JANUARY, 1812. The Secretary of the Navy remarks, that twelve seventy-fours and twenty frigates "would be competent,"-" uniting, occasionally, in operations with gunboats already built, if equipped and brought into service, and our fortifications" "to afford complete protection to our harbors"" Thus it mischief, but that they never have been compe- on a navy and fortifications, which has been pretent to protect and perpetuate the commerce of sented by the gentleman from South Carolina, any nation. Holland was an extensively com- (Mr. CHEVES,) I cannot perceive its bearing on mercial and naval Power, and how was her com- the present question. If, as the gentleman seems merce destroyed? The advocates of a navy to suppose, the proposed Naval Establishment have furnished the answer:-by the navigation would dispense with fortifications, the comparisystem of England. Certain municipal commer- son would be applicable; but a reference to the cial regulations in the British ports ruined the report with which he has furnished the House, trade of Holland, her navy to the contrary not-will clearly show that such is not the calculation. withstanding. Well, sir, what is the inference? That a navy is necessary or adequate to the maintenance of commerce? Unquestionably not. It proves all the opponents to this bill can desire: that commerce is neither dependent on such protection, nor capable of being maintained by it. The best support to trade is the ability of a na-appears, that gunboats and fortifications, both of tion to furnish on the most reasonable terms such which the gentleman from South Carolina bas articles as are necessary to the wants or conveni- excluded from the cost of defence, are to be conences of others; and, as evidence of the fact, I sidered a part of the estimate. The whole of would refer to the history of our own country. this "cheap defence" would cost for building and The commerce of the United States has flour-one year's service (leaving out of view the sums ished beyond example without a navy, while Eng- already expended) more than the whole amount land with her great maritime force has not been of our revenue in the most prosperous years, and able to compete with the enterprise of our mer- far more than that which it is probable will be chants. What is the condition of England, and incurred in any short period. But suppose this what the state of her commerce? She is shut fleet were built and equipped, would it afford out from the continent of Europe, and from this complete protection to our harbors? No, sir. country. Her merchants are becoming bankrupts; Did not the gentleman from South Carolina, her manufacturers in a situation the most miser- (Mr. LOWNDES,) one of the advocates of a navy, able, and the nation is writhing under the conse- declare to the House, that one British seventyquences of a system produced by the inordinate four could block up the harbor of New York, in ambition which has resulted from its naval supe- defiance of your existing Naval Establishment? riority. And although a great naval force has And yet we are told by other advocates that one been competent to create such wretchedness, it is American vessel of the same rate will be equal found to be perfectly inadequate to its relief. Na- to three of England. Let us examine the reasonpoleon, by municipal regulations, has suspended ing on which this latter position is founded. It the commerce of England, which supported her is assumed as a fact, from which very forcible navy, but which her navy cannot defend nor pro- conclusions have been drawn, that our navy is tect. It is true, that, in consequence of her mari- not to be separated, while at the same time it is time strength, France dare not send a ship of war to defend our extensive seacoast; and that the to sea; but it is not less true, that the continental enemy is to be attacked "in detail, when his vessystem has inflicted a wound upon her commerce sels may be scattered." How a few ships are to equal to that which she has been able to inflict defend an extent of fifteen hundred or two thouon the commerce of others. And permit me to re- sand miles, and always to be kept together, is bemark, that if Bonaparte, with probably more than yond my limited comprehension; nor do I peran hundred ships-of-the-line, is unable to protect ceive why the vessels of the enemy should be foreign commerce, it would appear difficult to con- scattered. It does, indeed, appear to me that the ceive how we could effect that object with ten frig- reverse of these propositions will be found true. ates, or twelve seventy-fours and twenty frigates. If the proposed force is intended to defend our I conclude, then, sir, that commerce and naval numerous ports and harbors, it must necessarily power are not identified, and that opposition to the be divided and apportioned among them; otherone, affords no presumption of hostility to the other. wise, it will not be applied to the contemplated We are hostile to the proposed navy, because it is objects. inadequate to the object for which it is intended, and because it is calculated to involve the nation in useless and wasteful expenditures. We deduce from history, that, while naval Powers have possessed the ability and disposition to annoy the commerce of others, they have not been able to protect and perpetuate their own. But, for national defence, a navy is "the most appropriate, adequate, and cheap." As to its cheapness, it is only necessary to remark that the pay of a soldier is five dollars per month, and that of seamen in the naval service twelve dollars. And as to the comparative view of expenditures The assailing force has but one object to attain, and that is, to attack the most vulnerable points. While our vessels, therefore, must be scattered, from