is maturing into a law. Who 
 will oppose it I Not New England ! We wish it, 
 we have pledged ourselves to support it ; you ought 
 to believe us, when it is so easy to bring us to the test. 
 I have myself moved resolutions, the best I could 
 devise, which I thought would facilitate, would 
 force, a settlement. I am ready to revive them. 
 Surely those who urge that the accounts will not be 
 settled do not propose to fulfil their own prophecy. 
 
 It is certain, therefore, that if there is a disposition 
 in this House to prevent proper measures from being 
 adopted to procure a settlement, it will be disap 
 pointed. I wish to remove this ground of objection, 
 by urging the business of liquidation forward. If, 
 then, provision is to be made for liquidating the 
 
36 
 
 accounts, the argument which I deduced from it 
 remains in full force. All pretence of inequality is 
 removed by it. It is a full answer to several other 
 objections. It becomes unnecessary to ask whether 
 State notes remain debts against this government after 
 they have been received into the State treasuries, 
 whether the United States is bound to assume before 
 the balances are found on a settlement, and whether 
 the debts were wisely or unwisely contracted. It 
 becomes immaterial to calculate how many parts in a 
 hundred New Hampshire, and how many Connecticut, 
 will pay, and how much Virginia has paid and will 
 now have to pay. What was wrong in the distribu 
 tions of the war will be rectified ; and, as to future 
 payments, all the citizens will be upon a footing. As 
 the gentleman from Virginia reasons with great can 
 dor, I am sure he will be sorry that, in his observations, 
 he has wholly neglected, certainly through inadver 
 tency, to notice an argument which seems, on both 
 sides, to be considered as absolutely conclusive. When 
 I say that both sides allow this argument to be con 
 clusive, I presume my meaning is understood as I for 
 merly expressed it. For the answer to it is that the 
 accounts will not be settled ; which admits the force 
 of the reason, and rests the decision upon a point 
 of fact. 
 
 Perhaps, for the sake of simplicity and perspicuity, 
 I ought not to pursue the inquiry as to the justice of 
 the assumption any further. Though I mean to rely 
 on the argument I have stated, it will furnish an an 
 swer to some objections to furnish another. It is 
 said, These are State debts ; Congress has nothing to 
 do with them. 
 
When the war commenced, Congress had neither 
 money nor troops. They were so far from having a 
 right to tax the States, that they had neither the 
 powers of a government nor a rule by which to re 
 quire contributions. They appealed to the good-will 
 arid patriotism of the States, and entreated them to 
 furnish supplies to the extent of their power. The 
 calls upon the States were not taxes or debts, but ad 
 vances or loans to the public. This is explicitly and 
 formally declared by the resolves of Congress. I have 
 made some attempt to examine the journals, in order 
 to show from them how utterly unfounded the asser 
 tion is that these constituted debts against the States. 
 But I found that the titles only of the resolves would 
 fill a sheet of paper. Nothing can be more fully 
 proved than the contrary, not only by the letter of the 
 resolves, but by the conduct of Congress. In some 
 cases no regard was paid to the conjectural ratio by 
 which the States ought to furnish men and supplies. 
 In other instances some of the States were wholly 
 omitted, and not unfrequently a single State was 
 called upon for supplies. One of the most signal 
 proofs, however, is that in the resolves of Feb. 9, 
 1780, it is expressly stipulated that if the States 
 should furnish more than they are called upon for, 
 the United States will stand charged with it. The 
 resolve of Jan. 5, 1783, even in terms, recognizes 
 the troops whom the States were to settle with as 
 creditors of the Union, for whom good security must 
 be provided. 
 
 This is an inquiry into the justice of the assump 
 tion. I reject, therefore, the forms of the transaction, 
 and ask whether, if the war had been confined to a 
 
38 
 
 corner, instead of spreading over the continent, and 
 one State had incurred the whole debt of eighty 
 millions, it would be just to leave the burden upon 
 that State ? Consistently with the resolves I have 
 mentioned, and the known sense of America, could it 
 be called a State debt ? I am sure of my answer, for 
 the question extorts it. The difference between the 
 case I have supposed and that which is in debate is 
 only in degree ; there is none in the principle. 
 
 It will be answered, perhaps, that it is true we owe 
 the States. They are not finally to bear the burden ; 
 let them pay what they owe, and we will pay them. 
 This is a dangerous concession to those who make it, 
 if the accounts are never to be settled, as it is urged by 
 those who contend against the assumption. For it 
 amounts to this, the debt is binding, and yet it will 
 never be paid. It presents them a choice of diffi 
 culties ; it forces them to confess either that the 
 assumption will not wrong you or that the non-as 
 sumption will end in cheating such of the States as 
 are your creditors. 
 
 It will be said, it is true, however, that the United 
 States stands indebted to the States, but the creditors 
 of the States have no just claim upon the United 
 States. There is a great difference between the 
 justice that will be done by the assumption to the 
 States and to their creditors. 
 
 The States were called upon during the war to 
 make advances. Accordingly they procured some 
 thing by taxation, and still more was procured by 
 paper money, which died in the hands of the posses 
 sor. They have also paid some part since the peace. 
 So far the States, as such, actually made advances ; 
 
but the principal part was obtained either by borrow 
 ing, or seizing private property, or drafting men. 
 So far the advances were made by individuals, and at 
 periods so critical and under such circumstances of 
 violence and hardship, as to give a peculiar sanction 
 to their claim upon the honor and justice of their 
 country. Justice plainly requires that these persons 
 should be paid their interest at least, in all events, 
 and without delay. Their claims in every view are 
 perfect ; most of them are original holders. But 
 neither the justice of the case nor the engagements of 
 Congress require that the States should be repaid, 
 until the extent of their demand can be known. For 
 I readily admit that nothing more than the balances 
 of their actual advances are due from the United 
 States to the individual States. This has been urged 
 against the assumption, but without foundation. If a 
 State paid more than its proper share, the surplus 
 should be repaid. But if a payment was only prom 
 ised, and is still* to be made, justice is due to the 
 creditors, and not to the State. The idea may be 
 illustrated by considering the States as agents or con 
 tractors for the Union ; what they paid they claim for 
 themselves ; what they barely promised should be 
 paid by their employers, who had the benefit of the 
 debt, especially if the agent cannot or will not pay. 
 I cannot think it necessary to give any further answer 
 to the question so logically proposed with regard to 
 the nature of the debts when redeemed and in the 
 State treasuries. 
 
 What remains due ought to fall not unequally upon 
 States, but upon the whole society. It ought, if not 
 paid sooner, to fall upon posterity. If some States 
 
40 
 
 should lose wealth and people, and others increase ; 
 if new States should join the Union, or spring up 
 within it, and the western wilderness be- thronged 
 with people, the burden will be equalized upon all 
 the citizens. Liberty and independence were procured 
 for the whole, and for posterity: why, then, should 
 not all contribute to the price ? 
 
 As it respects the army debt, the very terms of the 
 bargain bind the United States. Congress promised 
 to pay the men, but called upon the States to raise 
 them. Afterwards, when the paper failed, the States 
 were required to make up the depreciation. State 
 notes were given for it, which remain due. Prob 
 ably all the States cannot pay. In this instance, 
 not only justice, but your plighted faith, require you 
 to pay them ; you have asked their services, and had 
 them ; you have promised to reward them, and they 
 remain unrewarded. I have already supposed the 
 case of the whole debt being thrown upon one State. 
 If, instead of the whole debt, its zeal, or the necessity 
 of its affairs, had pressed a State forward to exceed, 
 and, in its distress, to disregard, its ability to pay, and 
 it accordingly had run in debt three times as much as 
 it can pay ; if the Avar had scattered its citizens and 
 wasted its property, are the officers and soldiers, 
 who expelled the enemy, and who did not care which 
 State line they served in, to be told, You served the 
 United State s, but you are creditors of South Caro 
 lina ] It is true you shed your blood for us ; by your 
 valor we sit here ; we have seen your wrongs, and 
 when it would do you no good, because we had no 
 power, we told the world how deeply we lamented 
 them ; but go home and starve. Would not this 
 
41 
 
 wring drops from their hearts, and plant thorns in 
 our own ] 
 
 The like reasoning will apply to another descrip 
 tion of the debts to be assumed, to the certificates 
 given by the commissaries and other officers of the 
 United States, and since assumed by the particular 
 States. You cannot deny your own by calling them 
 State debts. A great part of the debt of South Caro 
 lina is said to be a debt of that kind. Is that State 
 to be crushed with a weight which it cannot bear, or 
 are the creditors to be ruined because the State will 
 be undone if they are not I Or how will this comport 
 with the principle, admitted on both sides, of equal 
 izing the expenses of the war ] 
 
 The best fund of the States, and hitherto the only 
 one of the Union, the impost, has been taken away 
 by adopting the Constitution. Let the debts follow the 
 funds. Let the world judge whether the generous 
 confidence of the State creditors in the public justice 
 ought to be abused, and whether they ought to be 
 made to repent the cordial support which they gave to 
 the new Constitution. The force of this argument may 
 be inferred from the uncommon pains which have been 
 taken to destroy it. The fact is denied, and the issue 
 of the question has been boldly rested upon this point, 
 that the States most urgent for the assumption were 
 not incapacitated from providing for their debts by the 
 surrender of the impost. The impost collected in New 
 Hampshire is called the amount of that State s con 
 tribution to the Union ; and the ratio by which she 
 ought to contribute is taken from her present represen 
 tation. I waive, at this moment, all comment upon 
 the unfairness and fallacy of this mode of computation. 
 
42 
 
 I proceed to observe that an uncommon use is made 
 of the result. According to her number of Represen 
 tatives, that State ought to pay one-twentieth, and yet 
 no more than a hundredth part of the impost of the 
 Union is paid by that State, or rather collected in it. 
 Of course, it is gravely said, it will save four-fifths of 
 the sum which it would have to pay if the debt had 
 been assessed before the Constitution was framed ; and 
 this saving to the State may apply to the discharge of 
 its debt. But, sir, such requisitions never were paid, 
 and never could have been paid, by the States. Experi 
 ence had taught us that it was not to be expected, nor 
 was it in their power. This, indeed, was one of the 
 principal reasons for adopting the Constitution. Are 
 we seriously addressed, when we are told that the 
 savings of a revenue, which did not exist, that four- 
 fifths of nothing may be applied to pay the State 
 creditors 1 Without further regarding the ridicule of 
 the argument, let us trace the fact. The debt of New 
 Hampshire is said to be about $230,000 ; the yearly 
 interest, at four per cent, is upwards of $9,000. The 
 impost and tonnage collected in that State, from 
 August to December, is near $8,000. So that the 
 impost of that State, though far short of her actual 
 contribution to the common treasury, will, in the 
 whole year, greatly exceed their interest, which assum 
 ing her debt will throw upon the United States. Here, 
 then, the fund surrendered by that State is more than 
 adequate to the debt which ought to follow it. The 
 whole cause has been hazarded on the fact, and here 
 the fact is against him who appealed to it. May I be 
 permitted to ask whether it is not to be lamented, that 
 through inadvertency or mistake the whole fact was 
 
4:3 
 
 not mentioned ? May I demand why the non-import 
 ing States were preferred to the importing States for 
 calculating the impost? Massachusetts collected, un 
 der a State law, near $150,000 impost yearly. This 
 falls short of the present collection, under the law of 
 the Union, which is nearly equal to the interest of her 
 debt. The excise would have supplied the deficiency, 
 and that fund you are about to invade. It would be 
 wrong to take away funds, though inferior to the dis 
 charge of interest, and yet leave the whole debt upon 
 the State. If the funds surrendered were equal to the 
 debts, it has been admitted that the Union ought to 
 take the debts also. The injustice of rejecting the 
 debts, and taking the impost to a less amount, differs 
 only in degree. But why was New York passed over 
 in silence] The interest of the debt of that State 
 would not equal the impost collected within it. What 
 will you say to that State I 
 
 The candor and impartiality of the Committee will 
 be exercised in deciding whether the arguments so 
 often urged in favor of the assumption, that you ought 
 to take the debts with the impost, has lost any thing 
 of its force by this investigation of facts. What is 
 asserted on one side, and denied on the other, after a 
 strict inquiry, ends in the same point. 
 
 There is another view of the subject to be taken. 
 It is allowed that the people pay duties in proportion 
 as they consume dutied articles. The consumption in 
 the several States is nearly according to the numbers 
 of the people. It will be as fair in this as in former 
 calculation to take the number of Representatives as 
 our rule to compute the proportions which the several 
 States contribute by the consumption of articles 
 
44 
 
 charged with duties. The impost of New Hampshire 
 and Massachusetts, collected within the period from 
 August to December, and added together, was nearly 
 one hundred and twenty thousand dollars. Allow the 
 former three parts in eleven, according to her repre 
 sentation, and it will appear that her citizens paid 
 thirty-two thousand seven hundred dollars of the 
 whole sum. Less than eight thousand dollars were 
 collected within the State. In case the debts should 
 not be assumed, but should be provided for by State 
 duties and excises, according to these principles, the 
 citizens of New Hampshire would have to pay five 
 thousand dollars a month, or at the rate of twenty-five 
 thousand dollars from August to December, into the 
 treasury of Massachusetts. Connecticut, in like man 
 ner, would have to pay, within an equal period, fifty- 
 four thousand dollars ; and Jersey, if reckoned with 
 New York, would have to pay sixty thousand dollars, 
 and with Pennsylvania still more. In a whole year, 
 this tribute which one State would exact from another 
 would amount to very large sums. North Carolina is 
 a non-importing State, and, in common with the others 
 before mentioned, would have to pay for the debt of 
 its neighbors, and then to provide for its own. Is 
 there any justice or cause of discord and violence 
 charged or even imagined against the assumption 
 equal to this ? And yet we hear it said, Let us leave 
 the States to pay their debts for themselves. 
 
 Perhaps we shall never be agreed as to what is 
 policy. On great questions, when the judgment should 
 be cool, the passions most frequently interpose, and 
 disturb its decisions ; and this is most likely to happen 
 where public men are zealously faithful to their trust. 
 
45 
 
 But it is otherwise with our sense of justice. Our pity, 
 our gratitude, our resentments, may mislead us ; but 
 of all the operations of the moral sense, the most pre 
 cise and infallible is our sense of justice. The heart 
 acts as our interpreter, and guides us to certainty ; 
 injury or wrong is the opposite of justice. I appeal to 
 that moral sense, to that law written upon the heart, 
 and confidently ask whether you can impose this bur 
 den upon the States and call it equality; whether 
 you can reject the claims of their creditors, and call it 
 justice. As to the policy of the assumption, to object 
 is always easy. It is not hard to show how many little 
 objections a great measure will be liable to ; but in a 
 question of policy, we are commonly obliged to dis 
 regard little things for the sake of great ones : nor can 
 complete proof be given of the affirmative ; for when 
 it is asserted that bad consequences will ensue, time 
 only can fully prove that they will not. I neither ex 
 pect nor pretend to overcome every doubt, when I 
 undertake to show that it is more safe and prudent to 
 assume than not to assume the State debts. When 
 we speak of policy, what is meant by the term] A 
 measure is said to be against wise policy, when it 
 tends to prevent good, or to produce evil. It re 
 spects either the government or the citizens: as it 
 respects government, will the assumption diminish its 
 power, or embarrass the exercise of it] Or as re 
 gards the people, will it produce evil, and not good] 
 
 This measure can neither increase nor diminish the 
 power of the government ; for the power to be exer 
 cised is expressly given it by the Constitution. Will 
 it embarrass the exercise of power ] The contrary is 
 true ; it removes impediments which will be in its 
 
way, if not assumed. Experience has taught us, to 
 our cost, how very pernicious these obstacles are. 
 The systems of State revenues, before the Constitu 
 tion was formed, had crushed industry and almost 
 ruined trade from State to State. 
 
 Will its tendency be to evil rather than to common 
 benefit? This, it is true, is a vague as well as a com 
 plex question ; but its great objects are to establish 
 justice, to produce equality of burdens and benefits, 
 an uniform revenue system, to secure public credit by 
 removing every example of bad faith, and to prevent 
 all interference between the national and State gov 
 ernments, and the dangerous usurpation of the one 
 upon the other, which would be the consequence. 
 
 How can it be said that policy is against the 
 measure, if its tendency be such I Much has been 
 said about consolidation. Certainly it cannot be 
 usurpation for Congress to pay the debts, which 
 were contracted either by itself or at its own request 
 by the States. The State governments are said to be 
 in danger of a consolidation. That, however, is not the 
 only, probably not the greatest, danger they have to risk: 
 disunion is still more formidable. Nothing can shelter 
 the small States from the greater ones but union ; nor 
 would any single State be safe against the combination 
 of several States. All would be exposed to foreign 
 foes. If you make the State governments strong by 
 taking strength from the Union, they become exposed 
 exactly in the degree you do it. For the principle of 
 union ought to be strong in proportion to the strength 
 of the members. In a compound ratio, therefore, you 
 make the national government too weak to combine 
 the whole together, and you expose governments 
 
47 
 
 and citizens to the caprice of accidents, and to the 
 fury of passions, which will confound laws, liberty, 
 and government. 
 
 It is true, a body of valuable citizens will be attached 
 to the government ; all good citizens should love the 
 government, and they will do so, if government should 
 deserve their love. Revenue powers are given to 
 Congress without reserve. To say that it is dangerous 
 and improper to exercise them is a charge against the 
 Constitution. 
 
 There are but three points of view to consider the 
 State governments in, either as rivals for power, as 
 watchmen, or as legislators within the State. To call 
 them rivals would be an avowal of the principle of 
 disunion, or rather of positive force, which is absurd. 
 I do not know that either the State or national Con 
 stitutions have given them the office to watch this 
 government. The people are to watch us all, and I 
 wish they always may. But if the State governments 
 are still called watchmen, that office may be performed 
 as well, perhaps better, without than with the incum- 
 brance of their debts. It is equally difficult to see 
 how it can impair the rights of internal legislation. 
 The assumption and an uniform plan of revenue will 
 take away not only all pretext, but every motive, for 
 encroachment upon them. If, by the non-assumption, 
 an interference is produced, their danger will be the 
 more imminent. For if they prevail in the conflict, 
 they will be destroyed by disunion ; if they fail, they 
 will be swallowed up in the consolidation. I wish, 
 among other reasons, to have the assumption take 
 place, because I think it will give us the best se 
 curity that our government will be administered as it 
 
43 
 
 was made, without suffering or making encroach 
 ments. 
 
 I hasten to notice some objections. A public debt 
 is called a public evil, and the assumption is charged 
 with tending to perpetuate and increase it. I am not 
 disposed to dispute about words, though I believe the 
 debt, as a bond of union, will compensate the burden 
 of providing for it. But I cannot admit that it is a 
 greater evil to owe a debt than to wipe it off without 
 paying it ; and if the whole debt is to be paid^ at all 
 events the assumption makes no increase ; nay, if the 
 modification first proposed should be made, the capital 
 will be diminished near thirteen millions by this 
 measure. It is said to be easier to pay eighty millions 
 by leaving the State debts to be paid by the States, 
 and paying the other debt ourselves, than to form the 
 whole into one debt. 
 
 By this division in the debt, if there is any force in 
 the objection that we can pay more, or that we shall 
 pay what may be collected more easily, first, let us 
 see whether this is true as to what the States will 
 have to provide for. As it respects South Carolina, 
 the contrary is confessedly true. So far is it from 
 being a more easy way of paying, that they cannot 
 pay at all. If Massachusetts can pay her interest, it 
 will be with extreme difficulty. One gentleman ob 
 served that her efforts had raised a rebellion. It is 
 certain that they have not succeeded. The price of 
 State paper in most of the States has been a proof of 
 their incapacity to make effectual provision. 
 
 The State debts are to be paid, or they are not. If 
 by leaving them upon the States they will be lost to 
 the creditors, that cannot be supposed to be the more 
 
49 
 
 convenient way of paying part of eighty millions, which 
 is intended by the argument. Besides the shock to 
 public credit, it would be the loss of so much prop 
 erty. The disaster would probably be more felt than 
 some of the greatest physical evils, such as inunda 
 tion, or blasting the earth for a time with barrenness. 
 If, then, the debts are to be paid, by what means ? 
 The gentleman from Virginia has strongly reprobated 
 excises. The States cannot touch the impost. What 
 remains ? Direct taxes only. This source will be soon 
 exhausted. The land-tax of England is not more 
 than a sixth part of its income. They have carried 
 it as far as they think prudent. Why should not 
 labor and stock contribute as well as land ? For these 
 give the chief value to its products. It cannot be ex 
 pected that the debt will be safe to rest upon the land- 
 tax. It is not even mortgaged at all in England. If 
 our entire funds are barely sufficient, merely a single 
 fund, and that not the best, will be inadequate. It is 
 a better one in England than in America ; for the wild 
 land makes it impossible to impose very heavy taxes 
 upon the old settlements ; the oppressed people will 
 fly beyond the reach of collectors. It is, besides, 
 much more easy to procure the money in England 
 than in America. Land-taxes are not only insufficient, 
 but liable to other objections. Land is to be taxed 
 according to quantity or value. If the former, it will 
 not produce much. If according to value, then you must 
 resort to arbitrary assessments, more obnoxious than 
 excises. Every farmer almost can attest the force of 
 this objection. The expense, too, is small, in England ; 
 in this country it is otherwise. Taxes on land have cost 
 as much to collect as excises. In one of the States I 
 
 7 
 
50 
 
 am told that the collection has been estimated at thirty 
 per cent. Experience, too, has proved that the States 
 cannot pay their debts by direct taxes. It has been 
 pushed to the utmost extent, and found insufficient. 
 
 The argument which has been urged by the gentle 
 man from Virginia against excises seems to exclude 
 this mode of revenue ; without it, the State debts can 
 not be provided for. The United States will be com 
 pelled to resort to it. It is absolutely necessary for 
 drawing forth the resources of the country. As every 
 man consumes, every man will contribute, including 
 foreigners and transient people. Imposts cannot be 
 carried far without defeating the collection. Duties 
 on the imported spirits would increase the use of 
 home-made spirits, which cannot be reached without 
 an excise. All taxes are in some degree unequal, but 
 excises probably as little so as any. The rates are 
 fixed, and very little is left to imposition and caprice. 
 Besides, every consumer taxes himself. 
 
 If, then, Congress should not lay excises, the best 
 source of revenue will be lost. I am persuaded public 
 credit cannot be supported without them. It seems to 
 be a matter of equal necessity that the States should 
 impose them. But the States cannot do it with con 
 venience or much effect, for they cannot make them 
 general. They will vary in the States, and hold out 
 temptations to an infinity of frauds. The States are 
 restrained from regulating foreign trade, or that from 
 State to State. With such vast frontiers to watch, and 
 their powers on the importation and passage of goods 
 by land so much restrained, and their laws obstructed 
 and controverted by the laws of the Union, much of 
 the collection will be defeated. The excise in Massa- 
 
51 
 
 chusetts and Connecticut, it is supposed, has not pro 
 duced ten shillings in the pound of what it might be 
 made to yield. I do not pretend that there is less 
 wisdom in the States, but they labor under almost in 
 surmountable difficulties. It is doubtful whether they 
 will be able to collect much ; and, if they should, the 
 burden of these rival laws has been found nearly equal 
 to another tax. 
 
 Besides, one State will tax another. The consum 
 ers will go to the most convenient market. So that the 
 attempt to make each State pay its own debt will be 
 defeated ; and the payment will fall as unequally as if 
 the assumption should take place, and the accounts 
 not settled. New Hampshire, Connecticut, Jersey, 
 and North Carolina would pay almost wholly into the 
 treasuries of the neighboring States. The non-im 
 porting. States will be obliged also to impose direct 
 taxes to pay their creditors, so that their citizens will 
 be doubly taxed. If State excises, then, are so unequal, 
 and yield so little, where are these mysterious State 
 resources, which are inaccessible to Congress 1 If 
 they are not of an incommunicable nature, we can 
 judge by hearing the subjects of taxation named. It 
 ought to appear that such exist, and that Congress 
 could not draw them forth. 
 
 If you reject excises, you cannot have an adequate 
 revenue ; and if the States have also excises, the rev 
 enue will be impoverished and hazarded. For if an 
 article can pay both duties, there is a loss to get but 
 one, and it might as well be collected throughout the 
 United States as in one State ; and if it cannot pay 
 both duties, one or both treasuries will suffer for the 
 loss. Besides, you incur a double expense in collect 
 ing them. 
 
52 
 
 What revenues are left you, if the excise is rejected ? 
 With such a slender sum you cannot offer new terms. 
 The modification of the entire debt, as first proposed, 
 makes a saving in the capital of almost thirteen mil 
 lions. The debt to be assumed is about twenty-four. 
 The interest on the difference, or on the real increase 
 of debt by assuming, is less than five hundred thousand 
 dollars yearly. 
 