the necessity of the case, and continually liable to be attacked by a superior force, the enemy will separate, or not, as inducements may present themselves. But the American vessels, say gentlemen, will have the advantage of finding refuge and security, when attacked by superior force, in our ports. What, sir! teach your commanders the art of running, and at the same time rely on them for the defence of the country? It is an art which I am persuaded will not be learnt by a Rodgers or Decatur, and I am unwilling to place them in a situation where they must necessarily encounter a force so much greater than any we can furnish, as to render defeat inevitable. As to any advantage which is expected from "our superior knowledge of the shoals with which our seacoast abound," in the "fogs to which it is peculiarly subject," I will only remark, that the best charts of the coast which are used by our mariners are of British manufacture. And as to the idea which has been expressed, that England cannot send a naval force to the American station superior to that which it is proposed to create, I really cannot discover the source from which such an extraordinary conclusion is drawn. England has in commission at this moment near eight hundred vessels, of which one hundred and sixty are ships-of-the-line. Of the latter, she has also in ordinary upwards of a hundred, and supposing she could not spare a competent force from her existing establishment, what is to hinder her from manning and equipping fifty ships-of-the-line for the purpose of destroying the navy of the United States? She has one hundred and forty thousand seamen in her merchant vessels, whose services she commands by impressment whenever they are wanted for naval operations; and, in fact, she has nothing to do but to will the destruction of your twelve seventy-fours and twenty frigates, and they are destroyed. In thus acknowledging our inferiority to Great Britain on the Ocean, it may be added that every other nation is in the same situation, and that we have it in our power to retaliate on, and for the injuries we have suffered. Sir, the people of this country will not believe that their safety depends on ships of war. Their virtue, strength, and patriotism, are the foundation of national security, and while those attributes remain unimpaired, there is nothing to fear from foreign or domestic enemies. I have so far, Mr. Speaker, considered principally the efficiency of a Naval Establishment, on the supposition that our resources and form of government would enable us to support it. I will now endeavor to show that in this country the manning of a navy to any considerable extent could not be effected without resorting, in violation of the Constitution, to the odious practice of impressment. Gentlemen are certainly mistaken in supposing that a navy could be manned here as cheap as in England. Her seamen are paid thirty shillings a month, ours twelve dollars, and frequently more. She compels them to engage and serve for that sum-we rely on voluntary engagements. The ordinary pay of seamen in our merchant service is thirty dollars per month; and I would appeal to the common observation of any man to determine, whether it is probable they would relinquish that service for the purpose of receiving only twelve dollars. We find other nations incapable of manning their navies except - by force-France by maritime conscription, and England by impressment. And, sir, if countries overflowing with population, (a considerable proportion of which is without a sufficiency of the H. OF R. necessaries of life,) cannot obtain men for their naval service, without resorting to the most cruel violence, it should not be presumed that the United States, abounding in the comforts of life to a greater extent than in population, would be more successful. The fallacy of the opinion that during war the pay in the merchant service would be so much lower than in times of peace, as to enable the Government to obtain seamen at a reasonable price, is fully proved by the experience of 1798. During the quasi war with France, the pay in merchant vessels was from twenty-six to thirty dollars; and I presume it will not be contended that the resources of the country would be competent at that rate to maintain a Naval Establishment. It has been proposed, however, to obviate this difficulty, by withholding commissions from privateers. The seamen are thus to be thrown out of employment, that they may the more readily engage in the naval service. The effect of this project would be nearly the same as that of impressment-in the one case force would be applied indirectly, and in the other directly. I see no difference, as it respects the citizen, whether he is forced into compliance by starvation or impressment. And if this system is to be adopted in relation to the Navy, it would be well to extend it to the Army also. A law has passed authorizing the raising of twenty-five thousand men ; and it is feared that, according to the Constitutional mode of enlistment,a longer time will be required to collect that number than is desirable. Now, if a navy can be manned by a Legislative act which is intended to deprive the seamen of their means of subsistence, why not devise a plan for starving some other portions of the community, and in that way fill up the ranks of your Army? The one would be as just as the other, and both would be equally efficacious. But there is a Constitutional provision which would render the proposed system wholly nugatory. The States are prohibited from keeping ships of war in time of peace only. It is obvious, therefore, that if the General Government attempt to force the seamen belonging to any State into their naval service, by refusing commissions to privateers, such States, by issuing commissions, may completely defeat your object. Thus, sir, if gentlemen are determined to make the United States a naval Power, they must resort to the same oppressive measures, which other countries have adopted-measures to which, I assert, the freemen of this country will never submit. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. CHEVES) abhors impressment, but at the same time contends that Congress has Constitutional authority to command the services of the citizens when and where they think proper. It appears to me that if an individual is dragged from his home against his will, and committed to the ocean, it cannot be material by what name you designate the act. To convey forcibly a freeman without the limits of the United States, who had violated no law, committed no crime, is an exercise of sovereignty which I verily believe the framers of the Consti H. of R. Naval Establishment. tution never thought of delegating. In what terms is this extraordinary power granted? Congress shall have power to provide and maintain a Navy." From this expression alone, gentlemen, for the first time since the adoption of the Constitution-for until now the doctrine was never heard of-have considered the power implied which places the liberties of this people completely at the mercy of the General Government. If such an authority as this can be drawn by implication, all the restrictions contained in the Constitution are nugatory. Congress shall have power to borrow money," &c. Here is a similar grant of power; and indubitably if, under the authority to provide a Navy, you can deprive the citizen of his liberty, it follows, that under authority to borrow, you may force him to lend his money. So, under the power "to raise and support armies," you may compel enlistments; and thus your authority over the persons and purses of the people becomes unlimited. Sir, such a doctrine, I am persuaded, will never be sanctioned by this House. Mr. B. said, his indisposition would not permit him to say more upon the subject. He considered it impracticable to carry into effect the proposed system, without subverting the foundations of the Constitution; and he would not consent to destroy the temple of liberty for the purpose of building on its ruins a Naval Establishment. Mr. NELSON said he would make a few remarks on this question, as this was the first opportunity which he had found of offering his sentiments on a subject, considered, on all hands, as of the first importance to the country. It was not for his own gratification that he should trespass on the patience of the House; not because he feared to send out his vote unaccompanied by a speech; not because those who in any way favor the Naval Establishment are charged with anti-republican principles. Considerations of this kind he disregarded. It was true that he, like every other Republican in this House, was alive to the dangers to which the liberties of the country might be exposed from large navy or army establishments. But he had no fears from any naval establishment at present proposed, nor from the expense to be incurred in carrying it into effect. Nor had he any fears from an additional army of twenty-five thousand men, so long as a spirit of republicanism and a love of liberty predominates in this country; but if, by indulging in luxury, and giving way to a corruption of manners, the pure fountain of republicanism should hereafter become polluted, then we might | have some ground to fear the effects of a standing army of even twenty-five thousand men, drawn round some ambitious military chief, who might turn them against the Government. Economy, said Mr. N., is the life and heart of every republican Government. It was a deviation from this principle which destroyed a former Administration (Mr. Adams's) and brought into existence the present republican Government. So long as he felt those attachments to republi JANUARY, 1812. canism, which he drew in with his first breath, so long would he lift up his hand against the improvident expenditure of public money, and endeavor to keep the Government within those rules of economy which brought it into existence. But, though he was an advocate for economy, he was not for withholding appropriations for any expenditure which he believed necessary for the public safety; nor would the people of this country ever disapprove expenditures of this kind. Mr. N. was well aware that, at the time the Republican Administration came into power, there had been great complaints against the wasteful expenditure of public money; for having raised an army and increased the Navy without necessity; for having constituted a long list of offices unnecessary for the due administration of justice, and for having, in many things, departed from the true principles of republican economy. But, in all the complaints which were made against the extravagance of that day, Mr. N. never heard it denied that a moderate naval force was necessary for the protection of the coasts and harbors of this country. And he did not mean to advocate the building of a navy which should be able to meet the navy of Great Britain on the ocean. He wished for such a one only as would protect our commerce in our own waters, and be able to drive off any vessel of war which should come upon our coast for the purpose of annoying and distressing us. He would forbear to make any insinuations which might be calculated to wound the feelings of any gentleman; but he thought, when so liberal a land force had been granted, some attention ought to be paid to the wishes of gentlemen who deemed a small increase of our Navy as absolutely necessary for our protection. What was our object in raising an army of twenty-five thousand men? Was it not to obtain redress for