 We depend upon two principles for the security of 
 the revenues. One is that the trading people will not 
 be disposed to offend ; and the other is that all others 
 will be inclined to watch and expose them if they 
 should. Never was so popular a revenue system. 
 But the violence to the just demand of the creditors, 
 depriving them of the money they have been used to 
 receive, and creating in the States an interest to have 
 your collection fail, in order to make the State funds 
 effectual, will produce a most disastrous change. It 
 is setting men s interests, as well as opinions, against 
 you. ^ Nor will the landed interest have a different 
 sentiment ; for they will be murmuring under the load 
 of direct taxes, and the more the State revenues can 
 be improved by lessening the national, the less they 
 will have to bear. 
 
 What reason, then, is there for asserting that more 
 money can be obtained, and more easily, by several 
 systems than by one ? This bold assertion, which the 
 sense of America would refute, if its experience had 
 not done it already, is not true of imposts. I have 
 endeavored to expose its fallacy with regard to State 
 excises. They produce much evil and little money. 
 Direct taxes, insufficient as they are, can be imposed 
 by Congress to any amount, which ought to be re- 
 
53 
 
 quired, as well as by the States ; and I do not know 
 that they would be more obnoxious. It is true, just 
 complaint is made of their unequal operation, and I 
 trust that Congress will not be under the necessity to 
 call for them. What advantages for taxation do the 
 States possess over Congress \ We ought not to 
 admit that any such exist till the reasons and facts are 
 made known to us; which has not yet been done. 
 
 Without adequate funds, the States cannot propose 
 to their creditors a modification of the debt. By the 
 Constitution they are restrained from passing laws to 
 impair contracts. The burden will rest upon the 
 States, if not assumed, at six per cent ; for, without 
 funds, the creditors will not consent to take less: if 
 assumed, upon Congress at four. Is this the more 
 easy way of paying part of eighty millions ? It makes 
 a difference of several millions against the public. 
 
 If we commit an error by not assuming, it will be 
 an expensive one. Have we funds so abundant and 
 safe that we may divide and wrangle with impu 
 nity ? But we are told that there will probably be an 
 assumption at the next session, and that it is improper 
 to pass a decision at the present, especially as imme 
 diate provision is not to be made, and as delay will 
 reconcile men s minds to the measure. This is plau 
 sible, but at least it is yielding the great point as to the 
 principle. If the business should be referred to the 
 next session, with the intent then to assume, the States 
 will not impose taxes and frame funding systems for 
 half a year. In the mean time, this state of their 
 paper will make it the subject of the most pernicious 
 speculation. It will be engrossed for a trifle by for 
 eigners, and at the same time aggravate the scarcity of 
 
54 
 
 money by employing what there is in purchases. In 
 this state of suspense and loss, will the public mind 
 become tranquil? Will it unite the two sorts of credi 
 tors ? But, though you delay the interest on the State 
 debts to 1792, you pass the revenue laws as soon as 
 possible. By delay you will lose the revenue which 
 may accumulate prior to that time. Suppose a million 
 and a half obtained before the payment of interest 
 shall begin, that sum will secure the interest against 
 any probable deficiency of the duties for two or three 
 years. Will not the public, will not the creditors of 
 every description, derive advantage from an immediate 
 assumption and establishment of duties, and from the 
 proposed delay of paying interest ? 
 
 It is an unusual thing for a gentleman in a public 
 assembly to assert that four-fifths of the people are of 
 his way of thinking. This, however, has been done. 
 It is not strange to mistake their own opinion for that 
 of the public. These fond prepossessions may be 
 received instead of evidence, but they cannot weigh 
 much against evidence. My information may have 
 been less diligently sought, and less carefully exam 
 ined, than that gentleman s ; but I have compared it 
 with what has been gathered by my friends, and I 
 declare that I believe four-fifths of the wise and worthy 
 men, in a very wide extent of country, look with 
 strong disapprobation upon the injustice, and with 
 anxious terror upon the impolicy, of rejecting the 
 State debts. 
 
 Little notice has been taken of an argument for the 
 assumption, which, if just, is entitled to a great deal. 
 I mean that which has been urged to show that it will 
 strengthen the government. The answer given is, 
 
55 
 
 that, instead of pecuniary influence, new powers are 
 wanting to the Constitution. This is not denying the 
 argument, but asserting a proposition which, if false, 
 is to be disregarded, and, if true, is not inconsistent 
 with the point in question. So far from denying, it 
 seems to admit the utility of the assumption, and 
 asserts the utility of some other thing, which other 
 thing he has not explained ; and, if he had, it is prob 
 ably unattainable ; nor will its attainment, be it what 
 it may, be prevented by the assumption. But before 
 we ask for new powers on paper, let us exercise those 
 which are actually vested in Congress. What will 
 new powers avail us, if we suffer the Constitution to 
 become a dead letter I What has dropped from the 
 gentleman on this point amounts to an important con 
 cession. Little topics of objection sink to nothing, 
 when it is allowed that the assumption will strengthen 
 the government. Is the principle of union too strong? 
 Do not all good men desire to make it perfect? 
 What nation has more to hope from union, or to fear 
 from disunion ? Shall we make the Union less strong 
 than the people have intended to make it by adopting 
 the Constitution? And do not all agree that the 
 assumption is not a neutral measure ? If its adoption 
 will give strength to the Union, its rejection will have 
 the contrary effect. 
 
 I have thought of this government with the fondest 
 enthusiasm. I have considered it as tending to mend 
 the condition of mankind, and to perpetuate the bless 
 ings of liberty. At this late period of the debate, it 
 is hardly possible for gentlemen to exercise impar 
 tiality. It will be an act of virtue, of magnanimous 
 self-command, to do more, to place themselves 
 
56 
 
 for a moment in the situation of the advocates of the 
 assumption, and to see with their eyes. They love 
 their country, and mean to serve it ; and I am sure 
 they would shrink from the spectre of its misery 
 which haunts us ; they would not consent to undo 
 the Constitution in practice, to realize the evils which 
 we only apprehended under the Confederation, and 
 which were prevented by the total want of power in 
 Congress. With this principle, however, it will be 
 found that power enough is given to create division, 
 and to make it fatal ; it will beggar the government, 
 and bind it in chains. 
 
IV. 
 
 THE following speech was delivered by Mr. Ames, on the 3d of 
 February, 1792, in favor of a bill sent from the Senate entitled 
 " An Act for the Encouragement of the Bank and other Cod- 
 fisheries, and for the Regulation and Government of the Fishermen 
 employed therein." The bill provided for a bounty to each vessel 
 carrying on the above-named fisheries, of from one and a half to 
 two and a half dollars, according to tonnage, and passed the house 
 by a vote of thirty-eight yeas to twenty nays, on the 9th of Feb 
 ruary, 1792. Mr. Ames, after making some introductory obser 
 vations, spoke as follows : 
 
 IT is necessary, Mr. Speaker, to fix some point in 
 which both sides can agree. Disputes cannot be 
 terminated, or, more properly, they cannot be man 
 aged at all, if some first principles are not conceded. 
 The parties would want weapons for the controversy. 
 
 Law is in some countries the yoke of government, 
 which bends or breaks the necks of the people ; but, 
 thank Heaven ! in this country, it is a man s shield, 
 his coat of mail, his castle of safety. It is more than 
 his defence ; it is his weapon to punish those \vho 
 invade his rights ; it is the instrument which assists, 
 it is the price which rewards, his industry. 
 
 If I say that fishermen have equal rights with other 
 men, every gentleman feels in his own bosom a prin 
 ciple of assent. If I say that no man shall pay a tax 
 
58 
 
 on sending his property out of the country, the Con 
 stitution will affirm it ; for the Constitution says, No 
 duty shall be laid on exports. If I say, that on ex 
 porting dried fish, the exporter is entitled to draw 
 back the duty paid on the salt, I say no more than 
 the law of the land has confirmed. Plain and short 
 as these principles are, they include the whole con 
 troversy. For I consider the law allowing the draw 
 back as the right of the fishery, the defects of that 
 law as the wrong suffered, and the bill before us as 
 the remedy. The defects of the law are many and 
 grievous. Suppose 340,000 quintals exported: 
 
 The salt duty is $42,744 
 
 The drawback is only 34,000 
 
 The loss to the fishery $8,744 
 
 Whereas government pays $45,900, at 13^ cents, includ 
 ing charges, which are 3^ cents, on a quintal, which 
 is beyond what the fishery receives 11,900 
 
 Being a clear loss to the government of . . . . $3,156 
 
 So that, though the whole is intended for the benefit 
 of the fishery, about one-fourth of what is paid is not 
 so applied ; there is a heavy loss both to government 
 and the fishery. Even what is paid on the export is 
 nearly lost money ; the bounty is not paid till the 
 exportation, nor then till six months have elapsed ; 
 whereas the duty on salt is paid before the fish is 
 taken : it is paid to the exporter, not to the fisher 
 man. The bounty is so indirect, that the poor fish 
 erman loses sight of it. It is paid to such persons, in 
 such places, and at such periods, as to disappoint its 
 good effects ; passing through so many hands, and 
 paying so many profits to each, it is almost absorbed. 
 
59 
 
 The encouragement, too, is greatest in successful 
 years, when least needed ; and is least in bad fishing 
 seasons, when it is most needed. It is a very per 
 plexed, embarrassing regulation to the officers of the 
 government, and to the exporter: hence the great 
 charge ; and with all this charge and trouble, it is 
 liable to many frauds. Four hundred miles of coast, 
 little towns, no officers. All these defects the bill 
 remedies ; and, besides, gives the money on condition 
 that certain regulations are submitted to, which are 
 worth almost as much as the money. 
 
 The bill is defended on three grounds. First, it 
 will promote the national wealth ; second, the national 
 safety; third, justice requires it. The last is fully 
 relied on. 
 
 To show that the fishery will increase the wealth 
 of the. nation, it cannot be improper to mention its 
 great value. The export before the war brought more 
 than a million of dollars into this country ; proba 
 bly it is not less at present, and no small part in gold 
 and silver. It is computed that thirty thousand per 
 sons, including four thousand seamen, subsist by it. 
 Many say, very composedly, if it will not maintain 
 itself, let it fall. But we should not only lose the 
 annual million of dollars which it brings us, an 
 immense capital would be lost. The fishing towns 
 are built on the naked rocks or barren sands on the 
 side of the sea. Those spots, however, where trade 
 would sicken and die, which husbandry scorns to till, 
 and which nature seems to have devoted to eternal 
 barrenness, are selected by industry to work miracles 
 on. Houses, stores, and wharves are erected, and a 
 vast property created, all depending on this business. 
 
Before you think it a light thing to consign them to 
 ruin, see if you can compute what they cost ; if they 
 outrun your figures, then confess it would be bad 
 economy, as well as bad policy, to suffer rival nations 
 to ruin our fishery. The regulations of foreign nations 
 tend to bring this ruin about. France and England 
 equally endeavor, in the language of the Secretary of 
 State, to mount their marine on the destruction of our 
 fishery. The fishers at Newfoundland are allowed 
 liberal bounties by the English Government ; and in 
 the French West Indies, we meet bounties on their 
 fish and duties on our own, and these amount to the 
 price of the fish. From the English islands we are 
 quite shut out ; yet such is the force of our natural 
 advantages, that we have not yielded to these rivals. 
 The Secretary of State has made these statements in 
 his Report. 
 
 The more fish we catch, the cheaper ; the English 
 fish will need a greater bounty : whereas, if we should 
 yield, the English would probably need no bounty at 
 all ; they would have the monopoly. For example : 
 Suppose the English can fish at two dollars the quin 
 tal, we catch so much that we sell at one dollar and 
 two-thirds ; the loss to them is one-third of a dollar 
 to each quintal. They must have that sum as a bounty. 
 Whereas, if we increase our fishery, a greater and 
 greater bounty is needed by foreign nations. The 
 contest so painfully sustained by them must be yielded 
 at last, and we shall enjoy alone an immense fund of 
 wealth to the nation which nature has made ours; 
 and, though foreigners disturb the possession, we shall 
 finally enjoy it peaceably and exclusively. If the 
 lands of Kentucky are invaded, you drive off the in- 
 
61 
 
 vader ; and so you ought. Why not protect this 
 property as well ] These opinions are supported by 
 no common authority. The State of Massachusetts 
 having represented the discouragements of the fishery, 
 the subject has received the sanction of the Secretary 
 of State ; he confirms the facts stated in the petition ; 
 he says it is too poor a business to pay anything to 
 government. 
 
 Yet. instead of asking bounties, or a remission of the 
 duties on the articles consumed, we ask nothing but 
 to give us our own money back, which you received 
 under an engagement to pay it back in case the arti 
 cle should be exported. If nothing was in view, 
 therefore, but to promote national wealth, it seems 
 plain that this branch ought to be protected and pre 
 served ; because, under all the discouragement it 
 suffers, it increases, and every year more and more 
 enriches the country, and promises to become an 
 inexhaustible fund of wealth. 
 
 Another view has been taken of the subject, which 
 is drawn from the naval protection afforded in time 
 of war by a fishery. Our coasting and foreign trade 
 is increasing rapidly ; but the richer our trade be 
 comes, the better prize to the enemy. So far from 
 protecting us, it would be the very thing that would 
 tempt him to go to war with us. As the rice and 
 tobacco planters cheerfully pay for armies, and turn 
 out in the militia to protect their property on shore, 
 they cannot be so much deceived as to wish to have 
 it left unprotected \vhen it is afloat ; especially when 
 it is known that this protection, though more effect 
 ual than, the whole revenue expended on a navy could 
 procure, will not cost a farthing ; on the contrary, it 
 
62 
 
 will enrich while it protects the nation. The coasters 
 and other seamen, in the event of a war, would be 
 doubly in demand, and could neither protect them 
 selves nor annoy the enemy to any considerable de 
 gree ; but the fishermen, thrown out of business by a 
 war, would be instantly in action. They would, as 
 they formerly did, embark in privateers ; having noth 
 ing to lose and everything to hope, they would not dis 
 honor their former fame. Their mode of life makes 
 them expert and hardy seamen. Nothing can be 
 more adventurous. They cast anchor on the banks, 
 three hundred leagues from land, and, with a great 
 length of cable, ride out the storms of winter. If the 
 gale proves too strong, they often sink at their anchors, 
 and are food for fish which they came to take. For 
 ever wet, the sea almost becomes their element. Cold 
 and labor, in that region of frost, brace their bodies, 
 and they become as hardy as the bears on the islands 
 of ice ; their skill and spirit are not inferior ; familiar 
 with danger, they despise it. If I were to recite their 
 exploits, the theme would find every American heart 
 already glowing with the recollection of them ; it 
 would kindle more enthusiasm than the subject has 
 need of. My view is only to appeal, to evince the 
 importance of the fishery as a means of naval protec 
 tion. It is proper to pass over Bunker s Hill, though 
 memorable by the valor of a regiment of fishermen ; 
 nor is it necessary to mention, further, that five hun 
 dred fishermen fought at Trenton. 
 
 It is known that the privateers manned by fisher 
 men, in want of everything, not excepting arms which 
 they depended on taking from their enemies, brought 
 into port warlike stores of every kind, as well as every 
 
63 
 
 kind of merchandise sufficient for the army and the 
 country ; the war could not have been carried on with 
 out them. Among other exploits almost beyond belief, 
 one instance is worth relating : these people, in a pri 
 vateer of sixteen guns and one hundred and fifty 
 men, in one cruise took more than twenty ships, 
 with upward of two hundred guns and nearly four 
 hundred men. The privateers from a single district 
 of Massachusetts, where the fishery is chiefly seated, 
 took more than two thousand vessels, being one-third 
 of the British merchant vessels, and brought in near 
 one thousand two hundred. An hundred sail of pri 
 vateers, manned by fishermen, would scour every sea 
 in case of war. 
 
 Some gentlemen think of a navy ; but what navy 
 could do more I What nation would provoke a peo 
 ple so capable of injuring them 1 Could fifty ships of 
 the line afford more security 1 and yet this resource 
 of the fishery, always ready, always sufficient, will 
 cost nothing. The superior naval force of our foes 
 should not discourage us ; our privateers would issue 
 like so many sword-fish to attack the whale. I leave 
 these observations to their weight, and forbear to press 
 them further ; strong as I think them, I rest my sup 
 port of the bill on another ground. I will only ask 
 whether you will oppress, if you will not encourage 
 them ; whether, if you will not give them the money 
 of the public, you will partially seize their own] 
 This is all they ask. If your policy demands for them 
 so much, will your justice deny them so little ? 
 
 I have repeatedly asserted that the bill will not cost 
 the public a farthing ; you only take the money which 
 the fishery brings into the treasury, for the salt duty, 
 
64 
 
 and pay the same or a less sum back in bounties, 
 instead of a drawback on the exportation of fish. 
 Here I rest my argument. Before I adduce my 
 proofs, I cannot forbear to lay open the state of 
 my mind. I rely on the truth of the facts I propose 
 to offer. I rely on the proof of them being as near 
 demonstration as the nature of the case will admit. 
 I make no doubt of the good sense and good inten 
 tions of the gentlemen whom I wish to convince ; and 
 yet, I am sorry to say, I am far from being sanguine in 
 the hope of gaining a single vote for the bill. I will 
 explain my meaning, and then I think no gentleman 
 will take exception at it. This debate depends on 
 calculation. In print or writing or private conver 
 sation, figures have the advantage of every other mode 
 of investigation ; the mind is fixed to a point, and 
 made to see it clearly. But in public debate it is 
 otherwise. Figures not only disgust attention, but, as 
 the mind cannot carry them along, they confound it ; 
 they make a plain thing look mysterious, and bring 
 it into suspicion. When I ask of the Committee a 
 hearing, and it is granted, I get nothing ; I want a 
 close attention ; and I have to beg, and earnestly too, 
 that gentlemen will not trust their first opinions and 
 vote against the bill, without condescending to receive 
 and to weigh the facts and calculations of its advo 
 cates. 
 
 The first question is, How much does the govern 
 ment receive by the duty on the salt used in curing 
 the fish which is exported? The quantity of fish 
 must be known. Several ways of information are to 
 be explored. The Secretary of State supposes the 
 fish of 1790 to be 354,276 quintals. A Treasury 
 
65 
 
 return of fish exported from Aug. 20, 1789, to Sept. 
 30, 1790, which is thirteen and one-third months, is 
 378,721 quintals, for a year, equal to 340,849 quin 
 tals. 
 
 Foreign-dried fish imported from Aug. 15, 1789, 
 to Aug. 1790, 3,701 quintals; five per cent drawback 
 thereon is only three hundred and ten dollars, at one 
 dollar and sixty-six cents per quintal. Mr. Giles 
 is mistaken in supposing that foreign fish deducts 
 $16,000 from our estimate. Return of fish in seven 
 months from May 30 to December, 1790, exported, 
 all fish of the United States, 197,278 quintals ; which, 
 for a year, is 338,184 quintals. The medium may 
 be fairly taken for the time past at 340,000 quintals 
 a year. 
 
 Six gentlemen of Marblehead certify that 5,043 
 hogsheads, or 40,344 bushels of salt, were used on 
 38,497| quintals ; which, for 340,000 quintals, gives 
 356,200 bushels. The duty, at twelve cents, is 
 $42,744, which government receives. But the charge 
 to the United States is, 
 
 At thirteen and a half cents per quintal $45,900 
 
 Whereof the fishery receives ten cents on each quintal 
 
 exported . * 34,000 
 
 Charges as the law stands $11,900 
 
 Further, this is but an estimate made up from what 
 the last year proved. The next may be very differ 
 ent, and probably it will be. If more money should 
 be demanded than $44,000, we must not be accused 
 of misleading Congress. But in that case an increase 
 would be made by law ; for the more fish is exported, 
 the more thirteen and a half cents must be paid ; so 
 
 9 
 
66 
 
 that the bill creates no burden in that way. But the 
 increase of the export of fish will probably operate in 
 favor of government ; for it is known that the econ 
 omy, skill, and activity of the fishery are making prog 
 ress. Its success has progressed. The mo re fish to 
 a vessel, the cheaper the allowance on the tonnage. 
 Therefore the tonnage of vessels will not increase in 
 a ratio with the increase of the fish. 
 
 The very objections prove this ; for they deem 
 the encouragement too great. But any encourage 
 ment must have the effect. 
 
 The difference of the agreements for distributing 
 the fish according to the present practice, or by this 
 bill, makes a great one in the quantity taken. The 
 bill reforms the practice in this point. Marblehead 
 vessels take less than those from Beverly. The 
 former throw the fish into a common stock, which is 
 afterwards divided upon a plan very unfriendly to 
 exertion. A man works for the whole, perhaps 
 twelve hours, and they may take about eight hun 
 dred quintals to a vessel. But in Beverly the exer 
 tion is as great as can be made, eighteen hours a 
 day, because each man has what he catches ; and 
 they catch eleven hundred quintals. 
 
 Marblehead seamen sailing from other towns, and 
 dividing as last mentioned, which the bill establishes, 
 seldom fail to catch two or three hundred quintals 
 more than vessels and men from Marblehead on the 
 first plan. Accordingly, I assert, on good authority, 
 that the increase in Marblehead only may be com 
 puted at fifteen thousand quintals, merely in conse 
 quence of the reform by the bill. The best-informed 
 persons whom I have consulted entertain no doubt 
 
67 
 
 that the export, in case the bill should pass, would not 
 be less than four hundred thousand quintals, probably 
 more ; but, at four hundred thousand quintals, it would 
 add seven thousand two hundred dollars more to the 
 salt duty, a sum more than equal to any estimate of 
 the actual tonnage or any probable increase of it. 
 
 $42,744 
 7,200 
 
 Salt duty on 400,000 quintals $49,944 
 
 Other facts confirm the theory that skill and exer 
 tion are increasing in this business. 
 
 In 1775, for 25,000 tons and 4,405 seamen, the 
 fish sold amounted to $1,071,000. In 1790, three- 
 fourths of the seamen and three-fourths of the ton 
 nage took as much fish. It is owing to this that our 
 fishery stood the competition with foreign nations. 
 
 Finally, the average in future may be relied on not 
 to be less than 350,000 quintals. 
 
 Salt duty on which $43,944 
 
 Bounties 44,000 
 
 Wanted . . $56 
 
 The calculation first made will answer the purpose. 
 
 340,000 quintals pay salt duty $42,744 
 
 Tonnage bounty 44,000 
 
 Wanted $1,256 
 
 This is the mighty defect. Observe, the authentic 
 return of the export of fish may be, and we can 
 almost prove it to be, below the future export : 
 whereas, to banish all doubt, we go to the top of the 
 scale for the tonnage ; we take what we know to be 
 the utmost. This we might have represented more 
 
68 
 
 favorably, if we had chosen to conceal anything. But 
 even this will answer our purpose. 
 
 For two hundred tons are wanting in the estimate 
 of the bounties, being nineteen thousand eight hun 
 dred, not twenty thousand, which will take off one- 
 third of the deficient sum. 
 
 The tonnage over sixty- eight, which receives nothing, 
 is not mentioned : and it is probably not less than 
 another third. 
 
 The boats under five tons, though trifling, are to be 
 noticed ; they receive nothing. 
 
 But, above all, the chances of non-compliance with 
 the regulations are in favor of the remainder of the 
 twelve hundred and fifty-six dollars being stopped. 
 Boats may not get twelve quintals to the ton, or ves 
 sels may have their voyages broken up, or not stay 
 four months on the fishing ground; and in either case 
 they would receive nothing. Take all these together, 
 is it not to be doubted that twelve hundred and fifty- 
 six dollars will remain of the forty-four thousand in 
 the Treasury ] 
 
 But these are trifles which I cannot believe gentle 
 men are anxious about. 
 
 For the event cannot be reduced to a certainty. 
 What quantity of fish will be exported, no man can 
 tell now. But as government may receive more than 
 it will pay, the chance may turn the other way, and it 
 may have to pay a few hundred dollars more than it 
 will have received. We have seen that the chance is 
 most in favor of government. But one chance must 
 balance the other. This answer is sincerely relied on 
 as a good one. 
 
 I barely mention that the wear of cordage, cables, 
 
69 
 
 sails, and anchors is very great. These articles, on 
 being imported, pay duties. So that it is probable 
 that the extra duty paid by the fishery on their extra 
 consumption will overbalance any little sums sup 
 posed to exceed in the bounty. 
 
 It has been asked, as if some cunning were de 
 tected, why, if the money received in the treasury to 
 pay the drawbacks is equal to the proposed bounties, 
 a further appropriation should be made. This cun 
 ning question admits of several very simple answers. 
 