injuries committed on our maritime and commercial rights? Were the injuries committed on the land? Certainly they were not. Will the capture of Canada compel Great Britain to respect our commercial rights in future? He did not believe it would. Canada was not of much use to Great Britain, nor would it be of much benefit to us. It is possible, however, the apprehension of losing Canada may influence Great Britain to repeal or modify her Orders in Council; if so, it will be very well; but if we proceed to take that country, she will not surrender that which she enjoys without restraint for the restoration of a barren rock; for, according to his ideas, Canada was of no advantage to Great Britain but as a road and harbor for her vessels. Mr. N. said it was unnecessary to prove that this country had just cause of war against Great Britain; this had been acknowledged by their own Minister, in his correspondence with our Secretary of State. The conduct of this Goyernment has been strictly impartial to both the belligerents; none but a madman would insinuate the contrary. The same terms had been offered to both nations, and, if one accepted, and the other rejected them, they had each their own choice. JANUARY, 1812. Naval Establishment. H. OF R. Both belligerents, Mr. N. said, have disregarded did not think so. The people, Mr. N. said, underour neutral rights; have not considered what was stand the nature of an impost duty as well as we due to us as a neutral; but rather how much in- do. They know it is a duty laid on imported jury and injustice a neutral country would sub-articles, which, if they purchase, they pay; but mit to. Whence has this proceeded? From our they are at liberty to purchase them or not. But own acquiescence. Because we did not resist no man can avoid paying a direct tax, and if you the first aggression, but acquiesced until accumu- have not the money to pay, your property will be lated injuries of both nations overwhelmed us sold to produce it. with violence. But we have, at length, determined manfully to rise and maintain our rights, not by bulletins and resolutions, not by appearing only to take war measures, but in a manner that shall convince our enemy, and the world, that we are in earnest. But, will it be sufficient to raise a land force to go against the British provinces? Suppose, Mr. N. said, we get possession of the two Canadas, New Brunswick and Halifax, shall we have obtained the objects for which we take up arms? Certainly not. It will be necessary, therefore, that we should make every exertion to raise a force with which to protect and enforce our maritime rights. If the resources of the United States were competent to the object, he would say, establish such a Navy as shall be able to cope with the British fleet at sea; but he knew this was not practicable; but we ought to do as much as we are able to do; we ought to put our Navy on the best footing, as it is on the water that our rights are assailed. But he did not wish to extend his views further at present, than a sufficient force to clear our coasts of pirates and picaroons, to protect our ports and harbors, our coasting and our West India trade. Mr. N. thought it necessary to make this effort, in order to convince the nations of Europe that the representations heretofore made of this country, were erroneous; to show them that we are competent to make exertions for the defence of our national rights, and willing to do so whenever necessary. He did not wish this nation to be considered as a great naval and military nation; but he wished the world to know, that we are at all times able and willing to maintain our rights whenever they are assailed; when we shall have established this character, said Mr. N., our rights will be respected. Mr. N. said, an idea had suggested itself to him, which he would submit to the Committee. We have tried the restrictive system in order to protect our commerce, and found it ineffectual, and are about to resort to another course. The expenses of the war will have to be provided for by loans, and it is proposed to resort to direct taxes in order to enable us to pay the interest of these loans. To prevent the necessity of having recourse to this mode of taxation, which would prove very oppressive to the people in some parts of the country, he would propose a repeal of the non-importation law, and by this means, we should not only get the goods wanting for our trade with the Indians, but draw money into our Treasury from impost duty; and if we had recourse to war, he saw no necessity for keeping this law in force. Whence has arisen the opinion, at this time, Mr. N. said, that to extend our Navy would be attended with bad consequences-that it would be anti-republican? Can it have been the cabalistic effect produced by the report of the Secretary of the Treasury? Or from what other cause? None of these apprehensions were entertained when the army bill was before the House, and he thought the danger to be apprehended from an army was infinitely greater than from a Navy Establishment. Mr. N. concluded with some further observations in favor of building the ten frigates proposed by the bill, and against striking out the section. Mr. BURWELL moved to postpone the subject until the 4th of February. As the decision of this question had nothing to do with the preparatory measures for war, he supposed no inconvenience would be experienced from this postponement. As there were, no doubt, many gentlemen who still wished to be heard on this subject, they would have time to prepare themselves; for, as Is commerce of no avail to this country? this debate had continued little more than three What is it that gives a spring to your agricul- weeks, they could scarcely be expected now to ture? It is commerce. What