 1st. The bill being for seven years, the average 
 product is the proper sum to be calculated. But the 
 first three years may fall short of the bounties, say 
 two thousand dollars a year, which is six thousand 
 dollars. The last four may exceed two thousand dol 
 lars, say eight thousand dollars. 
 
 Shall a poor fisherman wait for the whole, or, if he 
 takes his part according to the money in the treasury, 
 for a twenty-fourth part of the bounty on his vessel, 
 from 1792 to 1795] 
 
 2d. This delay would happen after a bad year, the 
 very time when he would most need prompt pay. 
 
 3d. But fish taken this year will not be exported 
 till December next. Therefore the money will not be 
 stopped by the drawback, as the law stands, till six 
 months after. 
 
 A substitute has been proposed for the clause to 
 appropriate the drawback only. This is absolutely 
 improper. For the ten cents allowed as drawback is 
 but a part of the duty paid on salt. It is not easy to 
 see any reason why a part stopped at the treasury 
 should be equal to the whole paid there long before. 
 The drawback falls near nine thousand dollars short 
 
70 
 
 of the salt duty received by government The ex 
 pense of the drawback would be very heavy and use 
 less. 
 
 Nor may gentlemen apprehend that government, 
 by paying next December, will advance money to the 
 fishery. The salt duty will have been paid, and the 
 government will have the use of the money, many 
 months before the fishermen will have the right to 
 call for the bounties. 
 
 It is left to the candor of the gentlemen who have 
 urged this objection, whether a better or fairer answer 
 is desired. 
 
 After having laboriously gone through the estimate 
 of the probable export of fish, it will not be necessary 
 to be equally minute as to the number or kind of ves 
 sels which are to receive the bounty. The estimate 
 we believe to be very high. That it is high enough 
 we suppose very probable, from the estimate of the 
 Secretary of State, which is only nineteen thousand 
 one hundred and eighty-five tons. 
 
 This mode of paying the bounty on the tonnage is 
 very simple and safe. The measurement is already 
 made, and costs nothing ; and, as it was made to pay a 
 duty on tonnage, we are very sure that government 
 will not be cheated by an over-measure. The mode 
 of paying the drawback, as the law now stands, is ex 
 pensive, perplexed, and embarrassing, liable to frauds 
 and delays. 
 
 This intricate and disgusting detail of calculations 
 was necessary to satisfy the Committee that each of 
 the three grounds of defence on which the bill rests 
 is tenable. 
 
 Instead of impoverishing the nation by scattering 
 
71 
 
 the treasures of the whole to benefit a part, it appears 
 that we are preserving a mine of treasure. In point 
 of naval protection, we can scarcely estimate the fisV 
 ery too highly. It is always ready, always equal to 
 the object ; it is almost the only sufficient source of 
 protection by sea. Our navigation is certainly a 
 precious interest of the country. But no part of our 
 navigation can vie with the fishery in respect to the 
 protection it affords. There is no point which regards 
 our national wealth or national safety, in respect to 
 which it seems practicable to do so much with so 
 little. 
 
 We rely on the evidence before you that the public 
 will not sustain the charge of a dollar. Those ought 
 not to doubt the evidence who cannot invalidate it. 
 If, then, the fishermen ask you to restore only their 
 own money, will you deny them] Will you return 
 to every other person exporting dutied goods the 
 money he has paid, and will you refuse the poor 
 fisherman 1 
 
 If there must be an instance of the kind, will you 
 single out for this oppressive partiality that branch 
 which is described by the Secretary of State as too 
 poor even to bear its own part of the common burden ? 
 that branch which, nevertheless, has borne the neg 
 lect of our nation and the persecution of foreign 
 prohibitions and duties ; a branch which, though we 
 have received much and expect more, both of money 
 and services, urges no claim but such as common 
 justice has sanctioned. 
 
V. 
 
 ON the 3d of January, 1794, Mr. Madison, a member from 
 Virginia, proposed to the House of Representatives of the United 
 States a series of resolutions, to impose higher duties and lay 
 greater restrictions on the manufactures, products, and ships, and 
 on particular branches of trade, of a certain nation, or of nations 
 therein described. In explanation of his motives and views, he 
 spoke of the security and extension of our commerce, as a prin 
 cipal object for which the federal government was formed. He 
 urged the tendency of his resolutions to secure to us an equitable 
 share of the carrying trade ; that they would enable other nations 
 to enter into a competition with England for supplying us with 
 manufactures ; and in this way he insisted that our country could 
 make her enemies feel the extent of her power, by depriving those 
 who manufactured for us of their bread. He adverted to the 
 measures enforced by a certain nation, contrary to our maritime 
 rights ; and out of the proceeds of the extra impositions proposed, 
 he recommended a reimbursement to our citizens of their losses 
 arising from those measures. He maintained that if the nation 
 cannot protect the rights of its citizens, it ought to repay the 
 damage ; and that we are bound to obtain reparation for the in 
 justice of foreign nations to our citizens, or to compensate them 
 ourselves. 
 
 On the other hand, Mr Ames thought that " whatever specious 
 show of advantage might be given to the policy proposed in the 
 resolutions, it would prove an aggravation and not a remedy of 
 any supposed or real evils in our commercial system." He con- 
 
73 
 
 sidered the zeal for unlimited freedom of commerce as affected 
 and insincere. He thought it ridiculous in this country to pre 
 tend, at this time, to change the general policy of nations ; and to 
 begin the abolition of restrictions by enacting non-importation 
 laws. Shutting up the best markets for exports, and confining 
 ourselves to the worst, for our imports, was peculiarly inconsistent 
 and absurd in those who profess to aim at the benefit of trade. 
 To him it appeared that, under the pretence of making trade 
 better, it was to be annihilated ; that it might serve France, but 
 would certainly injure us. He saw too plainly that our trade was 
 to wage war for our politics, and to be used as the instrument 
 of gratifying political resentments. 
 
 The way had been prepared for these resolutions by a report 
 from Mr. Jefferson, as Secretary of State, on the same subject, 
 which had been long labored to give it the aspect which it bore. 
 Mr. Ames saw, or thought he saw, in these measures the medi 
 tated overthrow of the commercial prosperity of the United States, 
 and especially of that part of them whose interests were par 
 ticularly confided to his care. With these impressions, he made 
 the following speech on the 27th of the same mouth, 1794. [Life 
 and Works of Fisher Ames, 1809 and 1854.] 
 
 THE question lies within this compass, Is there 
 any measure proper to be adopted by Congress which 
 will have the effect to put our trade and navigation 
 on a better footing ? If there is, it is our undoubted 
 right to adopt it ; if by right is understood the power 
 of self-government, which every independent nation 
 possesses, and our own as completely as any other, it is 
 our duty also, for we are the depositaries and the guar 
 dians of the interests of our constituents, which, on 
 every consideration, ought to be dear to us. I make 
 no doubt they are so, and that there is a disposition 
 sufficiently ardent existing in this body to co-operate 
 in any measures for the advancement of the common 
 
 10 
 
74 
 
 good. Indeed, so far as I can judge from any knowl 
 edge I have of human nature, or of the prevailing 
 spirit of public transactions, that sort of patriotism, 
 which makes us wish the general prosperity, when 
 our private interest does not happen to stand in the 
 way, is no uncommon sentiment. In truth, it is 
 very like self-love, and not much less prevalent. 
 There is little occasion to excite and inflame it. It 
 is, like self-love, more apt to want intelligence than 
 zeal. The danger is always that it will rush blindly 
 into embarrassments, which a prudent spirit of inquiry 
 might have prevented, but from which it will scarcely 
 find means to extricate us. While therefore the 
 right, the duty, and the inclination to advance the 
 trade and navigation of the United States, are ac 
 knowledged and felt by us all, the choice of the proper 
 means to that end is a matter requiring the most 
 circumspect inquiry, and the most dispassionate judg 
 ment. 
 
 After a debate has continued a long time, the sub 
 ject very frequently becomes tiresome before it is 
 exhausted. Arguments, however solid, urged by 
 different speakers, can scarcely fail to render the 
 discussion both complex and diffusive. Without 
 pretending to give to my arguments any other merit, 
 I shall aim at simplicity. 
 
 We hear it declared that the design of the resolu 
 tions is to place our trade and navigation on a better 
 footing. By better footing, we are to understand a 
 more profitable one. Profit is a plain word that 
 cannot be misunderstood. 
 
 We have, to speak in round numbers, twenty million 
 dollars of exports annually. To have the trade of ex- 
 
75 
 
 ports on a good footing, means nothing more than to sell 
 them dear ; and consequently the trade of import on 
 a good footing is to buy cheap. To put them both 
 on a better footing is to sell dearer and to buy cheaper 
 than we do at present. If the effect of the resolu 
 tions will be to cause our exports to be sold cheaper, 
 and our imports to be bought dearer, our trade will 
 suffer an injury. 
 
 It is hard to compute how great the injury would 
 prove ; for the first loss of value in the buying dear 
 and selling cheap is only the symptom and beginning 
 of the evil, but by no means the measure of it ; it 
 will withdraw a great part of the nourishment that 
 now supplies the wonderful growth of our industry 
 and opulence. The difference may not amount to a 
 great proportion of the price of the articles, but it 
 may reach the greater part of the profit of the pro 
 ducer ; it may have effects in this way which will be 
 of the worst kind, by discouraging the products of 
 our land and industry. It is to this test I pro 
 pose to bring the resolutions on the table ; and if it 
 shall clearly appear that they tend to cause our ex 
 ports to be sold cheaper and our imports to be bought 
 dearer, they cannot escape condemnation. Whatever 
 specious show of advantage may be given them, they 
 deserve to be called aggravations of any real or sup 
 posed evils in our commercial system, and not 
 remedies. 
 
 I have framed this statement of the question so as 
 to comprehend the whole subject of debate, and, at 
 the same time, I confess it was my design to exclude 
 from consideration a number of topics which appear 
 to me totally irrelative to it. 
 
76 
 
 The best answer to many assertions we have heard 
 is to admit them without proof. We are exhorted to 
 assert our natural rights ; to put trade on a respect 
 able footing ; to dictate terms of trade to other 
 nations ; to engage in a contest of self-denial ; and 
 by that, and by shifting our commerce from one 
 country to another, to make our enemies feel the ex 
 tent of our power. This language, as it respects the 
 proper subject of discussion, means nothing, or what 
 is worse. If our trade is already on a profitable foot 
 ing, it is on a respectable one. Unless war be our 
 object, it is useless to inquire what are the dispositions 
 of any government, with whose subjects our mer 
 chants deal to the best advantage. While they will 
 smoke our tobacco and eat our provisions, it is very 
 immaterial, both to the consumer and the producer, 
 what are the politics of the two countries, excepting 
 so far as their quarrels may disturb the benefits of 
 their mutual intercourse. 
 
 So far, therefore, as commerce is concerned, the in 
 quiry is, Have we a good market ? 
 
 The good or bad state of our adual market is the 
 question. The actual market is everywhere more or 
 less a restricted one, and the natural order of things 
 is displaced by the artificial. Most nations, for 
 reasons of which they alone are the rightful judges, 
 have regulated and restricted their intercourse, ac 
 cording to their views of safety and profit. We claim 
 for ourselves the same right, as the acts in our statute- 
 book and the resolutions on the table evince, without 
 holding ourselves accountable to any other nation 
 whatever. The right, which we properly claim, and 
 which we properly exercise, when we do it prudently 
 
77 
 
 and usefully for our nation, is as well established and 
 has been longer in use in the countries of which we 
 complain, than in our own. If their right is as good 
 as that of Congress, to regulate and restrict, why do 
 we talk of a strenuous exertion of our force, and by 
 dictating terms to nations, who are fancied to be phys 
 ically dependent on America, to change the policy of 
 nations I It may be very true that their policy is very 
 wise and good for themselves, but not as favorable for 
 us as we could make it, if we could legislate for both 
 sides of the Atlantic. 
 
 The extravagant despotism of this language accords 
 very ill with our power to give it effect, or with the 
 affectation of zeal for an unlimited freedom of com 
 merce. Such a state of absolute freedom of commerce 
 never did exist, and it is very much to be doubted 
 whether it ever will. Were I invested with the trust 
 to legislate for mankind, it is very probable the first 
 act of my authority would be to throw all the restric 
 tive and prohibitory laws of trade into the fire ; the 
 resolutions on the table would not be spared. But if 
 I were to do so, it is probable I should have a quarrel 
 on my hands Vith every civilized nation. The Dutch 
 would claim the monopoly of the spice trade, for 
 which their ancestors passed their whole lives in war 
 fare. The Spaniards and Portuguese would be no 
 less obstinate. If we calculate what colony monopo 
 lies have cost in wealth, in suffering, and in crimes, 
 we shall say they were dearly purchased. The Eng 
 lish would plead for their navigation act, not as a 
 source of gain, but as an essential means of securing 
 their independence. So many interests would be dis 
 turbed, and so many lost, by a violent change from 
 
78 
 
 the existing to an unknown order of things ; and the 
 mutual relations of nations, in respect to their power 
 and wealth, would suffer such a shock, that the idea 
 must be allowed to be perfectly Utopian and wild. 
 But for this country to form the project of changing 
 the policy of nations, and to begin the abolition of 
 restrictions by restrictions of its own, is equally ridic 
 ulous and inconsistent. 
 
 Let every nation that is really disposed to extend 
 the liberty of commerce beware of rash and hasty 
 schemes of prohibition. In the affairs of trade, as in 
 most others, we make too many laws. We follow 
 experience too little, and the visions of theorists a 
 great deal too much. Instead of listening to dis 
 courses on what the market ought to be, and what the 
 schemes, which always promise much on paper, pre 
 tend to make it, let us see what is the actual market 
 for our exports and imports. This will bring vague 
 assertions and sanguine opinions to the test of ex 
 perience. That rage for theory and system, which 
 would entangle even practical truth in the web of the 
 brain, is the poison of public discussion. One fact is 
 better than two systems. 
 
 The terms on which our exports are received in the 
 British market have been accurately examined by a 
 gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Win. Smith). 
 Before his statement of facts was made to the Com 
 mittee, it was urged, and with no little warmth, that 
 the system of England indicated her inveteracy 
 towards this country, while that of France, spring 
 ing from disinterested affection, constituted a claim 
 for gratitude and self-denying measures of retribution. 
 
 Since that statement, however, that romantic style, 
 
79 
 
 which is so ill adapted to the subject, has been 
 changed. We hear it insinuated that the comparison 
 of the footing of our exports in the markets of France 
 and England is of no importance ; that it is chiefly our 
 object to see how we may assist and extend our com 
 merce. This evasion of the force of the statement, or 
 rather this indirect admission of its authority, estab 
 lishes it. It will not be pretended that it has been 
 shaken during the debate. 
 
 It has been made to appear, beyond contradiction, 
 that the British market for our export?, taken in the 
 aggregate, is a good one ; that it is better than the 
 French, and better than any we have, and for many 
 of our products the only one. 
 
 The whole amount of our exports to the British 
 dominions, in the year ending the 30th September, 
 1790, was nine millions two hundred and forty-six 
 thousand six hundred and six dollars. 
 
 But it will be more simple and satisfactory to con 
 fine the inquiry to the articles following. 
 
 Bread-stuff, tobacco, rice, wood, the produce of the 
 fisheries, fish-oil, pot and pearl ash, salted meats, 
 indigo, live animals, flax-seed, naval stores, and iron. 
 
 The amount of the before-mentioned articles, ex 
 ported in that same year to the British dominions, was 
 eight millions four hundred and fifty-seven thousand 
 one hundred and seventy-three dollars. 
 
 We have heard so much of restriction, of inimical 
 and jealous prohibitions to cramp our trade, it is nat 
 ural to scrutinize the British system, with the expec 
 tation of finding little besides the effects of her selfish 
 and angry policy. 
 
 Yet of the great sum of nearly eight millions and 
 
80 
 
 a half, the amount of the products before-mentioned 
 sold in her markets, two articles only are dutied by 
 way of restriction. Bread-stuff is dutied so high in 
 the market of Great Britain, as in times of plenty to ex 
 clude it, and this is done from the desire to favor her own 
 farmers. The mover of the resolutions justified the ex 
 clusion of our bread-stuff from the French West Indies 
 by their permanent regulations, because, he said, they 
 were bound to prefer their own products to those even 
 of the United States. It would seem that the same 
 apology would do for England, in her home market. 
 But what will do for the vindication of one nation 
 becomes invective against another. The criminal 
 nation, however, receives our bread-stuff in the West 
 Indies free, and excludes other foreign, so as to give 
 our producers the monopoly of the supply. This is 
 no merit in the judgment of the mover of the resolu 
 tions, because it is a fragment of her old colony 
 system. Notwithstanding the nature of the duties on 
 bread-stuff in Great Britain, it has been clearly shown 
 that she is a better customer for that article, in 
 Europe, than her neighbor France. The latter, in 
 ordinary times, is a poor customer for bread-stuff, for the 
 same reason that our own country is, because she pro 
 duces it herself, and therefore France permits it to be 
 imported, and the United States do the like. Great 
 Britain often wants the article, and then she receives 
 it ; no country can be expected to buy what it does 
 not want. The bread-stuff sold in the European 
 dominions of Britain, in the year 1790, amounted to 
 one million eighty-seven thousand eight hundred and 
 forty dollars. 
 
 Whale oil pays the heavy duty of eighteen pounds 
 
81 
 
 three shillings sterling per ton ; yet spermaceti oil 
 found a market there to the value of eighty-one 
 thousand and forty-eight dollars. 
 
 Thus it appears that of eight millions and a half 
 sold to Great Britain and her dominions, only the 
 value of one million one hundred and sixty-eight 
 thousand dollars was under duty of a restrictive 
 nature. The bread-stuff is hardly to be considered as 
 within the description ; yet, to give the argument its 
 full force, what is it? About one eighth part is 
 restricted. To proceed with the residue : 
 
 Indigo to the amount of $473,830 
 
 Live Animals to the West Indies 62,415 
 
 Flax-Seed to Great Britain 219,924- 
 
 Total $756,169 
 
 These articles are received duty free, which is a 
 good foot to the trade. Yet we find, good as it is, 
 the bulk of our exports is received on even better 
 terms : 
 
 Flour to the British West Indies $858,006 
 
 Grain 273,505 
 
 Free ; while other foreign flour and grain are prohibited. 
 
 Tobacco to Great Britain 2,754,493 
 
 Ditto to the West Indies 22,816 
 
 One shilling and three pence sterling, duty ; three shil 
 lings and sixpence on other foreign tobacco. 
 In the West Indies other foreign tobacco is prohibited. 
 
 Rice to Great Britain 773,852 
 
 Seven shillings and four pence per cwt. duty ; eight shil 
 lings and ten pence on other foreign rice. 
 
 To West Indies 180,077 
 
 Other foreign rice prohibited. 
 
 Amount carried forward $4,862,749 
 
 11 
 
82 
 
 Amount brought forward $4,862,749 
 
 Wood to Great Britain 240,174 
 
 Free ; higher duties on other foreign. 
 
 To West Indies 382,481 
 
 Free ; other foreign prohibited. 
 
 Pot and pearl ashes 747,078 
 
 Free ; two shillings and three pence on other foreign, 
 equal to ten dollars per ton. 
 
 Naval Stores to Great Britain 190,670 
 
 Higher duties on other foreign. 
 
 To West Indies 6,162 
 
 Free ; other foreign prohibited. 
 
 Iron to Great Britain 81,612 
 
 Free ; duties on other foreign-. 
 
 $6,510,926 
 
 Thus it appears that nearly seven-eighths of the 
 exports to the British dominions are received on terms 
 of positive favor. Foreigners, our rivals in the sale 
 of these articles, are either absolutely shut out of 
 their market by prohibitions, or discouraged in their 
 competition with us by higher duties. There is some 
 restriction it is admitted, but there is, to balance it, a 
 large amount received duty free ; and a half goes to 
 the account of privilege and favor. This is better 
 than she treats any other foreign nation. It is better, 
 indeed, than she treats her own subjects, because they 
 are by this means deprived of a free and open market. 
 It is better than our footing with any nation with 
 whom we have treaties. It has been demonstratively 
 shown that it is better than the footing on which 
 France receives either the like articles or the aggre 
 gate of our products. The best proof in the world 
 is that they are not sent to France. The merchants 
 will find out the best market sooner than we shall. 
 
83 
 
 The footing of our exports, under the British 
 system, is better than that of their exports to the 
 United States, under our system. Nay, it is better 
 than the freedom of commerce, which is one of the 
 visions for which our solid prosperity is to be hazarded; 
 for, suppose we could batter down her system of pro 
 hibitions and restrictions, it would be gaining a loss ; 
 one-eighth is restricted, and more than six-eighths 
 has restrictions in its favor. It is as plain as figures 
 can make it, that, if a state of freedom for our ex 
 ports is at par, the present system raises them, in 
 point of privilege, above par. To suppose that we 
 can terrify them, by these resolutions, to abolish their 
 restrictions, and at the same time to maintain in our 
 favor their duties, to exclude other foreigners from 
 their market, is too absurd to be refuted. 
 
 We have heard that the market of France is the 
 great centre of our interests ; we are to look to her, 
 and not to England, for advantages, being, as the style 
 of theory is, our best customer and best friend, show 
 ing to our trade particular favor and privilege, while 
 England manifests in her system such narrow and 
 selfish views. It is strange to remark such a pointed 
 refutation of assertions and opinions by facts. The 
 amount sent to France herself is very trivial. Either 
 our merchants are ignorant of the best markets, or 
 those which they prefer are the best ; and if the 
 English markets, in spite of the alleged ill usage, are 
 still preferred to the French, it is a proof of the 
 superior advantages of the former over the latter. 
 The arguments I have adverted to oblige those who 
 urge them to make a greater difference in favor of 
 the English than the true state of facts will warrant. 
 
84 
 
 Indeed, if they persist in their arguments, they are 
 bound to deny their own conclusions. They are 
 bound to admit this position : If France receives 
 little of such of our products as Great Britain takes 
 on terms of privilege and favor, because of that favor, 
 it allows the value of that favored footing. If France 
 takes little of our articles, because she does not want 
 them, it shows the absurdity of looking to her as the 
 best customer. 
 
 It may be said, and truly, that Great Britain re 
 gards only her own interest in these arrangements ; 
 so much the better. If it is her interest to afford to 
 our commerce more encouragement than France 
 gives if she does this when she is inveterate against 
 us, as it is alleged, and when we are indulging an 
 avowed hatred towards her, and partiality towards 
 France, it shows that we have very solid ground to 
 rely on. Her interest is, according to this statement, 
 stronger than our passions, stronger than her own, 
 and is the more to be depended on, as it cannot be 
 put to any more trying experiment in future. The 
 good will and friendship of nations are hollow foun 
 dations to build our systems upon. Mutual interest 
 is a bottom of rock ; the fervor of transient senti 
 ments is not better than straw or stubble. Some 
 gentlemen have lamented this distrust of any relation 
 between nations, except an interested one ; but the 
 substitution of any other principle could produce little 
 else than the hypocrisy of sentiment and an instability 
 of affairs. It would be relying on what is not stable, 
 instead of what is ; it would introduce into politics 
 the jargon of romance. It is in this sense, and this 
 only, that the word favor is used ; a state of things 
 
85 
 
 so arranged as to produce our profit and advantage, 
 though intended by Great Britain merely for her own. 
 The disposition of a nation is immaterial ; the fact 
 that we profit by their system cannot be so to this 
 discussion. 
 
 The next point is to consider whether our imports 
 are on a good footing, or, in other words, whether we 
 are in a situation to buy what we have occasion for 
 at a cheap rate. In this view, the systems of the 
 commercial nations are not to be complained of, as 
 all are desirous of selling the products of their labor. 
 Great Britain is not censured in this respect. The 
 objection is rather of the opposite kind, that we buy 
 too cheap, and therefore consume too much ; and 
 that we take not only as much as we can pay for, but 
 to the extent of our credit also. There is less free 
 dom of importation, however, from the West Indies. 
 In this respect, France is more restrictive than 
 England^ for the former allows the exportation to us 
 of only rum and molasses, while England admits that 
 of sugar, coffee, and other principal West India 
 products. Yet, even here, when the preference 
 seems to be decidedly due to the British system, occa 
 sion is taken to extol that of the French. We are 
 told that they sell us the chief part of the molasses, 
 which is consumed or manufactured into rum ; and 
 that a great and truly important branch, the distillery, 
 is kept up by their liberality in furnishing the raw 
 material. There is at every step matter to confirm 
 the remark, that nations have framed their regulations 
 to suit their own interests, not ours. France is a 
 great brandy manufacturer ; she will not admit rum, 
 therefore, even from her own islands, because it would 
 
86 
 
 supplant the consumption of brandy. The molasses 
 was, for that reason, some years ago of no value in 
 her islands, and was not even saved in casks. But 
 the demand from our country soon raised its value. 
 The policy of England has been equally selfish. The 
 molasses is distilled in her islands, because she has no 
 manufacture of brandy to suffer by its sale. 
 
 A question remains respecting the state of our 
 navigation. If we pay no regard to the regulations 
 of foreign nations, and ask whether this valuable 
 branch of our industry and capital is in a distressed 
 and sickly state, we shall find it is in a strong and 
 flourishing condition. If the quantity of shipping 
 was declining, if it was unemployed, even at low 
 freight, I should say it must be sustained and en 
 couraged. No such thing is asserted. Seamen s 
 wages are high, freights are high, and American bot 
 toms in full employment. But the complaint is, our 
 vessels are not permitted to go to the British West 
 Indies. It is even affirmed that no civilized country 
 treats us so ill in that respect. Spain and Portugal 
 prohibit the traffic to their possessions, not only in our 
 vessels, but in their own, which, according to the style 
 of the resolutions, is worse treatment than we meet 
 with from the British. It is also asserted, and on as 
 bad ground, that our vessels are excluded from most 
 of the British markets. 
 
 This is not true in any sense. We are admitted 
 into the greater number of her ports, in our own 
 vessels ; and by far the greater value of our exports is 
 sold in British ports, into which our vessels are re 
 ceived, not only on a good footing, compared with 
 other foreigners, but on terms of positive favor, on 
 
87 
 
 better terms than British vessels are admitted into our 
 own ports. We are not subject to the alien duties ; 
 and the light money, &c.,of Is. 9d. sterling per ton is 
 less than our foreign tonnage duty, not to mention 
 the ten per cent on the duties on goods in foreign 
 bottoms. 
 
 But in the port of London our vessels are received 
 free. It is for the unprejudiced mind to compare 
 these facts with the assertions we have heard so con 
 fidently and so feelingly made by the mover of the 
 resolutions, that we are excluded from most of their 
 ports, and that no civilized nation treats our vessels so 
 ill as the British. 
 
 The tonnage of the vessels employed between Great 
 Britain and her dependencies and the United States 
 is called two hundred and twenty thousand ; and the 
 whole of this is represented as our just right. The 
 same gentleman speaks of our natural right to the 
 carriage of our own articles, and that we may and 
 ought to insist upon our equitable share. Yet, soon 
 after, he uses the language of monopoly, and repre 
 sents the whole carriage of imports and exports as the 
 proper object of our efforts, and all that others carry 
 as a clear loss to us. If an equitable share of the car 
 riage means half, we have it already, and more, and 
 our proportion is rapidly increasing. If any thing is 
 meant by the natural right of carriage, one would 
 imagine that it belongs to him, whoever he may be, 
 who, having bought our produce and made himself 
 the owner, thinks proper to take it with him to his 
 own country. It is neither our policy nor our design 
 to check the sale of our produce. We invite every 
 description of purchasers, because we expect to sell 
 
88 
 
 dearest, when the number and competition of the 
 buyers is the greatest. For this reason the total ex 
 clusion of foreigners and their vessels from the pur 
 chase and carriage of our exports is an advantage, in 
 respect to navigation, which has disadvantage to bal 
 ance it, in respect to the price of produce. It is with 
 this reserve we ought to receive the remark, that the 
 carriage of our exports should be our object, rather 
 than that of our imports. By going with our vessels 
 into foreign ports we buy our imports in the best 
 market. By giving a steady and moderate encourage 
 ment to our own shipping, without pretending vio 
 lently to interrupt the course of business, experience 
 will soon establish that order of things which is most 
 beneficial to the exporter, the importer, and the ship 
 owner. The best interest of agriculture is the true 
 interest of trade. 
 
 In a trade, mutually beneficial, it is strangely ab 
 surd to consider the gain of others as our loss. Ad 
 mitting it, however, for argument sake, yet it should 
 be noticed that the loss of two hundred and twenty 
 thousand tons of shipping is computed according to 
 the apparent tonnage. Our vessels not being allowed 
 to go to the British West Indies, their vessels, making 
 frequent voyages, appear in the entries over and over 
 again. In the trade to the European dominions of 
 Great Britain, the distance being greater, our vessels 
 are not so often entered. Both these circumstances 
 give a false show to the amount of British tonnage, 
 compared with the American. It is, however, very 
 pleasing to the mind, to see that our tonnage exceeds 
 the British in the European trade. For various 
 reasons, some of which will be mentioned hereafter, 
 
89 
 
 the tonnage in the West India trade is not the proper 
 subject of calculation. In the European comparison 
 we have more tonnage in the British than in the 
 French commerce ; it is indeed more than four to 
 one. 
 
 The great quantity of British tonnage employed in 
 our trade is also, in a great measure, owing to the 
 large capitals of their merchants, employed in the buy 
 ing and exporting our productions. If we would 
 banish the ships, we must strike at the root, and 
 banish the capital. And this, before we have capital 
 of our own grown up to replace it, would be an opera 
 tion of no little violence and injury, to our Southern 
 brethren especially. 
 
 Independently of this circumstance, Great Britain 
 is an active and intelligent rival in the navigation 
 line. Her ships are dearer, and the provisioning her 
 seamen is perhaps rather dearer than ours : on the 
 other hand, the rate of interest is lower in England, 
 and so are seamen s wages. It would be improper, 
 therefore, to consider the amount of British tonnage 
 in our trade as a proof of a bad state of things, arising 
 either from the restrictions of that government or the 
 negligence or timidity of this. We are to charge it 
 to causes which are more connected with the natural 
 competition of capital and industry, causes which in 
 fact retarded the growth of our shipping more when 
 we were colonies and our ships were free than since 
 the adoption of the present government. 
 
 It has been said with emphasis that the Constitution 
 grew out of the complaints of the nation respecting 
 commerce, especially that with the British dominions. 
 What was then lamented by our patriots ? Feeble- 
 
 12 
 
90 
 
 ness of the public counsels ; the shadow of union, 
 and scarcely the shadow of public credit ; everywhere 
 despondence, the pressure of evils, not only great, but 
 portentous of civil distractions. These were the 
 grievances ; and what more was then desired than 
 their remedies ? Is it possible to survey this pros 
 perous country and to assert that they have been 
 delayed 1 Trade flourishes on our wharves, although 
 it droops in speeches. Manufactures have risen 
 under the shade of protecting duties from almost 
 nothing to such a state that we are even told we can 
 depend on the domestic supply if the foreign should 
 cease. The fisheries, which we found in decline, are 
 in the most vigorous growth ; the whale fishery, 
 which our allies would have transferred to Dunkirk, 
 now extends over the whole ocean. To that hardy 
 race of men the sea is but a park for hunting its 
 monsters ; such is their activity, the deepest abysses 
 scarcely afford to their prey a hiding-place. Look 
 around, and see how the frontier circle widens, how 
 the interior improves ; and let it be repeated that the 
 hopes of the people, when they formed this Constitu 
 tion, have been frustrated. 
 
 But if it should happen that our prejudices prove 
 stronger than our senses, if it should be believed 
 that our farmers and merchants see their products 
 and ships and wharves going to decay together, and 
 they are ignorant or silent on their own ruin ; still 
 the public documents would not disclose so alarming 
 a state of our affairs. Our imports are obtained so 
 plentifully and cheaply that one of the avowed ob 
 jects of the resolutions is to make them scarcer and 
 dearer. Our exports, so far from languishing, have 
 
91 
 
 increased two millions of dollars in a year. Our 
 navigation is found to be augmented beyond the most 
 sanguine expectation. We hear of the vast advan 
 tage the English derived from the navigation act ; and 
 we are asked, in a tone of accusation, Shall we sit 
 still and do nothing ? Who is bold enough to say, 
 Congress has done nothing for the encouragement of 
 American navigation I To counteract the navigation 
 act, we have laid on British vessels a higher tonnage 
 than our own vessels pay in their ports ; and what is 
 much more effectual, we have imposed ten per cent 
 on the duties, when the dutied articles are borne in 
 foreign bottoms. We have also made the coasting 
 trade a monopoly to our own vessels. Let those who 
 have asserted that this is nothing compare facts with 
 the regulations which produced them. 
 
 Tonnage. Tons. Excess of American Tonnage. 
 
 American, 1789 297,468 
 
 Foreign 265,116 
 
 32,352 
 American, 1790 347,663 
 
 Foreign 258,916 
 
 88,747 
 American, 1791 363,810 
 
 Foreign 240,799 
 
 123,011 
 American, 1792 415,330 
 
 Foreign 244,263 
 
 171,067 
 
 Is not this increase of American shipping rapid 
 enough? Many persons say it is too rapid, and 
 attracts too much capital for the circumstances of the 
 country. I cannot readily persuade myself to think 
 so valuable a branch of employment thrives too fast. 
 But a steady and sure encouragement is more to be 
 
92 
 
 relied on than violent methods of forcing its growth. 
 It is not clear that the quantity of our navigation, 
 including our coasting and fishing vessels, is less in 
 proportion to those of that nation ; in that computa 
 tion we shall probably find that we are already more 
 a navigating people than the English. 
 
 As this is a growing country, we have the most 
 stable ground of dependence on the corresponding 
 growth of our navigation ; and that the increasing 
 demand for shipping will rather fall to the share of 
 Americans than foreigners is not to be denied. We 
 did expect this from the nature of our own laws ; we 
 have been confirmed in it by experience, and we 
 know that an American bottom is actually preferred 
 to a foreign one. In cases where one partner is an 
 American and another a foreigner, the ship is made 
 an American bottom. A fact of this kind over 
 throws a whole theory of reasoning on the necessity 
 of further restrictions. It shows that the work of 
 restriction is already done. 
 
 If we take the aggregate view of our commercial 
 interests, we shall find much more occasion for satis 
 faction, and even exultation, than complaint, and 
 none for despondence. It would be too bold to say 
 "that our condition is so eligible there is nothing to be 
 wished. Neither the order of Nature nor the allot 
 ments of Providence afford perfect content ; and it 
 would be absurd to expect in our politics what is 
 denied in the laws of our being. The nations with 
 whom we have intercourse have, without exception, 
 more or less restricted their commerce. They have 
 framed their regulations to suit their real or fancied 
 interests. The code of France is as full of restrictions 
 
93 
 
 as that of England. We have regulations of our 
 own, and they are unlike those of any other country. 
 Inasmuch as the interest and circumstances of nations 
 vary so essentially, the project of an exact reciprocity 
 on our part is a vision. What we desire is to have 
 not an exact reciprocity, but an intercourse of mutual 
 benefit and convenience. 
 
 It has scarcely been so much as insinuated that the 
 change contemplated will be a profitable one ; that it 
 will enable us to sell dearer and to buy cheaper. On 
 the contrary, we are invited to submit to the hazards 
 and losses of a conflict with our customers, to 
 engage in a contest of self-denial. For what, to ob 
 tain better markets I No such thing ; but to shut up 
 forever, if possible, the best market we have for our 
 exports, and to confine ourselves to the dearest and 
 scarcest markets for our imports. And this is to be 
 done for the benefit of trade, or, as it is sometimes more 
 correctly said, for the benefit of France. This lan 
 guage is not a little inconsistent and strange from 
 those who recommend a non-importation agreement, 
 and who think we should even renounce the sea and 
 devote ourselves to agriculture. Thus, to make our 
 trade more free, it is to be embarrassed, and violently 
 shifted from one country to another, not according to 
 the interest of the merchants, but the visionary 
 theories and capricious rashness of the legislators. 
 To make trade better, it is to be made nothing. 
 
 So far as commerce and navigation are regarded, 
 the pretences for this contest are confined to two. 
 We are not allowed to carry manufactured articles to 
 Great Britain, nor any products, except of our own 
 growth ; and we are not permitted to go with our 
 
94 
 
 own vessels to the West Indies. The former, which 
 is a provision of the navigation act, is of little impor 
 tance to our interests, as our trade is chiefly a direct 
 one, our shipping not being equal to the carrying for 
 other nations ; and our manufactured articles are not 
 furnished in quantities for exportation, and, if they 
 were, Great Britain would not be a customer. So 
 far, therefore, the restriction is rather nominal than 
 real. 
 
 The exclusion of our vessels from the West Indies 
 is of more importance. When we propose to make 
 an effort to force a privilege from Great Britain, 
 which she is loath to yield to us, it is necessary to 
 compare the value of the object with the effort, and, 
 above all, to calculate very warily the probability of 
 success. A trivial thing deserves not a great exer 
 tion ; much less ought we to stake a very great good 
 in possession for a slight chance of a less good. The 
 carriage of one half the exports and imports to and 
 from the British West Indies is the object to be con 
 tended for. Our whole exports to Great Britain are 
 to be hazarded. We sell on terms of privilege and 
 positive favor, as it has been abundantly shown, near 
 seven millions to the dominions of Great Britain. We 
 are to risk the privilege in this great amount for 
 what ] For the freight only of one half the British 
 West India trade with the United States. It belongs 
 to commercial men to calculate the entire value of the 
 freight alluded to. But it cannot bear much propor 
 tion to the amount of seven millions. Besides, if we 
 are denied the privilege of carrying our articles in our 
 vessels to the islands, we are on a footing of privilege 
 in the sale of them. We have one privilege, if not 
 
95 
 
 two. It is readily admitted that it is a desirable 
 thing to have our vessels allowed to go to the English 
 islands ; but the value of the object has its limits, and 
 we go unquestionably beyond them when we throw 
 our whole exports into confusion, and run the risk of 
 losing our best markets for the sake of forcing a per 
 mission to carry our own products to one of those 
 markets in which, too, it should be noticed, we sell 
 much less than we do to Great Britain herself. If to 
 this we add that the success of the contest is grounded 
 on the sanguine and passionate hypothesis of our 
 being able to starve the islanders, which, on trial, may 
 prove false, and which our being involved in the war 
 would overthrow at once, we may conclude, without 
 going further into the discussion, that prudence for 
 bids our engaging in the hazards of a commercial 
 war ; that great things should not be staked against 
 such as are of much less value ; that what we possess 
 should not be risked for what we desire, without great 
 odds in our favor ; still less if the chance is infinitely 
 against us. 
 
 If these considerations should fail of their effect, it 
 will be necessary to go into an examination of the 
 tendency of the system of discrimination to redress 
 and avenge all our wrongs, and to realize all our hopes. 
 
 It has been avowed that we are to look to France, 
 not to England, for advantages in trade ; we are to 
 show our spirit, and to manifest towards those who 
 are called enemies the spirit of enmity, and towards 
 those we call friends something more than passive 
 good-will. We are to take active measures to force 
 trade out of its accustomed channels, and to shift it 
 by such means from England to France. The care of 
 
96 
 
 the concerns of the French manufacturers may be left 
 perhaps as well in the hands of the convention, as to 
 be usurped into our own. However our zeal might 
 engage us to interpose, our duty to our own immediate 
 constituents demands all our attention. To volunteer 
 it in order to excite competition in one foreign nation 
 to supplant another is a very strange business ; and 
 to do it, as it has been irresistibly proved it will 
 happen, at the charge and cost of our own citizens, 
 is a thing equally beyond all justification and all 
 example. What is it but to tax our own people for 
 a time, perhaps for a long time, in order that the 
 French may at last sell as cheap as the English] 
 cheaper they cannot, nor is it so much as pretended. 
 The tax will be a loss to us, and the fancied tendency 
 of it not a gain to this country in the event, but to 
 France. We shall pay more for a time, and in the 
 end pay no less ; for no object but that one nation 
 may receive our money instead of the other. If this 
 is generous towards France, it is not just to America. 
 It is sacrificing what we owe to our constituents to 
 what we pretend to feel towards strangers. We have 
 indeed heard a very ardent profession of gratitude to 
 that nation, and infinite reliance seems to be placed 
 on her readiness to sacrifice her interest to ours. The 
 story of this generous strife should be left to ornament 
 fiction. This is not the form nor the occasion to 
 -discharge our obligations of any sort to any foreign 
 nation ; it concerns not our feelings but our interests, 
 yet the debate has often soared high above the smoke 
 of business into the epic regions. The market for 
 tobacco, tar, turpentine, and pitch, has become matter 
 of sentiment, and given occasion alternately to rouse 
 our courage and our gratitude. 
 
97 
 
 If, instead of hexameters, we prefer discussing our 
 relation to foreign nations in the common language, 
 we shall not find that we are bound by treaty to 
 establish a preference in favor of the French. The 
 treaty is founded on a professed reciprocity, favor for 
 favor. Why is the principle of treaty or no treaty 
 made so essential, when the favor we are going to 
 give is an act of supererogation ? It is not expected 
 by one of the nations in treaty ; for Holland has 
 declared in her treaty with us that such preferences 
 are the fruitful source of animosity, embarrassment, 
 and war. The French have set no such example. 
 They discriminate, in their late navigation act, not as 
 we are exhorted to do, between nations in treaty and 
 not in treaty, but between nations at war and not at 
 war with them ; so that, when peace takes place, 
 England will stand by that act on the same ground 
 with ourselves. If we expect by giving favor to get 
 favor in return, it is improper to make a law. The 
 business belongs to the executive, in whose hands the 
 Constitution has placed the power of dealing with 
 foreign nations. It is singular to negotiate legis 
 latively ; to make by a law half a bargain, expecting 
 a French law would make the other. The footing of 
 treaty or no treaty is different from the ground taken 
 by the mover himself in supporting his system. He 
 has said favor for favor was principle ; nations not in 
 treaty grant favors, those in treaty restrict our trade. 
 Yet the principle of discriminating in favor of nations 
 in treaty is not only inconsistent with the declared 
 doctrine of the mover and with facts, but it is incon 
 sistent with itself. Nations not in treaty are so very 
 unequally operated upon by the resolutions, it is 
 
 13 
 
98 
 
 absurd to refer them to one principle. Spain and 
 Portugal have no treaties with us, and are not dis 
 posed to have. Spain would not accede to the treaty 
 of commerce between us and France, though she was 
 invited. Portugal would not sign a treaty after it had 
 been discussed and signed on our part. They have 
 few ships or manufactures, and do not feed their 
 colonies from us. Of course there is little for the 
 discrimination to operate upon. The operation on 
 nations in treaty is equally a satire on the principle 
 of discrimination. In Sweden, with whom we have a 
 treaty, duties rise higher if borne in our bottoms than 
 in her own. France does the like in respect to 
 tobacco, two and a half livres the quintal, which in 
 effect prohibits our vessels to freight tobacco. The 
 mover has, somewhat unluckily, proposed to except 
 from this system nations having no navigation acts, 
 in which case France would become the subject of 
 unfriendly discrimination, as the House have been 
 informed since the debate began that she has passed 
 such acts. 
 
 I might remark on the disposition of England to 
 settle a commercial treaty, and the known desire of 
 the Marquis of Lansdowne (then Prime Minister) in 
 1783, to form such a one on the most liberal prin 
 ciples. The history of that business, and the causes 
 which prevented its conclusion, ought to be made 
 known to the public. The powers given to our 
 ministers were revoked, and yet we hear that no such 
 disposition on the part of Great Britain has existed. 
 The declaration of Mr Pitt in Parliament, in June, 
 1792, as well as the correspondence with Mr. Ham 
 mond, show a desire to enter upon a negotiation. 
 
99 
 
 The statement of the report of the Secretary of State, 
 on the privileges and restrictions of our commerce, 
 that Great Britain has shown no inclination to meddle 
 with the subject, seems to be incorrect. 
 
 The expected operation of the resolutions on differ 
 ent nations is obvious, and I need not examine their 
 supposed tendency to dispose Great Britain to settle 
 an equitable treaty with this country ; but I ask 
 whether those who hold such language towards that 
 nation as I have heard can be supposed to desire 
 a treaty, and friendly connection. It seems to be 
 thought a merit to express hatred ; it is common and 
 natural to desire to annoy and to crush those whom 
 we hate, but it is somewhat singular to pretend that 
 the design of our anger is to embrace them. 
 
 The tendency of angry measures to friendly dis 
 positions and arrangements is not obvious. We affect 
 to believe that we shall quarrel ourselves into their 
 good-will : we shall beat a new path to peace and 
 friendship with Great Britain, one that is grown up 
 with thorns and lined with man-traps and spring- 
 guns. It should be called the war path. 
 
 To do justice to the subject, its promised advantages 
 should be examined. Exciting the competition of 
 the French is to prove an advantage to this country 
 by opening a new market with that nation. This is 
 scarcely intelligible. If it means anything, it is an 
 admission that their market is not a good one or that 
 they have not taken measures to favor our traffic with 
 them. In either case our system is absurd. The 
 balance of trade is against us, and in favor of Eng 
 land. But the resolutions can only aggravate that 
 evil, for, by compelling us to buy dearer and sell 
 
100 
 
 cheaper, the balance will be turned still more against 
 our country. Neither is the supply from France less 
 the aliment of luxury than that from England. There 
 excess of credit is an evil, which we pretend to cure 
 by checking the natural growth of our own capital, 
 which is the undoubted tendency of restraining trade ; 
 the progress of the remedy is thus delayed. If we 
 will trade, there must be capital. It is best to have 
 it of our own ; if we have it not, we must depend on 
 credit. Wealth springs from the profits of employ 
 ment, and the best writers on the subject establish it, 
 that employment is in proportion to the capital that is 
 to excite and reward it. To strike off credit, which 
 is the substitute for capital, if it were possible to do 
 it, would so far stop employment. Fortunately it is 
 not possible : the activity of individual industry eludes 
 the misjudging power of governments. The resolu 
 tions would in effect increase the demand for credit, 
 as our products selling for less in a new market, and 
 our imports being bought dearer, there would be less 
 money and more need of it. Necessity would pro 
 duce credit. Where the laws are strict, it will soon 
 find its proper level : the uses of credit will remain, 
 and the evil will disappear. 
 
 But the whole theory of balances of trade, of help 
 ing it by restraint, and protecting it by systems of 
 prohibition and restriction against foreign nations, as 
 well as the remedy for credit, are among the ex 
 ploded dogmas, which are equally refuted by the 
 maxims of science and the authority of time. Many 
 such topics have been advanced, which were known 
 to exist as prejudices, but were not expected as 
 arguments. It seems to be believed that the liberty 
 
101 
 
 of commerce is of some value. Although there are 
 restrictions on one side, there will be some liberty 
 left ; counter restrictions, by diminishing that liberty, 
 are in their nature aggravations and not remedies. 
 We complain of the British restrictions as of a mill 
 stone : our own system will be another, so that our 
 trade may hope to be situated between the upper and 
 the nether millstone. 
 
 On the whole, the resolutions contain two great 
 principles : to control trade by law, instead of leaving 
 it to the better management of the merchant; and 
 the principle of a sumptuary law. To play the tyrant 
 in the counting-house and in directing the private 
 expenses of our citizens are employments equally 
 unworthy of discussion. 
 
 Besides the advantages of the system, we have been 
 called to another view of it, which seems to have less 
 connection with the merits of the discussion. The 
 acts of States and the votes of public bodies, before 
 the Constitution was adopted, and the votes of the 
 House since, have been stated as grounds for our 
 assent to this measure at this time. To help our own 
 trade to repel any real or supposed attack upon it 
 cannot fail to prepossess the mind ; accordingly the 
 first feelings of every man yield to this proposition. 
 But the sober judgment on the tendency and reason 
 ableness of the intermeddling of government often 
 does, and probably ought still oftener, to change our 
 impressions. On a second view of the question, the 
 man who voted formerly for restrictions may say, 
 much has been done under the new Constitution, and 
 the good effects are yet making progress. The neces 
 sity of measures of counter restriction will appear to 
 
102 
 
 him much less urgent, and their efficacy in the 
 present turbulent state of Europe infinitely less to 
 be relied on. Far from being inconsistent in his 
 conduct, consistency will forbid his pressing the ex 
 periment of his principle under circumstances which 
 baffle the hopes of its success. But if so much stress 
 is laid on former opinions in favor of this measure, 
 how happens it that there is so little on that which 
 now appears against it! Not one merchant has 
 spoken in favor of it in this body ; not one navigating 
 or commercial State has patronized it. 
 
 It is necessary to consider the dependence of the 
 British West India islands on our supplies. I admit 
 that they cannot draw them so well and so cheap 
 from any other quarter, but this is not the point. Are 
 they physically dependent I Can we starve them ; 
 and may we reasonably expect thus to dictate to 
 Great Britain a free admission of our vessels into her 
 islands! A few details will prove the negative. Beef 
 and pork sent from the now United States to the 
 British West Indies, 1773, fourteen thousand nine 
 hundred and ninty-three barrels. In the war time, 
 1780, ditto from England, seventeen thousand seven 
 hundred and ninety-five ; at the end of the war, 1783, 
 sixteen thousand five hundred and twenty-six. Ire 
 land exported, on an average of seven years prior to 
 1777, two hundred and fifty thousand barrels. Salted 
 fish the English take in abundance, and prohibit its 
 importation from us. Butter and cheese from Eng 
 land and Ireland are but lately banished even from 
 our markets. Exports from the now United States, 
 1773, horses, two thousand seven hundred and sixty- 
 eight ; cattle, one thousand two hundred and three ; 
 
108 
 
 sheep and hogs, five thousand three hundred and 
 twenty. Twenty-two years prior to 1791, were ex 
 ported from England to all ports, twenty-nine thou 
 sand one hundred and thirty-one horses. Ireland, on 
 an average of seven years to 1777, exported four 
 thousand and forty live stock, exclusive of hogs. The 
 coast of Barbary, the Cape de Verds, &c., supply 
 sheep and cattle. The islands, since the war, have 
 increased their domestic supplies to a great degree. 
 
 The now United States exported about one hundred 
 and thirty thousand barrels of flour in 1773 to the 
 West Indies. Ireland by grazing less could supply 
 wheat ; England herself usually exports it ; she also 
 imports from Archangel. Sicily and the Barbary 
 States furnish wheat in abundance. We are de 
 ceived when we fancy we can starve foreign countries. 
 France is reckoned to consume grain at the rate of 
 seven bushels to each soul. Twenty-six millions of 
 souls, the quantity one hundred and eighty-two 
 millions of bushels. We export, to speak in round 
 numbers, five or six millions of bushels to all the 
 different countries which we supply ; a trifle this 
 to their wants. Frugality is a greater resource. 
 Instead of seven bushels, perhaps two could be 
 saved by stinting the consumption of the food of 
 cattle, or by the use of other food. Two bushels saved 
 to each soul is fifty-two millions of bushels, a quan 
 tity which the whole trading world, perhaps, could 
 not furnish. Rice is said to be prohibited by Spain 
 and Portugal to favor their own. Brazil could supply 
 their rice instead of ours. 
 
 Lumber. I must warn you of the danger of de 
 spising Canada and Nova Scotia too much as rivals in 
 
104 
 
 the West India supply, especially the former. The 
 dependence the English had placed on them some 
 years ago failed, partly because we entered into com 
 petition with them on very superior terms, and partly 
 because they were then in an infant state. They are 
 now supposed to have considerably more than doubled 
 their numbers since the peace ; and if, instead of 
 having us for competitors for the supply as before, 
 we should shut ourselves out by refusing our sup 
 plies, or being refused entry for them, those two 
 colonies would rise from the ground; at least we 
 should do more to bring it about than the English 
 ministry have been able to do. In 1772, six hundred 
 and seventy nine vessels, the actual tonnage of which 
 was one hundred and twenty-eight thousand, were 
 employed in the West India trade from Great Britain. 
 They were supposed, on good ground, to be but half 
 freighted to the islands ; they might carry lumber, and 
 the freight supposed to be deficient would be, at forty 
 shillings sterling the ton, one hundred and twenty- 
 eight thousand pounds sterling. This sum would 
 diminish the extra charge of carrying lumber to the 
 islands. But is lumber to be had ? Yes ; in Ger 
 many, and from the Baltic. It is even cheaper in 
 Europe than our own. Besides which, the hard 
 woods used in mills are abundant in the islands. 
 
 We are told they can sell their rum only to the 
 United States. This concerns not their subsistence, 
 but their profit. Examine it, however. In 1773, the 
 now United States took near three million gallons of 
 rum. The remaining British Colonies, Newfoundland 
 and the African coast, have a considerable demand 
 for this article. The demand of Ireland is very much 
 
105 
 
 on the increase. It was in 1763 five hundred and 
 thirty thousand gallons ; 1770, one million five hun 
 dred and fifty-eight thousand gallons; 1778, one 
 million seven hundred and twenty-nine thousand 
 gallons. 
 
 Thus we see a total stoppage of the West India 
 trade would not starve the islanders. It would affect 
 us deeply : we should lose the sale of our products, 
 and, of course, not gain the carriage in our own 
 vessels ; the object of the contest would be no nearer 
 our reach than before. Instead, however, of a total 
 stoppage of the intercourse, it might happen that, 
 each nation prohibiting the vessels of the other, some 
 third nation would carry on the traffic in its own bot 
 toms. While this measure would disarm our system, 
 it would make it recoil upon ourselves. It would, in 
 effect, operate chiefly to obstruct the sale of our 
 products. If they should remain unsold, it would be 
 so much dead loss ; or if the effect should be to raise 
 the price on the consumers, it would either lessen the 
 consumption or raise up rivals in the supply. The 
 contest, as it respects the West India trade, is in 
 every respect against us. To embarrass the supply 
 from the United States, supposing the worst as it 
 regards the planters, can do no more than enhance 
 the price of sugar, coffee, and other products. The 
 French islands are now in ruins, and the English 
 planters have an increased price and double demand 
 in consequence. While Great Britain confined the 
 colony trade to herself, she gave to the colonists in 
 return a monopoly in her consumption of West India 
 articles. The extra expense, arising from the severest 
 operation of our system, is already provided against 
 
 14 
 
106 
 
 twofold. Like other charges on the products of labor 
 and capital, the burden will fall on the consumer. 
 The luxurious and opulent consumer in Europe will 
 not regard, and perhaps will not know, the increase 
 of price nor the cause of it. The new settler, who 
 clears his land and sells the lumber, will feel any con 
 vulsion in the market more sensibly, without being 
 able to sustain it at all. It is a contest of wealth 
 against want of self-denial, between luxury and daily 
 subsistence, that we provoke with so much confidence 
 of success. A man of experience in the West India 
 trade will see this contrast more strongly than it is 
 possible to represent it. 
 
 One of the excellences for which the measure is 
 recommended is that it will affect our imports. What 
 is offered as an argument is really an objection. Who 
 will supply our wants ] Our own manufactures are 
 growing, and it is a subject of great satisfaction that 
 they are. But it would be wrong to overrate their 
 capacity to clothe us. The same number of inhabi 
 tants require more and more, because wealth increases. 
 Add to this the rapid growth of our numbers, and 
 perhaps it will be correct to estimate the progress of 
 manufactures as only keeping pace with that of our 
 increasing consumption and population. It follows 
 that we shall continue to demand in future to the 
 amount of our present importation. It is not intended 
 by the resolutions that we shall import from England. 
 Holland and the north of Europe do not furnish a 
 sufficient variety or sufficient quantity for our con 
 sumption. It is in vain to look to Spain, Portugal, 
 and the Italian States. We are expected to depend 
 principally upon France ; it is impossible to examine 
 
107 
 
 the ground of this dependence without adverting to 
 the present situation of that country. It is a subject 
 upon which I practise no disguise ; but I do not think 
 it proper to introduce the politics of France into this 
 discussion. If others can find in the scenes that pass 
 there, or in the principles and agents that direct them, 
 proper subjects for amiable names, and sources of joy 
 and hope in the prospect, I have nothing to say to it ; 
 it is an amusement which it is not my intention either 
 to disturb or to partake of. I turn from these horrors 
 to examine the condition of France in respect to 
 manufacturing, capital, and industry. In this point 
 of view, whatever political improvements may be 
 hoped for, it cannot escape observation that it pre 
 sents only a wide field of waste and desolation. 
 Capital, which used to be food for manufactures, 
 is become their fuel. What once nourished in 
 dustry now lights the fires of civil war, and quickens 
 the progress of destruction. France is like a ship 
 with a fine cargo burning to the water s edge ; she 
 may be built upon anew, and freighted with another 
 cargo, and it will be time enough, when that shall be, 
 to depend on a part of it for our supply ; at present, and 
 for many years, she will not be so much a furnisher 
 as a consumer. It is therefore obvious that we shall 
 import our supplies either directly or indirectly from 
 Great Britain. Any obstruction to the importation 
 will raise the price which we, who consume, must 
 bear. 
 
 That part of the argument which rests on the sup 
 posed distress of the British manufacturers, in con 
 sequence of the loss of our market, is in every view 
 unfounded. They would not lose the market, in fact ; 
 
108 
 
 and if they did, we prodigiously exaggerate the im 
 portance of our consumption to the British workmen. 
 Important it doubtless is, but a little attention will 
 expose the extreme folly of the opinion that they 
 would be brought to our feet by a trial of our self- 
 denying spirit. England now supplants France in 
 the important Levant trade, in the supply of manu 
 factured goods to the East, and in a great measure to 
 the West Indies, to Spain, Portugal, and their depen 
 dencies. Her trade with Russia has of late vastly 
 increased, and she is treating for a trade with China ; 
 so that the new demands of English manufactures, 
 consequent upon the depression of France as a rival, 
 have amounted to much more than the whole Ameri 
 can importation, which is not three millions. 
 
 The ill effect of a system of restriction and prohibi 
 tion in the West Indies has been noticed already. 
 The privileges allowed to our exports to England 
 may be withdrawn, and prohibitory or high duties 
 imposed. 
 
 The system before us is a mischief that goes to the 
 root of our prosperity. The merchants will suffer by 
 the schemes and projects of a new theory. Great 
 numbers were ruined by the convulsions of 1775. 
 They are an order of citizens deserving better of 
 government than to be involved in new confusions. 
 It is wrong to make our trade wage war for our 
 politics. It is now scarcely said that it is a thing to 
 be sought for, but a weapon to fight with. To gain 
 our approbation to the system, we are told it is to be 
 gradually established. In that case, it will be un 
 availing. It should be begun with in all its strength, 
 if we think of starving the islands. Drive them sud- 
 
109 
 
 denly and by surprise to extremity, if you would 
 dictate terms ; but they will prepare against a long- 
 expected failure of our supplies. 
 
 Our nation will be tired of suffering loss and 
 embarrassment for the French. The struggle, so 
 painful to ourselves, so ineffectual against England, 
 will be renounced, and we shall sit down with shame 
 and loss, with disappointed passions and aggravated 
 complaints. War, which would then suit our feel 
 ings, would not suit our weakness. We might 
 perhaps find some European power willing to make 
 war on England, and we might be permitted by a 
 strict alliance to partake the misery and the depend 
 ence of being a subaltern in the quarrel. The 
 happiness of this situation seems to be in view, 
 when the system before us is avowed to be the in 
 strument of avenging our political resentments. Those 
 who affect to dread foreign influence will do well to 
 avoid a partnership in European jealousies and rival- 
 ships. Courting the friendship of the one and pro 
 voking the hatred of the other is dangerous to our 
 real independence ; for it would compel America to 
 throw herself into the arms of the one for protec 
 tion against the other. Then foreign influence, per 
 nicious as it is, would be sought for; and though it 
 should be shunned, it could not be resisted. The 
 connections of trade form ties between individuals, 
 and produce little control over government. They 
 are the ties of peace, and are neither corrupt nor 
 corrupting. 
 
 We have happily escaped from a state of the most 
 imminent danger to our peace : a false step would 
 lose all the security for its continuance, which we 
 
110 
 
 owe at this moment to the conduct of the President. 
 What is to save us from war 1 Not our own power, 
 which inspires no terror ; not the gentle and forbear 
 ing spirit of the powers of Europe at this crisis ; not 
 the weakness of England ; not her affection for this 
 country, if we believe the assurances of gentlemen on 
 the other side. What is it then I It is the interest 
 of Great Britain to have America for a customer, 
 rather than an enemy ; and it is precisely that inter 
 est which gentlemen are so eager to take away and 
 to transfer to France. And what is stranger still, 
 they say they rely on that operation as a means of 
 producing peace with the Indians and Algerines. The 
 wounds inflicted on Great Britain by our enmity are 
 expected to excite her to supplicate our friendship, 
 and to appease us by soothing the animosity of our 
 enemies. What is to produce effects so mystical, so 
 opposite to nature, so much exceeding the efficacy of 
 their pretended causes I This wonder-working paper 
 on the table is the weapon of terror and destruction ; 
 like the writing on Belshazzar s wall, it is to strike 
 parliaments and nations with dismay ; it is to be 
 stronger than fleets against pirates, or than armies 
 against Indians. After the examination it has under 
 gone, credulity itself will laugh at these pretensions. 
 
 We pretend to expect, not by the force of our 
 restrictions, but by the mere show of our spirit, to 
 level all the fences that have guarded for ages the 
 monopoly of the colony trade. The repeal of the 
 navigation act of England, which is cherished as 
 the palladium of her safety, which time has rendered 
 venerable and prosperity endeared to her people, is 
 to be extorted from her fears of a weaker nation. It 
 
Ill 
 
 is not to be yielded freely, but violently torn from 
 her ; and yet the idea of a struggle to prevent indig 
 nity and loss is considered as a chimera too ridiculous 
 for sober refutation. She will not dare, say they, to 
 resent it ; and gentlemen have pledged themselves 
 for the success of the attempt : what is treated as a 
 phantom is vouched by fact. Her navigation act is 
 known to have caused an immediate contest with the 
 Dutch, and four desperate sea fights ensued in conse 
 quence the very year of its passage. 
 
 How far it is an act of aggression, for a neutral 
 nation to assist the supplies of one neighbor and to 
 annoy and distress another, at the crisis of a contest 
 between the two which strains their strength to the 
 utmost, is a question which we might not agree in 
 deciding ; but the tendency of such unseasonable par 
 tiality to exasperate the spirit of hostility against the 
 intruder cannot be doubted. The language of the 
 French government would not soothe this spirit. It 
 proposes, on the sole condition of a political connec 
 tion, to extend to us a part of their West India com 
 merce. The coincidence of our measures with their 
 invitation, however singular, needs no comment. Of 
 all men those are least consistent who believe in the 
 efficacy of the regulations, and yet affect to ridicule 
 their hostile tendency. In the commercial conflict, 
 say they, we shall surely prevail and effectually 
 humble Great Britain. 
 
 In open war we are the weaker, and shall be 
 brought into danger, if not to ruin. It depends, 
 therefore, according to their own reasoning, on Great 
 Britain herself whether she will persist in a struggle 
 which will disgrace and weaken her, or turn it into a 
 
112 
 
 war which will throw the shame and ruin upon her 
 antagonist. The topics which furnish arguments to 
 show the danger to our peace from the resolutions 
 are too fruitful to be exhausted. But, without pur 
 suing them further, the experience of mankind has 
 shown that commercial rivalships, which spring from 
 mutual efforts for monopoly, have kindled more wars, 
 and wasted the earth more, than the spirit of con 
 quest. 
 
 I hope we shall show by our vote that we deem it 
 better policy to feed nations than to starve them ; and 
 that we shall never be so unwise as to put our good 
 customers into a situation to be forced to make every 
 exertion to do without us. By cherishing the arts of 
 peace we shall acquire, and we are actually acquir 
 ing, the strength and resources for a war. Instead of 
 seeking treaties, we ought to shun them ; for the 
 later they shall be formed, the better will be the 
 terms ; we shall have more to give and more to with 
 hold. We have not yet taken our proper rank, nor 
 acquired that consideration which will not be refused 
 us if we persist in prudent and pacific counsels, if 
 we give time for our strength to mature itself! 
 1 Though America is rising with a giant s strength, 
 its bones are yet but cartilages. By delaying the 
 beginning of a conflict, we insure the victory. 
 
 By voting out the resolutions, we shall show to our 
 own citizens and foreign nations that our prudence 
 has prevailed over our prejudices that we prefer 
 our interests to our resentments. Let us assert a 
 genuine independence of spirit ; we shall be false 
 to our duty and feelings as Americans if we basely 
 descend to a servile dependence on France or Great 
 Britain. 
 
VI. 
 
 Resolved, That it is expedient to pass the laws necessary to carry into 
 effect the treaty lately concluded between the United States and the King of 
 
 Great Britain. 
 
 Delivered April 28, 1796. 
 
 THE treaty between Great Britain and the United States, which 
 was negotiated by Mr. Jay, in 1794, gave rise, in this country, to 
 very eager and heated party contests. It encountered fierce oppo 
 sition from the Democratic party, with Jefferson at their head, 
 and was supported by the Federalists, who had Washington and 
 Hamilton for their leaders. The partisans of France were bitter 
 in their denunciation of any alliance with England, and declared 
 the treaty " no better than a pusillanimous surrender of American 
 rights, and a shameful breach of obligations to France." * Public 
 feeling, over the whole country, was roused to the highest pitch. 
 Town-meetings were called in all the principal cities of the Union,, 
 excited discussions held, and inflammatory addresses issued to the 
 people. Riots occurred in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and 
 other places. In every city and town in the Union, the party lines 
 were sharply and closely drawn, as they had never been before. 
 The excitement in Congress was similar to that among the people ; 
 even more intense, perhaps, on account of its final responsibility, 
 as well as the even division of party strength. In the Senate, the 
 treaty was ratified by exactly the required majority ; but the tem 
 per of the House was, apparently, more decidedly opposed to it. - 
 
 * Ilildreth s History of the United States, Second Series, Vol. 1, page 547. 
 
 15 
 
114 
 
 The treaty had been ratified by the Senate in June, and signed 
 by the President in August, 1795 ; but there was a hope, among 
 the leaders of the opposition, that it could be substantially defeated 
 in the House, by the refusal of that body to carry its provisions 
 into effect. And it was not without strong probability of success 
 that they so calculated their power in the latter body, for the oppo 
 sition counted, apparently, a clear majority of ten. When, at the 
 beginning of the session of the Fourth Congress, March, 1796, the 
 treaty was laid before the House for their consideration, it was at 
 once attacked by the opposition. Madison was their leader, and 
 he made an able speech against it. 
 
 While the debate on the treaty continued, Mr. Ames was a 
 severe sufferer from illness, and had been prohibited from taking 
 any part iu the proceedings of the House, and even from being at 
 his post. How irksome this was to him, at such a time, is seen 
 from his letters. 
 
 " I sit now in the House, and that I may not lose my temper 
 and my spirits, I shut my ears against the treaty, and divert my 
 attention by writing to you. 
 
 " Never was a time when I so much desired the full use of my 
 faculties, and it is the very moment when I am prohibited even 
 attention. To be silent, neutral, useless, is a situation not to be 
 envied. ... It is a new post for me to be in. I am not a sentry ; 
 not in the ranks, not in the staff. I am thrown into the wagon as 
 a part of the baggage. I am like an old gun, that is spiked, or the 
 trunnions knocked off, and yet am carted off, not for the worth of 
 the old iron, but to balk the enemy of a trophy. My political life 
 is ended, and I am the survivor of myself, or rather a troubled 
 ghost of a politician, that am condemned to haunt the field where 
 he fell." * 
 
 But as the debate progressed, his feelings and his convictions 
 became too much engaged to endure the bonds of silence, which 
 had been laid upon him, and found utterance in the eloquent speech 
 that is here given. " Rising from his seat, pale, feeble, hardly 
 able to stand or to speak, but warming with the subject, he deliv- 
 
 * Life and Works of Fisher Ames, 1854. Vol. 1, pages 187 and 188. 
 
115 
 
 ered a speech, which for comprehensive knowledge of human 
 nature, and of the springs of political action, for caustic ridicule, 
 keen argument, and pathetic eloquence, even in the imperfect 
 shape in which we possess it, has very seldom been equalled on 
 that or any other floor." * 
 
 How great was the impression produced is best seen in the 
 writings of the time. John Adams describes it in one of his 
 letters as follows: "Judge Iredell and I happened to sit together. 
 Our feelings beat in unison. My God ! how great he is, says 
 Iredell ; l how great he has been ! Noble ! said I. After 
 some time Iredell breaks out, Bless my stars ! I never heard any 
 thing so great since I was born. Divine ! said I ; and thus we 
 went on with our interjections, not to say tears, to the end. Tears 
 enough were shed. Not a dry eye in the House, I believe, except 
 some of the jackasses who had occasioned the oratory. Ttiese 
 attempted to laugh, but their visages grinned horribly ghastly 
 smiles. They smiled like Toulon s son-in-law, when they made 
 him kiss his father s dead and bleeding head. The situation of 
 the man excited compassion, and interested all hearts in his favor. 
 The ladies wished his soul had a better body." f 
 
 A writer in the "American Review " ( Philadelphia, January, 1811) 
 says : " I have conversed with several persons who were present 
 when this celebrated oration, supposed by many to be the most 
 eloquent that has ever been heard in our Congress, was delivered. 
 They state the effects which it produced to have been so striking 
 as to rival those ascribed to ancient eloquence. He was then, in 
 appearance, rapidly sinking to the tomb ; a circumstance of which, 
 as is manifest from the conclusion of his speech, he was perfectly 
 sensible. His aspect was calculated to excite the liveliest interest, 
 and the whole scene to make the deepest impression. The annun 
 ciation of his intention to speak, together with the importance of 
 the subject, so deeply interesting to every American, drew an 
 immense audience. The large hall in which Congress assembled 
 was crowded with a most brilliant assembly of both sexes. When 
 
 * Hildreth s History of the United States, Second Series, Vol. 1, page 605. 
 t Letters of John Adams. Fages 226, 227. 
 
116 
 
 he arose, all was hushed into the most profound attention, and 
 every eye was fixed upon him. In a low and solemn, yet distinct 
 voice, he pronounced an exordium, peculiarly adapted to his 
 situation. 
 
 " He then went on, in a forcible, argumentative, and impassioned 
 strain, to answer and refute all the objections which had been 
 urged against the resolution proposed for carrying the treaty into 
 effect. When he came to speak of the consequences which would 
 flow from a rejection of the resolution, his whole audience was 
 electrified. His voice summoned their imaginations to a scene of 
 horror, which was described with a pathos and energy never ex 
 celled. This, together with the solemnity of his peroration, 
 produced so lively a sensation in the House, that one of the lead 
 ing members of the opposition proposed to defer taking the 
 question until the minds of the members had time to cool, and 
 (as Pitt said after Sheridan had delivered his famous speech on the 
 question of arraigning Warren Hastings) until they should be able 
 to distinguish * the blaze of eloquence from the light of truth. In 
 this instance, however, though not in that of Sheridan, the blaze 
 of eloquence was employed to diffuse, not to conceal the light of 
 truth. His oratory on this occasion was of the highest order, 
 bold, lofty, and impressive." 
 
 " The next day, three more speeches were made for the treaty, 
 one by Dayton, the Speaker ; but no one attempted to answer 
 Ames." * 
 
 On the 30th of April, the resolution which stands at the head of 
 this speech was passed by a vote of fifty-one to forty-eight. 
 
 I ENTERTAIN the hope, perhaps a rash one, that my 
 strength will hold me out to speak a few minutes. 
 
 In my judgment, a right decision will depend more 
 on the temper and manner with which we may pre 
 vail upon ourselves to contemplate the subject than 
 upon the development of any profound political prin- 
 
 * Hildreth s History of the United States, Second Series, Vol. 1, page 615. 
 
117 
 
 ciples, or any remarkable skill in the application of 
 them. If we could succeed to neutralize our inclina 
 tions, we should find less difficulty than we have to 
 apprehend in surmounting all our objections. 
 
 The suggestion a few days ago, that the House 
 manifested symptoms of heat and irritation, was made 
 and retorted as if the charge ought to create surprise, 
 and would convey reproach. Let us be more just to 
 ourselves and to the occasion. Let us not affect to 
 deny the existence and the intrusion of some portion 
 of prejudice and feeling into the debate, when, from 
 the very structure of our nature, we ought to antici 
 pate the circumstance as a probability, and when we 
 are admonished by the evidence of our senses that it 
 is a fact. How can we make professions for ourselves, 
 and offer exhortations to the House, that no influence 
 should be felt but that of duty, and no guide respected 
 but that of the understanding, while the peal to rally 
 every passion of man is continually ringing in our 
 ears. Our understandings have been addressed, it is 
 true, and with ability and effect ; but, I demand, has 
 any corner of the heart been left unexplored 1 It has 
 been ransacked to find auxiliary arguments ; and, 
 when that attempt failed, to awaken the sensibility, 
 that would require none. Every prejudice and feeling 
 has been summoned to listen to some peculiar style of 
 address ; and yet we seem to believe, and to consider 
 a doubt as an affront, that we are strangers to any 
 influence but that of unbiassed reason. 
 
 It would be strange that a subject which has roused 
 in turn all the passions of the country should be dis 
 cussed without the interference of any of our own. 
 We are men, and therefore not exempt from those 
 
118 
 
 passions: as citizens and representatives, we feel the 
 interest that must excite them. The hazard of great 
 interests cannot fail to agitate strong passions : we are 
 not disinterested; it is impossible we should be dis 
 passionate. The warmth of such feelings may becloud 
 the judgment, and for a time pervert the understand 
 ing. But the public sensibility, and our own, has 
 sharpened the spirit of inquiry, and given an anima 
 tion to the debate. The public attention has been 
 quickened to mark the progress of the discussion ; and 
 its judgment, often hasty and erroneous on first impres 
 sions, has become solid and enlightened at last. Our 
 result will, I hope, on that account, be the safer and 
 more mature, as well as more accordant with that of 
 the nation. The only constant agents in political 
 affairs are the passions of men. Shall we complain 
 of our nature ; shall we say that man ought to have 
 been made other wise] It is right already, because He 
 from whom we derive our nature ordained it so ; and 
 because, thus made and thus acting, the cause of truth 
 and the public good is the more surely promoted. 
 
 But an attempt has been made to produce an influ 
 ence of a nature more stubborn, and more unfriendly 
 to truth. It is very unfairly pretended that the con 
 stitutional right of this House is at stake, and to be 
 asserted and preserved only by a vote in the negative. 
 We hear it said that this is a struggle for liberty, a 
 manly resistance against the design to nullify this 
 assembly, and to make it a cipher in the government ; 
 that the President and Senate, the numerous meetings 
 in the cities, and the influence of the general alarm of 
 the country, are the agents and instruments of a 
 scheme of coercion and terror, to force the treaty 
 
119 
 
 down our throats, though we loathe it, and in spite of 
 the clearest convictions of duty and conscience. 
 
 It is necessary to pause here, and inquire whether 
 suggestions of this kind be not unfair in their very 
 texture and fabric, and pernicious in all their influ 
 ences. They oppose an obstacle in the path of 
 inquiry, not simply discouraging, but absolutely insur 
 mountable. They will not yield to argument ; for, as 
 they were not reasoned up, they cannot be reasoned 
 down. They are higher than a Chinese wall in truth s 
 way, and built of materials that are indestructible. 
 While this remains, it is vain to say to this mountain, 
 Be thou cast into the sea. For I ask of the men of 
 knowledge of the world, whether they would not 
 hold him for a blockhead that should hope to pre 
 vail in an argument whose scope and object it is to 
 mortify the self-love of the expected proselyte? I 
 ask further, when such attempts have been made, 
 have they not failed of success 1 The indignant heart 
 repels a conviction that is believed to debase it. 
 
 The .self-love of an individual is not warmer in its 
 sense, nor more constant in its action, than what is 
 called in French T esprit du corps, or the self-love of an 
 assembly ; that jealous affection which a body of men 
 is always found to bear towards its own prerogatives 
 and power. I will not condemn this passion. Why 
 should we urge an unmeaning censure, or yield to 
 groundless fears that truth and duty will be aban 
 doned, because men in a public assembly are still 
 men, and feel that esprit du corps which is one of the 
 laws of their nature I Still less should we despond or 
 complain, if we reflect that this very spirit is a guar 
 dian instinct that watches over the life of this assem- 
 
120 
 
 bly. It cherishes the principle of self-preservation; 
 and without its existence, and its existence with all 
 the strength we see it possess, the privileges of the 
 representatives of the people, and, mediately, the 
 liberty of the people, would not be guarded, as they 
 are, with a vigilance that never sleeps, and an unre- 
 laxing constancy and courage. 
 
 If the consequences most unfairly attributed to the 
 vote in the affirmative were not chimerical, and 
 worse, for they are deceptive, I should think it a re 
 proach to be found even moderate in my zeal to assert 
 the constitutional powers of this assembly ; and when 
 ever they shall be in real danger, the present occasion 
 affords proof that there will be no want of advocates 
 and champions. 
 
 Indeed, so prompt are these feelings, and, when 
 once roused, so difficult to pacify, that, if we could 
 prove the alarm was groundless, the prejudice against 
 the appropriations may remain on the mind, and it 
 may even pass for an act of prudence and duty to nega 
 tive a measure which was lately believed by ourselves, 
 and may hereafter be misconceived by others, to en 
 croach upon the powers of the House. Principles 
 that bear a remote affinity with usurpation on those 
 powers will be rejected, not merely as errors, but as 
 wrongs. Our sensibility will shrink from a post where 
 it is possible it may be wounded, and be inflamed by 
 the slightest suspicion of an assault. 
 
 While these prepossessions remain, all argument is 
 useless : it may be heard with the ceremony of atten 
 tion, and lavish its own resources and the patience it 
 wearies to no manner of purpose. The ears may be 
 open, but the mind will remain locked up, and every 
 
121 
 
 pass to the understanding guarded. Unless therefore 
 this jealous and repulsive fear for the rights of the 
 House can be allayed, I will not ask a hearing. 
 
 I cannot press this topic too far ; I cannot address 
 myself with too much emphasis to the magnanimity 
 and candor of those who sit here, to suspect their 
 own feelings, and, while they do, to examine the 
 grounds of their alarm. I repeat it, we must conquer 
 our persuasion that this body has an interest in one 
 side of the question more than the other, before we 
 attempt to surmount our objections. On most subjects, 
 and solemn ones too, perhaps in the most solemn of 
 all, we form our creed more from inclination than 
 evidence. 
 
 Let me expostulate with gentlemen to admit, if it 
 be only by way of supposition, and for a moment, that 
 it is barely possible they have yielded too suddenly to 
 their alarms for the powers of this House ; that the 
 addresses, which have been made with such variety of 
 forms, and with so great dexterity in some of them, to 
 all that is prejudice and passion in the heart, are either 
 the effects or the instruments of artifice and deception, 
 and then let them see the subject once more in its 
 singleness and simplicity. 
 
 It will be impossible, on taking a fair review of the 
 subject, to justify the passionate appeals that have 
 been made to us, to struggle for our liberties and 
 rights, and the solemn exhortations to reject the prop 
 osition, said to be concealed in that on your table, to 
 surrender them for ever. In spite of this mock solem 
 nity, I demand, if the House will not concur in the 
 measure to execute the treaty, what other course shall 
 
 1C 
 
122 
 
 we take 1 How many ways of proceeding lie open 
 before us ? 
 
 In the nature of things, there are but three : we 
 are either to make the treaty, to observe it, or break 
 it. It would be absurd to say, we will do neither. If 
 I may repeat a phrase already so much abused, we 
 are under coercion to do one of them ; and we have 
 no power, by the exercise of our discretion, to prevent 
 the consequences of a choice. 
 
 By refusing to act, we choose : the treaty will be 
 broken and fall to the ground. Where is the fitness, 
 then, of replying to those who urge upon the House 
 the topics of duty and policy, that they attempt to 
 force the treaty down, and to compel this assembly 
 to renounce its discretion, and to degrade itself to the 
 rank of a blind and passive instrument in the hands 
 of the treaty-making power. In case we reject the 
 appropriation, we do not secure any greater liberty of 
 action, we gain no safer shelter than before from the 
 consequences of the decision. Indeed, they are not to 
 be evaded. It is neither just nor manly to complain 
 that the treaty-making power has produced this co 
 ercion to act : it is not the art or the despotism of that 
 power, it is the nature of things, that compels. Shall 
 we, dreading to become the blind instruments of 
 power, yield ourselves the blinder dupes of mere 
 sounds of imposture 1 Yet that word, that empty 
 word, coercion, has given scope to an eloquence that 
 one would imagine could not be tired, and did not 
 choose to be quieted. 
 
 Let us examine still more in detail the alternatives 
 that are before us, and we shall scarcely fail to see in 
 
123 
 
 still stronger lights the futility of our apprehensions 
 for the power and liberty of the House. 
 
 If, as some have suggested, the thing called a 
 treaty is incomplete, if it has no binding force or obli 
 gation, the first question is, Will this House complete 
 the instrument, and, by concurring, impart to it that 
 force which it wants I 
 
 The doctrine has been avowed, that the treaty, 
 though formally ratified by the executive power of 
 both nations, though published as a law for our own 
 by the President s proclamation, is still a mere propo 
 sition submitted to this assembly, no way distinguish 
 able in point of authority or obligation from a motion 
 for leave to bring in a bill, or any other original act 
 of ordinary legislation. This doctrine, so novel in our 
 country, yet so dear to many precisely for the reason 
 that in the contention for power victory is always 
 dear, is obviously repugnant to the very terms as well 
 as the fair interpretation of our own resolution (Mr. 
 Blount s). We declare that the treaty-making power 
 is exclusively vested in the President and Senate, and 
 not in this House. Need I say that we fly in the face 
 of that resolution, when we pretend that the acts of 
 that power are not valid until we have concurred in 
 them] It would be nonsense, or worse, to use the 
 language of the most glaring contradiction, and to 
 claim a share in a power which we at the same time 
 disclaim, as exclusively vested in other departments. 
 What can be more strange than to say that the com 
 pacts of the President and Senate with foreign nations 
 are treaties, without our agency, and yet that those 
 compacts want all power and obligation until they 
 are sanctioned by our concurrence. It is not my de- 
 
124 
 
 sign in this place, if at all, to go into the discussion 
 of this part of the subject. I will, at least for the 
 present, take it for granted that this monstrous opinion 
 stands in little need of remark, and, if it does, lies 
 almost out of the reach of refutation. 
 
 But, say those who hide the absurdity under the 
 cover of ambiguous phrases, have we no discretion ? 
 And if we have, are we not to make use of it in judg 
 ing of the expediency or inexpediency of the treaty! 
 Our resolution claims that privilege, and we cannot 
 surrender it without equal inconsistency and breach 
 of duty. 
 
 If there be any inconsistency in this case, it lies not 
 in making the appropriations for the treaty, but in 
 the resolution itself. Let us examine it more nearly. 
 A treaty is a bargain between nations, binding in good 
 faith. And what makes a bargain ? The assent of the 
 contracting parties. We allow that the treaty power 
 is not in this House ; this House has no share in con 
 tracting, and is not a party : of consequence the Presi 
 dent and Senate alone may make a treaty that is 
 binding in good faith. We claim, however, say the 
 gentlemen, a right to judge of the expediency of 
 treaties ; that is the constitutional province of our 
 discretion. Be it so. What follows ? Treaties, when 
 adjudged by us to be inexpedient, fall to the ground, 
 and the public faith is not hurt. This, incredible and 
 extravagant as it may seem, is asserted. The amount 
 of it, in plainer language, is this : the President and 
 Senate are to make national bargains, and this House 
 has nothing to do in making them. But bad bargains 
 do not bind this House, and, of inevitable consequence, 
 do not bind the nation. When a national bargain, 
 
125 
 
 called a treaty, is made, its binding force does not de 
 pend on the making, but upon our opinion that it is 
 good. As our opinion on the matter can be known 
 and declared only by ourselves, when sitting in our 
 legislative capacity, the treaty, though ratified, and, as 
 we choose to term it, made, is hung up in suspense 
 till our sense is ascertained. We condemn the bar 
 gain, and it falls ; though, as we say, our faith does 
 not. We approve a bargain as expedient, and it 
 stands firm, and binds the nation. Yet, even in this 
 latter case, its force is plainly not derived from the 
 ratification by the treaty-making power, but from our 
 approbation. Who will trace these inferences, and 
 pretend that we have no share, according to the argu 
 ment, in the treaty-making power? These opinions, 
 nevertheless, have been advocated with infinite zeal 
 and perseverance. Is it possible that any man can be 
 hardy enough to avow them, and their ridiculous con 
 sequences I 
 
 Let me hasten to suppose the treaty is considered 
 as already made, and then the alternative is fairly 
 present to the mind, whether we will observe the 
 treaty, or break it. This, in fact, is the naked ques 
 tion. 
 
 If we choose to observe it with good faith, our 
 course is obvious. \Vhatever is stipulated to be done 
 by the nation must be complied with. Our agency, 
 if it should be requisite, cannot be properly refused. 
 And I do not see why it is not as obligatory a rule of 
 conduct for the legislature as for the courts of law. 
 
 I cannot lose this opportunity to remark that the 
 coercion, so much dreaded and declaimed against, 
 appears at length to be no more than the authority of 
 
126 
 
 principles, the despotism of duty. Gentlemen com 
 plain we are forced to act in this way ; we are forced 
 to swallow the treaty. It is very true, unless we claim 
 the liberty of abuse, the right to act as we ought not. 
 There is but one right way open for us : the laws of 
 morality and good faith have fenced up every other. 
 What sort of liberty is that which we presume to 
 exercise against the authority of those laws ? It is for 
 tyrants to complain that principles are restraints, and 
 that they have no liberty, so long as their despotism 
 has limits. These principles will be unfolded by 
 examining the remaining question : 
 
 Shall 10 e break the treaty ? 
 
 The treaty is bad, fatally bad, is the cry. It sacri 
 fices the interest, the honor, the independence of the 
 United States, and the faith of our engagements to 
 France. If we listen to the clamor of party intemper 
 ance, the evils are of a number not to be counted, 
 and of a nature not to be borne, even in idea. The 
 language of passion and exaggeration may silence 
 that of sober reason in other places, it has not done 
 it here. The question here is, whether the treaty be 
 really so very fatal as to oblige the nation to break its 
 faith. I admit that such a treaty ought not to be 
 executed. I admit that self-preservation is the first 
 law of society, as well as of individuals. It would 
 perhaps be deemed an abuse of terms to call that a 
 treaty which violates such a principle. I waive also, 
 for the present, any inquiry, what departments shall 
 represent the nation, and annul the stipulations of a 
 treaty. I content myself with pursuing the inquiry 
 whether the nature of the compact be such as to jus 
 tify our refusal to carry it into effect. A treaty is the 
 
127 
 
 promise of a nation. Now, promises do not always 
 bind him that makes them. 
 
 But I lay down two rules, which ought to guide us 
 in this case. The treaty must appear to be bad not 
 merely in the petty details, but in its character, prin 
 ciple, and mass ; and in the next place this ought to 
 be ascertained by the decided and general concurrence 
 of the enlightened public. I confess there seems to 
 me something very like ridicule thrown over the 
 debate by the discussion of the articles in detail. 
 
 The undecided point is, Shall we break our faith ] 
 And while our country and enlightened Europe await 
 the issue with more than curiosity, w r e are employed 
 to gather, piecemeal, and article by article, from the 
 instrument, a justification for the deed by trivial cal 
 culations of commercial profit and loss. This is little 
 worthy of the subject, of this body, or of the nation. 
 If the treaty is bad, it will appear to be so in its mass. 
 Evil to a fatal extreme, if that be its tendency, requires 
 no proof : it brings it. Extremes speak for themselves, 
 and make their own law. What if the direct voyage 
 of American ships to Jamaica with horses or lumber 
 might net one or two per cent more than the present 
 trade to Surinam, would the proof of the fact avail 
 any thing in so grave a question as the violation of 
 the public engagements ? 
 
 It is in vain to allege that our faith plighted to 
 France is violated by this new treaty. Our prior trea 
 ties are expressly saved from the operation of the 
 British treaty. And what do those mean who say 
 that our honor was forfeited by treating at all, and 
 especially by such a treaty I Justice, the laws, and 
 practice of nations, a just regard for peace as a duty 
 
128 
 
 to mankind, and the known wish of our citizens, as 
 well as that self-respect which required it of the 
 nation to act with dignity and moderation, all these 
 forbade an appeal to arms before we had tried the 
 effect of negotiation. The honor of the United States 
 was saved, not forfeited, by treating. The treaty it 
 self, by its stipulations for the posts, for indemnity, 
 and for a due observation of our neutral rights, has 
 justly raised the character of the nation. Never did 
 the name of America appear in Europe with more 
 lustre than upon the event of ratifying this instru 
 ment. The fact is of a nature to overcome all con 
 tradiction. 
 
 But the independence of the country we are 
 colonists again. This is the cry of the very men who 
 tell us that France will resent our exercise of the 
 rights of an independent nation to adjust our wrongs 
 with an aggressor, without giving her the opportunity 
 to say those wrongs shall subsist and shall not be 
 adjusted. This is an admirable specimen of independ 
 ence. The treaty with Great Britain, it cannot be 
 denied, is unfavorable to this strange sort of inde 
 pendence. 
 
 Few men of any reputation for sense among those 
 who say the treaty is bad will put that reputation so 
 much at hazard as to pretend that it is so extremely 
 bad as to warrant and require a violation of the 
 public faith. The proper ground of the controversy, 
 therefore, is really unoccupied by the opposers of the 
 treaty ; as the very hinge of the debate is on the 
 point, not of its being good or otherwise, but whether 
 it is intolerably and fatally pernicious. If loose 
 and ignorant declaimers have anywhere asserted the 
 
129 
 
 latter idea, it is too extravagant, and too solidly re 
 futed, to be repeated here. Instead of any attempt 
 to expose it still further, I will say, and I appeal with 
 confidence to the candor of many opposers to the treaty 
 to acknowledge, that, if it had been permitted to go 
 into operation silently, like our other treaties, so little 
 alteration of any sort would be made by it in the 
 great mass of our commercial and agricultural con 
 cerns, that it would not be generally discovered by 
 its effects to be in force, during the term for which it 
 was contracted. I place considerable reliance on the 
 weight men of candor will give to this remark, be 
 cause I believe it to be true, and little short of unde 
 niable. When the panic dread of the treaty shall 
 cease, as it certainly must, it will be seen through 
 another medium. Those who shall make search into 
 the articles for the cause of their alarms will be so 
 far from finding stipulations that will operate fatally, 
 they will discover few of them that will have any 
 lasting operation at all. Those which relate to the 
 disputes between the two countries will spend their 
 force upon the subjects in dispute, and extinguish 
 them. The commercial articles are more of a nature 
 to confirm the existing state of things than to change 
 it. The treaty alarm was purely an address to the 
 imagination and prejudices of the citizens, and not on 
 that account the less formidable. Objections that pro 
 ceed upon error in fact or calculation may be traced 
 and exposed ; but such as are drawn from the imagi 
 nation, or addressed to it, elude definition, and return 
 to domineer over the mind, after having been banished 
 from it by truth. 
 
 I will not so far abuse the momentary strength that 
 
 17 
 
130 
 
 is lent to me by the zeal of the occasion, as to enlarge 
 upon the commercial operation of the treaty. I pro 
 ceed to the second proposition, which I have stated as 
 indispensably requisite to a refusal of the performance 
 of a treaty : Will the state of public opinion justify the 
 deed ? 
 
 No government, not even a despotism, will break 
 its faith without some pretext ; and it must be plau 
 sible, it must be such as will carry the public opinion 
 along with it. Eeasons of policy, if not of morality, 
 dissuade even Turkey and Algiers from breaches of 
 treaty in mere wantonness of perfidy, in open contempt 
 of the reproaches of their subjects. Surely a popular 
 government will not proceed more arbitrarily, as it is 
 more free ; nor with less shame or scruple, in propor 
 tion as it has better morals. It will not proceed 
 against the faith of treaties at all, unless the strong 
 and decided sense of the nation shall pronounce, not 
 simply that the treaty is not advantageous, but that it 
 ought to be broken and annulled. 
 
 Such a plain manifestation of the sense of the 
 citizens is indispensably requisite ; first, because, if 
 the popular apprehensions be not an infallible cri 
 terion of the disadvantages of the instrument, their 
 acquiescence in the operation of it is an irrefragable 
 proof that the extreme case does not exist, which 
 alone could justify our setting it aside. 
 
 In the next place, this approving opinion of the 
 citizens is requisite, as the best preventive of the ill 
 consequences of a measure always so delicate, and 
 often so hazardous. Individuals would, in that case 
 at least, attempt to repel the opprobrium that would 
 be thrown upon Congress by those who will charge it 
 
131 
 
 with perfidy. They would give weight to the testi 
 mony of facts, and the authority of principles, on 
 which the government would rest its vindication ; and 
 if war should ensue upon the violation, our citizens 
 would not be divided from their government, nor the 
 ardor of their courage be chilled by the consciousness 
 of injustice and the sense of humiliation, that sense 
 which makes those despicable who know they are 
 despised. 
 
 I add a third reason, and with me it has a force 
 that no words of mine can augment, that a government 
 wantonly refusing to fulfil its engagement is the cor- 
 rupter of its citizens. Will the laws continue to pre 
 vail in the hearts of the people, when the respect 
 that gives them efficacy is withdrawn from the legis 
 lators ? How shall we punish vice, while we practise 
 it ? We have not force, and vain will be our reliance, 
 when we have forfeited the resources of opinion. To 
 weaken government, and to corrupt morals, are effects 
 of a breach of faith not to be prevented ; and from 
 effects they become causes, produced with augmented 
 activity, of more disorder and more corruption : order 
 will be disturbed, and the life of the public liberty 
 shortened. 
 
 And who, I would inquire, is hardy enough to pre 
 tend that the public voice demands the violation of 
 the treaty ? The evidence of the sense of the great 
 mass of the nation is often equivocal ; but when was 
 it ever manifested with more energy and precision 
 than at the present moment I The voice of the people 
 is raised against the measure of refusing the appropria 
 tions. If gentlemen should urge, nevertheless, that 
 all this sound of alarm is a counterfeit expression of 
 
132 
 
 the sense of the public, I will proceed to other proofs. 
 Is the treaty ruinous to our commerce ] What has 
 blinded the eyes of the merchants and traders] Surely 
 they are not enemies to trade, nor ignorant of their 
 own interests. Their sense is not so liable to be mis 
 taken as that of a nation, and they are almost unani 
 mous. The articles stipulating the redress of our 
 injuries by captures on the sea are said to be delusive. 
 By whom is this said I The very men whose fortunes 
 are staked upon the competency of that redress say 
 no such thing. They wait with anxious fear, lest you 
 should annul that compact, on which all their hopes 
 are rested. 
 
 Thus we offer proof, little short of absolute demon 
 stration, that the voice of our country is raised not to 
 sanction, but to deprecate, the non-performance of our 
 engagements. It is not the nation, it is one, arid but 
 one, branch of the government that proposes to reject 
 them. With this aspect of things, to reject is an act 
 of desperation. 
 
 I shall be asked, why a treaty so good in some 
 articles, and so harmless in others, has met with such 
 unrelenting opposition ; and how the clamors against 
 it from New Hampshire to Georgia can be accounted 
 for. The apprehensions so extensively diffused, on its 
 first publication, will be vouched as proof that the 
 treaty is bad, and that the people hold it in abhorrence. 
 
 I am not embarrassed to find the answer to this 
 insinuation. Certainly a foresight of its pernicious 
 operation could not have created all the fears that 
 were felt or affected : the alarm spread faster than the 
 publication of the treaty ; there were more critics than 
 readers. Besides, as the subject was examined, those 
 
133 
 
 fears have subsided. The movements of passion are 
 quicker than those of the understanding : we are to 
 search for the causes of first impressions, not in the 
 articles of this obnoxious and misrepresented instru 
 ment, but in the state of the public feeling. 
 
 The fervor of the Revolution war had not entirely 
 cooled, nor its controversies ceased, before the sensi 
 bility of our citizens was quickened with a tenfold 
 vivacity by a new and extraordinary subject of irrita 
 tion. One of the two great nations of Europe under 
 went a change which has attracted all our wonder, 
 and interested all our sympathy. Whatever they did, 
 the zeal of many went with them, and often went to 
 excess. These impressions met with much to inflame, 
 and nothing to restrain them. In our newspapers, in 
 our feasts, and some of our elections, enthusiasm was 
 admitted a merit, a test of patriotism ; and that made 
 it contagious. In the opinion of party, we could not 
 love or hate enough. I dare say, in spite of all the 
 obloquy it may provoke, we were extravagant in both. 
 It is my right to avow that passions so impetuous, 
 enthusiasm so wild, could not subsist without disturb 
 ing the sober exercise of reason, without putting at 
 risk the peace and precious interests of our country. 
 They were hazarded. I will not exhaust the little 
 breath I have left, to say how much, nor by whom or 
 by what means they were rescued from the sacrifice. 
 Shall I be called upon to offer my proofs 1 They are 
 here, they are everywhere. No one has forgotten 
 the proceedings of 1794. No one has forgotten the 
 captures of our vessels, and the imminent danger 
 of war. The nation thirsted not merely for reparation, 
 but vengeance. Suffering such wrongs and agitated 
 
134 
 
 by such resentments, was it in the power of any words 
 of compact, or could any parchment with its seals pre 
 vail at once to tranquillize the people ] It was impos 
 sible. Treaties in England are seldom popular, and 
 least of all when the stipulations of amity succeed to 
 the bitterness of hatred. Even the best treaty, though 
 nothing be refused, will choke resentment, but not 
 satisfy it. Every treaty is as sure to disappoint extrav 
 agant expectations as to disarm extravagant passions. 
 Of the latter, hatred is one that takes no bribes : they 
 who are animated by the spirit of revenge will not be 
 quieted by the possibility of profit. 
 
 Why do they complain that the West Indies are 
 not laid open I Why do they lament that any restric 
 tion is stipulated on the commerce of the East Indies] 
 Why do they pretend that if they reject this, and 
 insist upon more, more will be accomplished ? Let 
 us be explicit: more would not satisfy. If all was 
 granted, would not a treaty of amity with Britain still 
 be obnoxious \ Have we not this instant heard it 
 urged against our envoy that he was not ardent 
 enough in his hatred of Great Britain I A treaty of 
 amity is condemned because it was not made by a foe, 
 and in the spirit of one. The same gentleman, at the 
 same instant, repeats a very prevailing objection, that 
 no treaty should be made with the enemy of France. 
 No treaty, exclaim others, should be made with a 
 monarch or a despot : there will be no naval security 
 while those sea robbers domineer on the ocean ; their 
 den must be destroyed ; that nation must be extir 
 pated. 
 
 I like this, sir, because it is sincerity. With feel 
 ings such as these, we do not pant for treaties : such 
 
135 
 
 passions seek nothing, and will be content with noth 
 ing, but the destruction of their object. If a treaty 
 left King George his island, it would not answer, not 
 if he stipulated to pay rent for it. It has been said, 
 the world ought to rejoice if Britain was sunk in the 
 sea ; if, where there are now men, and wealth, and 
 laws, and liberty, there was no more than a sand-bank 
 for the sea monsters to fatten on, a space for the 
 storms of the ocean to mingle in conflict. 
 
 I object nothing to the good sense or humanity of 
 all this. I yield the point, that this is a proof that 
 the age of reason is in progress. Let it be philan 
 thropy, let it be patriotism, if you will ; but it is no 
 indication that any treaty would be approved. The 
 difficulty is not to overcome the objections to the 
 terms : it is to restrain the repugnance to any stipula 
 tions of amity with the party. 
 
 Having alluded to the rival of Great Britain, I am 
 not unwilling to explain myself: I affect no conceal 
 ment, and I have practised none. While those two 
 great nations agitate all Europe with their quarrels, 
 they will both equally endeavor to create an influence 
 in America : each will exert all its arts to range our 
 strength on its own side. How is this to be effected I 
 Our government is a democratical republic : it will not 
 be disposed to pursue a system of politics, in subservi 
 ence to either France or England, in opposition to the 
 general wishes of the citizens ; and, if Congress should 
 adopt such measures, they would not be pursued long, 
 nor with much success. From the nature of our gov 
 ernment, popularity is the instrument of foreign influ 
 ence. Without it, all is labor and disappointment : 
 with that mighty auxiliary, foreign intrigue finds 
 
f 
 
 136 
 
 agents not only volunteers, but competitors for em 
 ployment, and any thing like reluctance is understood 
 to be a crime. Has Britain this means of influence ] 
 Certainly not. If her gold could buy adherents, their 
 becoming such would deprive them of all political 
 power and importance. They would not wield popu 
 larity as a weapon, but would fall under it. Britain 
 has no influence, and, for the reasons just given, can 
 have none. She has enough ; and God forbid she 
 ever should have more. France, possessed of popular 
 enthusiasm, of party attachments, has had, and still 
 has, too much influence on our politics : any foreign 
 influence is too much, and ought to be destroyed. I 
 detest the man, and disdain the spirits, that can bend 
 to a mean subserviency to the view of any nation. It 
 is enough to be Americans : that character compre 
 hends our duties, and ought to engross our attach 
 ments. 
 
 But I would not be misunderstood. I would not 
 break the alliance with France : I would not have the 
 connection between the two countries even a cold one. 
 It should be cordial and sincere ; but I would banish 
 that influence which, by acting on the passions of the 
 citizens, may acquire a power over the government. 
 
 It is no bad proof of the merit of the treaty, that, 
 under all these unfavorable circumstances, it should 
 be so well approved. In spite of first impressions, in 
 spite of misrepresentation and party clamor, inquiry 
 has multiplied its advocates ; and at last the public 
 sentiment appears to me clearly preponderating to its 
 side. 
 
 On the most careful review of the several branches 
 of the treaty, those which respect political arrange- 
 
137 
 
 ments, the spoliations on our trade, and the regulation 
 of commerce, there is little to be apprehended ; the 
 evil, aggravated as it is by party, is little in degree, 
 and short in duration, two years from the end of the 
 European war. I ask, and I would ask the question 
 significantly, what are the inducements to reject the 
 treaty ? What great object is to. be gained, and fairly 
 gained by if? If, however, as to the merits of the 
 treaty, candor should suspend its approbation, what is 
 there to hold patriotism a moment in balance as to 
 the violation of it? Nothing. I repeat confidently, 
 nothing. There is nothing before us in that event 
 but confusion and dishonor. 
 
 But before I attempt to develop those conse 
 quences, I must put myself at ease by some explana 
 tion. Nothing is worse received among men than 
 the confutation of their opinions ; and, of these, none 
 are more dear or more vulnerable than their political 
 opinions. To say that a proposition leads to shame 
 and ruin is almost equivalent to a charge that the 
 supporters of it intend to produce them. I throw my 
 self upon the magnanimity and candor of those who 
 hear me. I cannot do justice to my subject without 
 exposing, as forcibly as I can, all the evils in prospect. 
 I readily admit that in every science, and most of all 
 in politics, error springs from other sources than the 
 want of sense or integrity. I despise indiscriminate 
 professions of candor and respect. There are indi 
 viduals opposed to me, of whom I am not bound to 
 say any thing ; but of many, perhaps of a majority 
 of the opposers of the appropriations, it gives me 
 pleasure to declare they possess my confidence and 
 
 18 
 
138 
 
 regard. There are among them individuals for whom 
 I entertain a cordial affection. 
 
 The consequences of refusing to make provision for 
 the treaty are not all to be foreseen. By rejecting, 
 vast interests are committed to the sport of the winds : 
 chance becomes the arbiter of events, and it is for 
 bidden to human foresight to count their number or 
 measure their extent. Before we resolve to leap into 
 this abyss, so dark and so profound, it becomes us to 
 pause and reflect upon such of the dangers as are 
 obvious and inevitable. If this assembly should be 
 wrought into a temper to defy these consequences, it 
 is vain, it is deceptive to pretend that we can escape 
 them. It is worse than weakness to say that, as to 
 public faith, our vote has already settled the question. 
 Another tribunal than our own is already erected : 
 the public opinion not merely of our own country, 
 but of the enlightened world, will pronounce a judg 
 ment that we cannot resist, that we dare not even affect 
 to despise. 
 
 Well may I urge it to men, who know the worth 
 of character, that it is no trivial calamity to have it 
 contested. Refusing to do what the treaty stipulates 
 shall be done opens the controversy. Even if we 
 should stand justified at last, a character that is vindi 
 cated is something worse than it stood before, unques 
 tioned and unquestionable. Like the plaintiff in an 
 action of slander, we recover a reputation disfigured 
 by invective, and even tarnished by too much hand 
 ling. In the combat for the honor of the nation, it 
 may receive some wounds, which, though they should 
 heal, will leave scars. I need not say, for surely the 
 feelings of every bosom have anticipated, that we 
 
139 
 
 cannot guard this sense of national [honor, this ever- 
 living fire, which alone keeps patriotism warm in the 
 heart, with a sensibility too vigilant and jealous. If, 
 by executing the treaty, there is no possibility of dis 
 honor, and if, by rejecting, there is some foundation 
 for doubt and for reproach, it is not for me to measure : 
 it is for your own feelings to estimate the vast dis 
 tance that divides the one side of the alternative from 
 the other. 
 
 If therefore we should enter on the examination of 
 the question of duty and obligation with some feelings 
 of prepossession, I do not hesitate to say they are 
 such as we ought to have : it is an after inquiry to 
 determine whether they are such as ought finally to 
 be resisted. 
 
 The resolution (Mr. Blount s) is less explicit than 
 the Constitution. Its patrons should have made it 
 more so, if possible, if they had any doubts, or meant 
 the public should entertain none. Is it the sense of 
 that vote, as some have insinuated, that we claim a 
 right, for any cause or no cause at all but our own 
 sovereign will and pleasure, to refuse to execute, and 
 thereby to annul the stipulations of a treaty 1 that we 
 have nothing to regard but the expediency or inexpe 
 diency of the measure, being absolutely free from all 
 obligation by compact to give it our sanction] A 
 doctrine so monstrous, so shameless, is refuted by 
 being avowed. There are no words you could express 
 it in that would not convey both confutation and 
 reproach. It would outrage the ignorance of the 
 tenth century to believe ; it would baffle the casuistry 
 of a papal council to vindicate. I venture to say it is 
 impossible. No less impossible that we should desire 
 
140 
 
 to assert the scandalous privilege of being free, after 
 we have pledged our honor. 
 
 It is doing injustice to the resolution of the House 
 (which I dislike on many accounts) to strain the inter 
 pretation of it to this extravagance. The treaty-mak 
 ing power is declared by it to be vested exclusively in 
 the President and Senate. Will any man in his senses 
 affirm that it can be a treaty before it has any binding 
 force or obligation ? If it has no binding force upon 
 us, it has none upon Great Britain. Let candor 
 answer, is Great Britain free from any obligation to 
 deliver the posts in June, and are we willing to sig 
 nify to her that we think so 1 Is it with that nation 
 a question of mere expediency or inexpediency to do 
 it; and that too, even after we have done all that 
 depends upon us to give the treaty effect I No sober 
 man believes this; no one who would not join in 
 condemning the faithless proceeding of that nation, if 
 such a doctrine should be avowed and carried into 
 practice. And why complain, if Great Britain is not 
 bound ? There can be no breach of faith, where none 
 is plighted. I shall be told that she is bound. Surely 
 it follows that, if she is bound to performance, our 
 nation is under a similar obligation ; if both parties 
 be not obliged, neither is obliged : it is no compact, 
 no treaty. This is a dictate of law and common sense, 
 and every jury in the country has sanctioned it on 
 oath. It cannot be a treaty and yet no treaty, a bar 
 gain and yet no promise. If it is a promise, I am not 
 to read a lecture to show why an honest man will 
 keep his promise. 
 
 The reason of the thing and the words of the 
 resolution of the House imply that the United States 
 
141 
 
 engage their good faith in a treaty. We disclaim, say 
 the majority, the treaty-making power ; we of course 
 disclaim (they ought to say) every doctrine that would 
 put a negative upon the doings of that power. It is 
 the prerogative of folly alone to maintain both sides 
 of the proposition. 
 
 Will any man affirm the American nation is en 
 gaged by good faith to the British nation, but that 
 engagement is nothing to this House 1 Such a man is 
 not to be reasoned with. Such a doctrine is a coat of 
 mail, that would turn the edge of all the weapons of 
 argument, if they were sharper than a sword. Will 
 it be imagined the King of Great Britain and the Presi 
 dent are mutually bound by the treaty, but the two 
 nations are free ] 
 
 It is one thing for this House to stand in a position 
 that presents an opportunity to break the faith of 
 America, and another to establish a principle that will 
 justify the deed. 
 
 We feel less repugnance to believe that any other 
 body is bound by obligation than our own. There is 
 not a man here who does not say that Great Britain 
 is bound by treaty. Bring it nearer home. Is the 
 Senate bound I Just as much as the House, and no 
 more. Suppose the Senate, as part of the treaty 
 power, by ratifying a treaty on Monday, pledges the 
 public faith to do a certain act. Then, in their ordi 
 nary capacity as a branch of the legislature, the Senate 
 is called upon on Tuesday to perform that act, for 
 example, an appropriation of money : is the Senate (so 
 lately under obligation) now free to agree or disagree 
 to the act? If the twenty ratifying senators should 
 rise up and avow this principle, saying, we struggle 
 
142 
 
 for liberty, we will not be ciphers, mere puppets, 
 and give their votes accordingly, would not shame 
 blister their tongues ; would not infamy tingle in their 
 ears ; would not their country, which they had in 
 sulted and dishonored, though it should be silent and 
 forgiving, be a revolutionary tribunal, a rack, on which 
 their own reflections would stretch them I 
 
 This, sir, is a cause that would be dishonored and 
 betrayed, if I contented myself with appealing only to 
 the understanding. It is too cold, and its processes 
 are too slow for the occasion. I desire to thank God 
 that, since he has given me an intellect so fallible, he 
 has impressed upon me an instinct that is sure. On 
 a question of shame and honor reasoning is sometimes 
 useless, and worse. I feel the decision in my pulse : 
 if it throws no light upon the brain, it kindles a fire 
 at the heart. 
 
 It is not easy to deny, it is impossible to doubt, that 
 a treaty imposes an obligation on the American na 
 tion. It would be childish to consider the President 
 and Senate obliged, and the nation and House free. 
 What is the obligation] perfect or imperfect] If 
 perfect, the debate is brought to a conclusion. If im 
 perfect, how large a part of our faith is pawned ] Is 
 half our honor put at risk, and is that half too cheap 
 to be redeemed] How long has this hair-splitting 
 subdivision of good faith been discovered, and why 
 has it escaped the researches of the writers on the 
 law of nations ] Shall we add a new chapter to that 
 law ; or insert this doctrine as a supplement to, or 
 more properly a repeal of, the Ten Commandments ] 
 
 The principles and the example of the British Par 
 liament have been alleged to coincide with the doc- 
 
143 
 
 trine of those who deny the obligation of the treaty. 
 I have not had the health to make very laborious re 
 searches into this subject : I will, however, sketch my 
 view of it. Several instances have been noticed ; but 
 the treaty of Utrecht is the only one that seems to be 
 at all applicable. It has been answered that the con 
 duct of Parliament in that celebrated example affords 
 no sanction to our refusal to carry the treaty into 
 effect. The obligation of the treaty of Utrecht has 
 been understood to depend on the concurrence of Par 
 liament, as a condition to its becoming of force. If 
 that opinion should, however, appear incorrect, still 
 the precedent proves, not that the treaty of Utrecht 
 wanted obligation, but that Parliament disregarded it : 
 a proof, not of the construction of the treaty-making 
 power, but of the violation of a national engagement. 
 Admitting still further that the Parliament claimed 
 and exercised its power, not as a breach of faith, but 
 as a matter of constitutional right, I reply that the 
 analogy between Parliament and Congress totally 
 fails. The nature of the British government may re 
 quire and justify a course of proceeding in respect to 
 treaties that is unwarrantable here. 
 
 The British government is a mixed one. The king 
 at the head of the army, of the hierarchy, with an 
 ample civil list, hereditary, unresponsible, and possess 
 ing the prerogative of peace and war, may be properly 
 observed with some jealousy, in respect to the exercise 
 of the treaty-making power. It seems, and perhaps 
 from a spirit of caution on this account, to be their 
 doctrine that treaties bind the nation, but are not to 
 be regarded by the courts of law until laws have been 
 passed conformably to them. Our Constitution has 
 
144. 
 
 expressly regulated the matter differently. The con 
 currence of Parliament is necessary to treaties becom 
 ing laws in England, gentlemen say ; and here the 
 Senate, representing the States, must concur in trea 
 ties. The Constitution and the reason of the case 
 make the concurrence of the Senate as effectual as the 
 sanction of Parliament ; and why not ] The Senate is 
 an elective body, and the approbation of a majority of 
 the States affords the nation as ample security against 
 the abuse of the treaty-making power as the British 
 nation can enjoy in the control of Parliament. 
 
 Whatever doubt there may be as to the parliamen 
 tary doctrine of the obligation of treaties in Great 
 Britain (and perhaps there is some), there is none in 
 their books or their modern practice. Blackstone 
 represents treaties as of the highest obligation when 
 ratified by the king ; and for almost a century there 
 has been no instance of opposition by Parliament to 
 this doctrine. Their treaties have been uniformly 
 carried into effect, although many have been ratified 
 of a nature most obnoxious to party, and have pro 
 duced a louder clamor than we have lately witnessed. 
 The example of England therefore, fairly examined, 
 does not warrant, it dissuades us from a negative 
 vote. 
 
 Gentlemen have said, with spirit, whatever the true 
 doctrine of our Constitution may be, Great Britain has 
 no right to complain or to dictate an interpretation : 
 the sense of the American nation, as to the treaty 
 power, is to be received by all foreign nations. This 
 is very true as a maxim ; but the fact is against those 
 who vouch it: the sense of the American nation is 
 not as the vote of the House has declared it. Our 
 
145 
 
 claim to some agency in giving force and obligation to 
 treaties is, beyond all kind of controversy, novel. The 
 sense of tbe nation is probably against it : the sense 
 of the government certainly is. The President denies 
 it on constitutional grounds, and therefore cannot ever 
 accede to our interpretation. The Senate ratified the 
 treaty, and cannot without dishonor adopt it, as I have 
 attempted to show. Where, then, do they find the 
 proof that this is the American sense of the treaty- 
 making power, which is to silence the murmurs of 
 Great Britain] Is it because a majority of two or 
 three, or at the most four or five, of this House will 
 reject the treaty I Is it thus the sense of our nation 
 is to be recognized? Our government may thus be 
 stopped in its movements : a struggle for power may 
 thus commence, and the event of the conflict may de 
 cide who is the victor, and the quiet possessor of the 
 treaty power. But, at present, it is beyond all credi 
 bility that our vote by a bare majority should be 
 believed to do any thing better than to imbitter our 
 divisions, and to tear up the settled foundations of our 
 departments. 
 
 If the obligation of a treaty be complete, I am aware 
 that cases sometimes exist which will justify a nation 
 in refusing a compliance. Are our liberties, gentle 
 men demand, to be bartered away by a treaty ; and 
 is there no remedy ? There is. Extremes are not 
 to be supposed ; but, when they happen, they make 
 the law for themselves. No such extreme can be pre 
 tended in this instance ; and, if it existed, the author 
 ity it would confer to throw off the obligation would 
 rest where the obligation itself resides, in the nation. 
 This House is not the nation ; it is not the whole dele- 
 
 19 
 
146 
 
 gated authority of the nation. Being only a part of 
 that authority, its right to act for the whole society 
 obviously depends on the concurrence of the other 
 two branches. If they refuse to concur, a treaty once 
 made remains of full force, although a breach on the 
 part of the foreign nation would confer upon our own 
 a right to forbear the execution. I repeat it, even in 
 that case, the act of this House cannot be admitted as 
 the act of the nation ; and if the President and Senate 
 should not concur, the treaty would be obligatory. 
 
 I put a case that will not fail to produce conviction. 
 Our treaty with France engages that free bottoms 
 shall make free goods; and how has it been kept? 
 As such engagements will ever be in time of war. 
 France has set it aside, and pleads imperious neces 
 sity. We have no navy to enforce the observance of 
 such articles, and paper barriers are weak against the 
 violence of those who are on the scramble for enemy s 
 goods on the high seas. The breach of any article of 
 the treaty by one nation gives an undoubted right to 
 the other to renounce the whole treaty. But has one 
 branch of the government that right, or must it reside 
 with the whole authority of the nation] What if the 
 Senate should resolve that the French treaty is broken, 
 and therefore null and of no effect ? The answer is 
 obvious : you would deny their sole authority. That 
 branch of the legislature has equal power, in this re 
 gard, with the House of Representatives : one branch 
 alone cannot express the will of the nation. 
 
 A right to annul a treaty, because a foreign nation 
 has broken its articles, is only like the case of a suffi 
 cient cause to repeal a law. In both cases, the branches 
 of our government must concur in the orderly way, or 
 the law and the treaty will remain. 
 
147 
 
 The very cases supposed by my adversaries in this 
 argument conclude against themselves. They will 
 persist in confounding ideas that should be kept dis 
 tinct: they will suppose that the House of Repre 
 sentatives has no power unless it has all power ; the 
 House is nothing, if it be not the whole government, 
 the nation. 
 
 On every hypothesis, therefore, the conclusion is 
 not to be resisted : we are either to execute this treaty, 
 or break our faith. 
 
 To expatiate on the value of public faith may pass 
 with some men for declamation : to such men I have 
 nothing to say. To others I will urge, can any cir 
 cumstance mark upon a people more turpitude and 
 debasement ? Can any thing tend more to make men 
 think themselves mean, or degrade to a lower point 
 their estimation of virtue and their standard of action ] 
 It would not merely demoralize mankind : it tends to 
 break all the ligaments of society, to dissolve that 
 mysterious charm which attracts individuals to the 
 nation, and to inspire in its stead a repulsive sense of 
 shame and disgust. 
 
 What is patriotism] Is it a narrow affection for the 
 spot where a man was born] Are the very clods 
 where we tread entitled to this ardent preference, 
 because they are greener] No, sir: this is not the 
 character of the virtue, and it soars higher for its 
 object. It is an extended self-love, mingling with all 
 the enjoyments of life, and twisting itself with the 
 minutest filaments of the heart. It is thus we obey 
 the laws of society, because they are the laws of 
 virtue. In their authority we see not the array of 
 force and terror, but the venerable image of our 
 
148 
 
 country s honor. Every good citizen makes that 
 honor his own, and cherishes it not only as precious, 
 but as sacred. He is willing to risk his life in its 
 defence ; and is conscious that he gains protection, 
 while he gives it. For what rights of a citizen will 
 be deemed inviolable, when a State renounces the 
 principles that constitute their security 1 Or, if his 
 life should not be invaded, what would its enjoyments 
 be in a country odious in the eyes of strangers, and 
 dishonored in his own? Could he look with affection 
 and veneration to such a country as his parent ? The 
 sense of having one would die within him ; he would 
 blush for his patriotism, if he retained any, and justly, 
 for it would be a vice : he would be a banished man 
 in his native land. 
 
 I see no exception to the respect that is paid among 
 nations to the law of good faith. If there are cases 
 in this enlightened period when it is violated, there 
 are none when it is decried. It is the philosophy of 
 politics, the religion of governments. It is observed 
 by barbarians : a whiff of tobacco smoke, or a string of 
 beads, gives not merely binding force but sanctity to 
 treaties. Even in Algiers, a truce may be bought for 
 money ; but, when ratified, even Algiers is too wise 
 or too just to disown and annul its obligation. Thus 
 we see neither the ignorance of savages, nor the prin 
 ciples of an association for piracy and rapine, permit 
 a nation to despise its engagements. If, sir, there 
 could be a resurrection from the foot of the gallows, 
 if the victims of justice could live again, collect to 
 gether and form a society, they would, however loath, 
 soon find themselves obliged to make justice, that 
 justice under which they fell, the fundamental law of 
 
149 
 
 their State. They would perceive it was their interest 
 to make others respect, and they would therefore soon 
 pay some respect themselves to the obligations of good 
 faith. 
 
 It is painful, I hope it is superfluous, to make even 
 the supposition that America should furnish the occa 
 sion of this opprobrium. No : let me not even imagine 
 that a republican government, sprung, as our own is, 
 from a people enlightened and uncorrupted, a govern 
 ment whose origin is right, and whose daily discipline 
 is duty, can, upon solemn debate, make its option to 
 be faithless ; can dare to act what despots dare not 
 avow, what our own example evinces the States of 
 Barbary are unsuspected of. No : let me rather make 
 the supposition that Great Britain refuses to execute 
 the treaty, after we have done every thing to carry it 
 into effect. Is there any language of reproach pun 
 gent enough to express your commentary on the fact ? 
 What would you say, or, rather, what would you not 
 say ? Would you not tell them, wherever an English 
 man might travel, shame would stick to him : he 
 would disown his country. You would exclaim, Eng 
 land, proud of your wealth, and arrogant in the pos 
 session of power, blush for these distinctions which 
 become the vehicles of your dishonor ! Such a nation 
 might truly say to corruption, Thou art my father ; and 
 to the worm, Thou art my mother and my sister. We 
 should say of such a race of men, their name is a 
 heavier burden than their debt. 
 
 I can scarcely persuade myself to believe that the 
 consideration I have suggested requires the aid of any 
 auxiliary ; but, unfortunately, auxiliary arguments are 
 at hand. Five millions of dollars, and probably more, 
 
150 
 
 on the score of spoliations committed on our com 
 merce, depend upon the treaty : the treaty offers the 
 only prospect of indemnity. Such redress is promised 
 as the merchants place some confidence in. Will you 
 interpose and frustrate that hope, leaving to many 
 families nothing but beggary and despair? It is a 
 smooth proceeding to take a vote in this body : it 
 takes less than half an hour to call the yeas and nays, 
 and reject the treaty. But what is the effect of it I 
 What but this : the very men, formerly so loud for 
 redress, such fierce champions that even to ask for 
 justice was too mean and too slow, now turn their 
 capricious fury upon the sufferers, and say, by their 
 vote, to them and their families, No longer eat bread : 
 petitioners, go home and starve : we cannot satisfy 
 your wrongs and our resentments. 
 
 Will you pay the sufferers out of the treasury ? No. 
 The answer was given two years ago, and appears on 
 our journals. Will you give them letters of marque 
 and reprisal, to pay themselves by force ? No. That 
 is war. Besides, it would be an opportunity for those 
 who have already lost much, to lose more. Will you 
 go to war to avenge their injury ? If you do, the war 
 will leave you no money to indemnify them. If it 
 should be unsuccessful, you will aggravate existing 
 evils ; if successful, your enemy will have no treasure 
 left to give our merchants: the first losses will be 
 confounded with much greater, and be forgotten. At 
 the end of a war there must be a negotiation, which is 
 the very point we have already gained ; and why 
 relinquish it? And who will be confident that the 
 terms of the negotiation, after a desolating war, would 
 be more acceptable to another House of Representa- 
 
151 
 
 tives than the treaty before us! Members and 
 opinions may be so changed that the treaty would 
 then be rejected for being what the present majority 
 say it should be. Whether we shall go on making 
 treaties and refusing to execute them, 1 know not: of 
 this I am certain, it will be very difficult to exercise 
 the treaty-making power on the new principle, with 
 much reputation or advantage to the country. 
 
 The refusal of the posts (inevitable if we reject the 
 treaty) is a measure too decisive in its nature to be 
 neutral in its consequences. From great causes we 
 are to look for great effects. A plain and obvious 
 one will be, the price of the Western lands will fall: 
 settlers will not choose to fix their habitation on a field 
 of battle. Those who talk so much of the interest of 
 the United States should calculate how deeply it will 
 be affected by rejecting the treaty ; how vast a tract 
 of wild land will almost cease to be property. This 
 loss, let it be observed, will fall upon a fund expressly 
 devoted to sink the national debt. What, then, are 
 we called upon to do ? However the form of the 
 vote and the protestations of many may disguise the 
 proceeding, our resolution is in substance, and it* de 
 serves to wear the title of a resolution, to prevent the 
 sale of the Western lands and the discharge of the 
 public debt. 
 
 Will the tendency to Indian hostilities be contested 
 by any one I Experience gives the answer. The 
 frontiers were scourged with war, until the negotia 
 tion with Great Britain was far advanced ; and then 
 the state of hostility ceased. Perhaps the public 
 agents of both nations are innocent of fomenting the 
 Indian war, and perhaps they are not. We ought 
 
152 
 
 not, however, to expect that neighboring nations, 
 highly irritated against each other, will neglect the 
 friendship of the savages. The traders will gain an 
 influence, and will abuse it ; and who is ignorant that 
 their passions are easily raised, and hardly restrained 
 from violence ? Their situation will oblige them to 
 choose between this country and Great Britain, in case 
 the treaty should be rejected : they will not be our 
 friends, and at the same time the friends of our enemies. 
 
 But am I reduced to the necessity of proving this 
 point? Certainly the very men who charged the 
 Indian war on the detention of the posts will call for 
 no other proof than the recital of their own speeches. 
 It is remembered with what emphasis, with what 
 acrimony, they expatiated on the burden of taxes, 
 and the drain of blood and treasure into the Western 
 country, in consequence of Britain s holding the posts. 
 Until the posts are restored, they exclaimed, the treas 
 ury and the frontiers must bleed. 
 
 If any, against all these proofs, should maintain 
 that the peace with the Indians will be stable without 
 the posts, to them I will urge another reply. From 
 arguments calculated to produce conviction, I will 
 appeal directly to the hearts of those who hear me, 
 and ask whether it is not already planted there. I 
 resort especially to the convictions of the Western 
 gentlemen, whether, supposing no posts and no treaty, 
 the settlers will remain in security. Can they take it 
 upon them to say that an Indian peace, under these 
 circumstances, will prove firm ] No, sir : it will not 
 be peace, but a sword ; it will be no better than a lure 
 to draw victims within the reach of the tomahawk. 
 
 On this theme, my emotions are unutterable. If I 
 
153 
 
 could find words for them, if my powers bore any 
 proportion to my zeal, I would swell my voice to such 
 a note of remonstrance it should reach every log- 
 house beyond the mountains. I would say to the in 
 habitants, Wake from your false security ! your cruel 
 dangers, your more cruel apprehensions are soon to 
 be renewed ; the wounds, yet unhealed, are to be torn 
 open again ; in the day time, your path through the 
 woods will be ambushed ; the darkness of midnight 
 will glitter with the blaze of your dwellings. You 
 are a father, the blood of your sons shall fatten your 
 corn-field : you are a mother, the war-whoop shall 
 wake the sleep of the cradle. 
 
 On this subject you need not suspect any deception 
 on your feelings : it is a spectacle of horror which 
 cannot be overdrawn. If you have nature in your 
 hearts, they will speak a language compared with 
 which all I have said or can say will be poor and 
 frigid. 
 
 Will it be whispered that the treaty has made me 
 a new champion for the protection of the frontiers 1 
 It is known that my voice as well as vote have 
 been uniformly given in comformity with the ideas I 
 have expressed. Protection is the right of the fron 
 tiers : it is our duty to give it. 
 
 Who will accuse me of wandering out of the sub 
 ject] Who will say that I exaggerate the tendencies 
 of our measures ? Will any one answer by a sneer 
 that all this is idle preaching ] Will any one deny 
 that we are bound, and I would hope to good purpose, 
 by the most solemn sanctions of duty for the vote 
 we give ? Are despots alone to be reproached for 
 unfeeling indifference to the tears and blood of their 
 
 20 
 
154 
 
 subjects ? Are republicans unresponsible 1 Have 
 the principles, on which you ground the reproach 
 upon cabinets and kings, no practical influence, no 
 binding force I Are they merely themes of idle dec 
 lamation, introduced to decorate the morality of a 
 newspaper essay, or to furnish pretty topics of ha 
 rangue from the windows of that State house I I trust 
 it is neither too presumptuous nor too late to ask, Can 
 you put the dearest interest of society at risk without 
 guilt and without remorse 1 
 
 It is vain to offer as an excuse that public men are 
 not to be reproached for the evils that may happen to 
 ensue from their measures. This is very true where 
 they are unforeseen or inevitable. Those I have 
 depicted are not unforeseen : they are so far from 
 inevitable, we are going to bring them into being by 
 our vote. We choose the consequences, and become 
 as justly answerable for them as for the measure that 
 we know will produce them. 
 
 By rejecting the posts, we light the savage fires, 
 we bind the victims. This day we undertake to render 
 account to the widows and orphans whom our deci 
 sion will make, to the wretches that will be roasted at 
 the stake, to our country, and I do not deem it too 
 serious to say, to conscience and to God. We are 
 answerable ; and if duty be any thing more than a 
 word of imposture, if conscience be not a bugbear, 
 we are preparing to make ourselves as wretched as 
 our country. 
 
 There is no mistake in this case, there can be none: 
 experience has already been the prophet of events, 
 and the cries of our future victims have already 
 reached us. The Western inhabitants are not a silent 
 
155 
 
 and uncomplaining sacrifice. The voice of humanity 
 issues from the shade of the wilderness : it exclaims 
 that, while one hand is held up to reject this treaty, 
 the other grasps a tomahawk. It summons our 
 imagination to the scenes that will open. It is no 
 great effort of the imagination to conceive that events 
 so near are already begun. I can fancy that I listen 
 to the yells of savage vengeance and the shrieks of 
 torture ; already they seem to sigh in the western 
 wind ; already they mingle with every echo from the 
 mountains. 
 
 It is not the part of prudence to be inattentive 
 to the tendencies of measures ; where there is any 
 ground to fear that these will be pernicious, wisdom 
 and duty forbid that we should underrate them. If 
 we reject the treaty, will our peace be as safe as if 
 we execute it with good faith ? I do honor to the 
 intrepid spirit of those who say it will. It was 
 formerly understood to constitute the excellence 
 of a man s faith to believe without evidence and 
 against it. 
 
 But as opinions on this article are changed, and 
 we are called to act for our country, it becomes us 
 to explore the dangers that will attend its peace, and 
 avoid them if we can. Few of us here, and fewer 
 still in proportion of our constituents, will doubt that, 
 by rejecting, all those dangers will be aggravated. 
 
 The idea of war is treated as a bugbear. This 
 levity is at least unseasonable, and most of all un 
 becoming some who resort to it. Who has forgotten 
 the philippics of 1794] The cry then was repara 
 tion ; no envoy ; no treaty ; no tedious delays. Now 
 it seems the passion subsides, or at least the hurry to 
 
156 
 
 satisfy it. Great Britain, say they, will not wage war 
 upon us. 
 
 In 1794, it was urged by those who now say no 
 war, that if we built frigates, or resisted the piracies 
 of Algiers, we could not expect peace. Now they 
 give excellent comfort truly. Great Britain has seized 
 our vessels and cargoes to the amount of millions ; 
 she holds the posts ; she interrupts our trade, say they, 
 as a neutral nation ; and these gentlemen, formerly so 
 fierce for redress, assure us, in terms of the sweetest 
 consolation, Great Britain will bear all this patiently. 
 But let me ask the late champions of our rights, Will 
 our nation bear if? Let others exult because the 
 aggressor will let our wrongs sleep for ever. Will 
 it add, it is my duty to ask, to the patience and quiet 
 of our citizens to see their rights abandoned 1 Will 
 not the disappointment of their hopes, so long pat 
 ronized by the government, now in the crisis of their 
 being realized convert all their passions into fury and 
 despair ? 
 
 Are the posts to remain for ever in the possession 
 of Great Britain 1 Let those who reject them, when 
 the treaty offers them to our hands, say, if they choose, 
 they are of no importance. If they are, will they 
 take them by force ? The argument I am urging 
 would then come to a point. To use force is war ; 
 to talk of treaty again is too absurd^ the posts and 
 redress must come from voluntary good- will, treaty, 
 or war. The conclusion is plain : if the state of 
 peace shall continue, so will the British possession 
 of the posts. 
 
 Look again at this state of things : On the sea-coast, 
 vast losses uncompensated ; on the frontier, Indian 
 
157 
 
 war and actual encroachment on our territory ; every 
 where discontent ; resentments tenfold more fierce 
 because they will be impotent and humbled ; national 
 discord and abasement. The disputes of the old 
 treaty of 1783, being left to rankle, will revive the 
 almost extinguished animosities of that period. Wars 
 in all countries, and most of all in such as are free, 
 arise from the impetuosity of the public feelings. The 
 despotism of Turkey is often obliged by clamor to 
 unsheathe the sword. War might perhaps be delayed, 
 but could not be prevented : the causes of it would 
 remain, would be aggravated, would be multiplied, 
 and soon become intolerable. More captures, more 
 impressments, would swell the list of our wrongs and 
 the current of our rage. I make no calculation of 
 the arts of those whose employment it has been, on 
 former occasions, to fan the fire ; I say nothing of 
 the foreign money and emissaries that might foment 
 the spirit of hostility, because the state of things will 
 naturally run to violence : with less than their former 
 exertion they would be successful. 
 
 Will our government be able to temper and restrain 
 the turbulence of such a crisis ? The government, 
 alas ! will be in no capacity to govern. A divided 
 people and divided counsels ! Shall we cherish the 
 spirit of peace or show the energies of war ] Shall 
 we make our adversary afraid of our strength, or dis 
 pose him, by the measures of resentment and broken 
 faith, to respect our rights I Do gentlemen rely on 
 the state of peace, because both nations will be worse 
 disposed to keep it ] because injuries, and insults still 
 harder to endure, will be mutually offered ] 
 
 Such a state of things will exist if we should long 
 
158 
 
 avoid war, as will be worse than war : peace without 
 security, accumulation of injury without redress or the 
 hope of it, resentment against the aggressor, contempt 
 for ourselves, intestine discord, and anarchy. Worse 
 than this need not be apprehended ; for, if worse could 
 happen, anarchy would bring it. Is this the peace 
 gentlemen undertake with such fearless confidence to 
 maintain ] Is this the station of American dignity, 
 which the high-spirited champions of our national 
 independence and honor could endure ; nay, which 
 they are anxious and almost violent to seize for the 
 country 1 What is there in the treaty that could 
 humble us so low ? Are they the men to swallow 
 their resentments, who so lately were choking with 
 them ? If in the case contemplated by them, it 
 should be peace, I do not hesitate to declare it ought 
 not to be peace. 
 
 Is there any thing in the prospect of the interior 
 state of the country to encourage us to aggravate the 
 dangers of a war ] Would not the shock of that evil 
 produce another, and shake down the feeble and then 
 unbraced structure of our government? Is this a 
 chimera] Is it going off the ground of matter of 
 fact to say the rejection of the appropriation proceeds 
 upon the doctrine of a civil war of the departments ? 
 Two branches have ratified a treaty, and we are going 
 to set it aside. How is this disorder in the machine 
 to be rectified? While it exists, its movements must 
 stop ; and when we talk of a remedy, is that any 
 other than the formidable one of a revolutionary in 
 terposition of the people I And is this, in the judg 
 ment even of my opposers, to execute, to preserve 
 the Constitution and the public order ? Is this the 
 
159 
 
 state of hazard, if not of convulsion, which they can 
 have the courage to contemplate and to brave ; or 
 beyond which their penetration can reach and see the 
 issue ? They seem to believe, and they act as if they 
 believed, that our union, our peace, our liberty, are 
 invulnerable and immortal ; as if our happy state was 
 not to be disturbed by our dissensions, and that we 
 are not capable of falling from it by our unworthi- 
 ness. Some of them have no doubt better nerves and 
 better discernment than mine. They can see the 
 bright aspects and happy consequences of all this 
 array of horrors. They can see intestine discords, 
 our government disorganized, our wrongs aggravated, 
 multiplied, and unredressed, peace with dishonor, or 
 war without justice, union, or resources, in " the calm 
 lights of mild philosophy." 
 
 But whatever they may anticipate as the next 
 measure of prudence and safety, .they have explained 
 nothing to the House. After rejecting the treaty, 
 what is to be the next step I They must have fore 
 seen what ought to be done ; they have doubtless 
 resolved what to propose. Why, then, are they 
 silent I Dare they not now avow their plan of con 
 duct, or do they wait until our progress towards 
 confusion shall guide them in forming it I 
 
 Let me cheer the mind, weary no doubt and ready 
 to despond on this prospect, by presenting another 
 which it is yet in our power to realize. Is it possible 
 for a real American to look at the prosperity of this 
 country without some desire for its continuance, 
 without some respect for the measures which many 
 will say produced, and all will confess have preserved 
 it I Will he not feel some dread that a change of 
 
160 
 
 system will reverse the scene ] The well-grounded 
 fears of our citizens in 1794 were removed by the 
 treaty, but are not forgotten. Then they deemed war 
 nearly inevitable, and would not this adjustment have 
 been considered at that day as a happy escape from 
 the calamity ? The great interest and the general 
 desire of our people were to enjoy the advantages of 
 neutrality. This instrument, however misrepresented, 
 affords America that inestimable security. The causes 
 of our disputes are either cut up by the roots, or 
 referred to a new negotiation, after the end of the 
 European war. This was gaining every thing, be 
 cause it confirmed our neutrality, by which our citi 
 zens are gaming every thing. This alone would 
 justify the engagements of the government. For, 
 when the fiery vapors of the war lowered in the 
 skirts of our horizon, all our wishes were concentred 
 in this one, that we might escape the desolation of 
 the storm. This treaty, like a rainbow on the edge 
 of the cloud, marked to our eyes the space where it 
 was raging, and afforded at the same time the sure 
 prognostic of fair weather. If we reject it, the vivid 
 colors will grow pale ; it will be a baleful meteor 
 portending tempest and war. 
 
 Let us not hesitate, then, to agree to the appropri 
 ation to carry it into faithful execution. Thus we 
 shall save the faith of our nation, secure its peace, 
 and diffuse the spirit of confidence and enterprise 
 that will augment its prosperity. The progress of 
 wealth and improvement is wonderful, and, some will 
 think, too rapid. The field for exertion is fruitful 
 and vast, and if peace and good government should 
 be preserved, the acquisitions of our citizens are not 
 
161 
 
 so pleasing as the proofs of their industry, as the 
 instruments of their future success. The rewards of 
 exertion go to augment its power. Profit is every 
 hour becoming capital. The vast crop of our neu 
 trality is all seed wheat, and is sown again to swell, 
 almost beyond calculation, the future harvest of pros 
 perity. In this progress what seems to be fiction is 
 found to fall short of experience. 
 
 I rose to speak under impressions that I would 
 have resisted if I could. Those who see me will 
 believe that the reduced state of my health has un 
 fitted me, almost equally, for much exertion of body 
 or mind. Unprepared for debate by careful reflec 
 tion in my retirement, or by long attention here, I 
 thought the resolution I had taken to sit silent was 
 imposed by necessity, and would cost me no effort to 
 maintain. With a mind thus vacant of ideas, and 
 sinking, as I really am, under a sense of weakness, I 
 imagined the very desire of speaking was extinguished 
 by the persuasion that I had nothing to say. Yet 
 when I come to the moment of deciding the vote, I 
 start back with dread from the edge of the pit into 
 which we are plunging. In my view, even the min 
 utes I have *spent in expostulation have their value, 
 because they protract the crisis, and the short period 
 in which alone we may resolve to escape it. 
 
 I have thus been led by my feelings to speak more 
 at length than I had intended. Yet I have perhaps 
 as little personal interest in the event as any one here. 
 There is, I believe, no member who will not think his 
 chance to be a witness of the consequences greater 
 than mine. If, however, the vote should pass to 
 
 21 
 
162 
 
 reject, and a spirit should rise, as it will, with the 
 public disorders, to make " confusion worse con 
 founded," even I, slender and almost broken as my 
 hold upon life is, may outlive the government and 
 Constitution of my country. 
 
VII. 
 
 THE following " Answer to Washington s Address to the Senate 
 and House of Representatives " was prepared by Mr. Ames, as 
 chairman of the committee appointed by the House for that pur 
 pose. When presented to the House, it met with some technical 
 opposition, and underwent some slight verbal alterations. In the 
 second paragraph, the phrase " interior frontier " (an expression 
 which was contained in the President s speech) was changed to 
 " western frontier ; " in the fourth paragraph, the words enclosed 
 in brackets were interpolated by amendment ; and in the same 
 paragraph, the word "mutual" was inserted before the words 
 "spirit of justice," and the words "on the part of the republic" 
 were stricken out ; in the sixth paragraph, the words, " tranquil 
 prosperity with the period," were stricken out, and the words 
 " present period with that " substituted for them ; in the paragraph 
 before the last, the beginning of the first sentence was amended to 
 read, " The spectacle of a free and enlightened nation." These 
 were all the amendments to the " Answer " as it was reported to the 
 House. But it will doubtless cause no little surprise to learn that 
 the debate upon it was long and heated. It is hard to realize that 
 an honorable Representative from Virginia should stand in his 
 place in the House and announce his dissent from the u Address," 
 for the testimony it bore to the " wisdom and firmness" of Wash 
 ington s administration, because he believed that administration 
 had been neither wise nor firm ; or that the paragraph wherein it 
 says, " that your example may be the guide of your successors," 
 should prove especially obnoxious to some of the Representatives 
 
164 
 
 from Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky. Mr. 
 Blount, of North Carolina, even demanded the yeas and nays, 
 that posterity might see that he did not consent to the " Address." 
 And Mr. Thomas Blount heads the list of the nays, making his 
 protest to posterity, which has already decided between him and 
 Washington.* 
 
 The " Address " is given as originally reported, with the addition 
 of the interpolations placed in italics in the fourth paragraph. 
 
 SLR, The House of Representatives have attended to your communica 
 tion respecting the state of our country, with all the sensibility that the 
 contemplation of the subject and a sense of duty can inspire. 
 
 We are gratified by the information that measures calculated to insure 
 a continuance of the friendship of the Indians, and to retain the tran 
 quillity of the interior frontier, have been adopted ; and we indulge the 
 hope that these, by impressing the Indian tribes with more correct con 
 ceptions of the justice, as well as power of the United States, will be 
 attended with success. 
 
 While we notice with satisfaction the steps you have taken in pursu 
 ance of the late treaties with several foreign nations, the liberation of 
 our citizens who were prisoners at Algiers is a subject of peculiar felici 
 tation. We shall cheerfully co-operate in any further measures, that 
 shall appear, on consideration, to be requisite. 
 
 We have ever concurred with you in the most sincere and uniform 
 disposition to perserve our neutral relations inviolate ; and it is, of course, 
 with anxiety and deep regret we hear that any interruption of our 
 harmony with the French Republic has occurred ; for we feel, with you 
 and with our constituents, the cordial and unabated wish to maintain a 
 perfectly friendly understanding with that nation. Your endeavors to 
 fulfil that wish [and by all honorable means to preserve peace, and to 
 restore that harmony and affection which have heretofore so happily sub 
 sisted between the French Eepublic and the United States ] cannot fail, 
 therefore, to interest our attention. And while we participate in the full 
 reliance you have expressed on the patriotism, self-respect, and fortitude 
 of our countrymen, we cherish the pleasing hope that a mutual spirit of 
 justice and moderation [on the part of the republic] will insure the 
 success of your perseverance. 
 
 The various subjects of your communication will, respectively, meet 
 with the attention that is due to their importance. 
 
 * For a full account of this remarkable debate, see " Annals of Congress/ 
 1796-97, and " Life and Works of Fisher Ames," 1854, Vol. I., pp. 209, 210, 
 note. 
 
165 
 
 When we advert to the internal situation of the United States, we deem 
 it equally natural and becoming to compare the tranquil prosperity of the 
 citizens with the period immediately antecedent to the operation of the 
 government, and to contrast it with the calamities in which the state of 
 war still involves several of the European nations ; as the reflections 
 deduced from both tend to justify, as well as to excite, a warmer admira 
 tion of our free Constitution, and to exalt our minds to a more fervent 
 and grateful sense of piety towards Almighty God for the beneficence of 
 his providence, by which its administration has hitherto been so remark 
 ably distinguished. 
 
 And while we entertain a grateful conviction that your wise, firm, and 
 patriotic administration has been signally conducive to the success of 
 the present form of government, we cannot forbear to express the deep 
 sensations of regret with which we contemplate your intended retirement 
 from office. 
 
 As no other suitable occasion may occur, we cannot suffer the present 
 to pass without attempting to disclose some of the emotions which it 
 cannot fail to awaken. 
 
 The gratitude and admiration of your countrymen are still drawn to 
 the recollection of those resplendent virtues and talents which were so 
 eminently instrumental to the achievement of the Revolution, and of 
 which that glorious event will ever be the memorial. Your obedience to 
 the voice of duty and your country, when you quitted reluctantly a second 
 time the retreat you had chosen, and first accepted the Presidency, 
 afforded a new proof of the devotedness of your zeal in its service, and 
 an earnest of the patriotism and success which have characterized your 
 administration. As the grateful confidence of the citizens in the virtues 
 of their chief magistrate has essentially contributed to that success, we 
 persuade ourselves that the millions whom we represent participate with 
 us in the anxious solicitude of the present occasion. 
 
 Yet we cannot be unmindful that your moderation and magnanimity, 
 twice displayed by retiring from your exalted stations, afford examples 
 no less rare and instructive to mankind than valuable to a republic. 
 
 Although we are sensible that this event, of itself, completes the lustre 
 of a character already conspicuously unrivalled by the coincidence of 
 virtue, talents, success, and public estimation, yet we conceive that we owe 
 it to you, sir, and still more emphatically to ourselves and to our nation 
 (of the language of whose hearts we presume to think ourselves at this 
 moment the faithful interpreters) , to express the sentiments with which it 
 is contemplated. 
 
 The spectacle of a whole nation, the freest and most enlightened of the 
 world, offering by its Representatives the tribute of unfeigned approba 
 tion to its first citizen, however novel and interesting it may be, derives 
 all its lustre a lustre which accident or enthusiasm could not bestow, 
 
166 
 
 and which adulation would tarnish from the transcendent merit of which 
 it is the voluntary testimony. 
 
 May you long enjoy that liberty which is so dear to you, and to which 
 your name will ever be so dear ! May your own virtues and a nation s 
 prayers obtain the happiest sunshine for the decline of your days, and 
 the choicest of future blessings! For your country s sake, for the 
 sake of republican liberty, it is our earnest wish that your example 
 may be the guide of your successors, and thus, after being the orna 
 ment and safeguard of the present age, become the patrimony of our 
 descendants. 
 
 Cambridge : Press of John Wilson and Son. 
 
HOME USE 
 
 
 
 rec d circ. FEB 1 7 
 
 ~ 
 
 FORM NO. DD 6 , 40m 
 
GENERAL LIBRARY - U.C. BERKELEY