is it that fills your be prepared; besides, their arguments would then Treasury? Commerce. What paid your na- be new; whereas, if they were now delivered, tional debt? Commerce. What was it which they would appear a mere repetition. He hoped procured a sale for your surplus produce? It is the House would indulge him in this motion, as foreign commerce. If it produce all these bene- this subject swallowed up every other. There fits to the country, is it not, then, worth protec-are a number of important bills before the House. tion ? Commerce, both foreign and domestic, is necessary for this country. In a manufacturing country, a nation may, perhaps, dispense with commerce; but here, where we have no manufactures of any consequence; where agriculture is our chief interest, we could not exist without a commerce to find a market for the produce of our lands. But gentlemen say, our imposts are disguised taxes, which are anti republican. He 12th CoN. 1st SESS.-32 Our table is loaded with business, and if the course which he proposed was not taken, after a session of six or eight months, Congress would adjourn without having done the business for which they met. Besides, he was something like the English priest, who, having expressed a fondness for partridges, was served with them until he was almost surfeited. He began to want a change of fare. He had heard enough about a Navy; he would be glad of a little variety. If he had thought there were any chance of getting the question in ten or twelve days, he would not have made the motion; but at present he saw no end to the debate. Some gentlemen appearing willing to debate this motion, Mr. B. withdrew it ; and after a few remarks from Mr. SMILIE against the NavyMr. WIDGERY said:-The subject of the bill on the table had been so ably discussed, that it would seem as if nothing more could be said on the subject. By the Constitution of the United States, Congress are empowered to build and support a navy. The framers of the compact, no doubt, thought it necessary to have a navy, or this provision would not have been made in the Constitution. It is the duty of a neutral nation to keep peace and order within her own jurisdiction-she ought to be able to compel obedience to her laws; and, for this purpose, it is necessary to have such an establishment of legal powers, as shall pervade the utmost limits of her jurisdiction -a government in which the belligerents, when they come within your harbors, may feel safe, otherwise they will be afraid to come and trade with you, lest they should get entrapped by their enemy. It is certainly the duty of a neutral Power to govern their own harbors, as well on water as on land for this purpose, it is absolutely necessary that you should have a small navy, or at least some addition to what you have already got, in order to compel submission to the laws and ordinances of your Government; anything short of this will leave your system incomplete, and of course incompetent to the purposes for which it was established. What are the extreme limits of your jurisdiction? Sir, were I to fix them, I should say the limits on the Southeast should be the Gulf Stream, a line drawn by the God of nature, and one which no maritime traveller can mistake. When the armed ships of any nation were hovering on our coast, within that line, I would order them off as intruders. In this case I apprehend some will think me extravagant, because, by the law of nations, the extreme distance from land appears to have been fixed at three miles; this law may very well apply to the European nations, because in many cases nature has so bounded the ocean as to compel them to pass narrow straits, in order to get to and from their own kingdoms; such are the Straits of Gibraltar, the British Channel, St. George's Channel, the narrow pass into the Baltic, and many other places; three miles from each shore would leave but scant room for them to pass with head winds. This doctrine cannot apply to the United States; she has no passway through which it is necessary for other nations to travel with their ships; we may therefore fairly conclude, if they are found cruising on our coast, within the Gulf, it is for the purpose of depredating on our commerce. But there is another reason why three miles from land will not apply in this country for instance, you may be twenty miles up the Delaware or Chesapeake, and not be within three miles of the shore. Did any rational man ever presume that a belligerent had a right, according to the law of nations, to go up the bays JANUARY, 1812. and rivers of a neutral nation, and lie there in wait for her enemies, who might be trading with the neutral? This, I presume, will not be contended for; nor will contend for the whole of our rights, at this time. I now come to the waters within our own territory. It is absolutely necessary to have a more efficient navy than you now have to govern your harbors in times of peace. Let me call your attention to the insolent answer of a British commander, not long since, in the Delaware. When ordered off by the collector, in pursuance of our laws, did he not send word that he had a very good berth, and that he lay very well at his mooring? This was in plain English telling the United States he would go when he pleased. Sir, soon after the British armed ships were interdicted the waters of the United States by the President's proclamation, was there not a more high-handed violation committed by the commander of a British armed vessel in the port of Charleston, South Carolina? Will it be in your power to prevent the like insults on your Government, unless you have a sufficient force to spread along your coast? Sir, if we are to have a war, one gun afloat, in a good ship, is worth ten on land. They can be sent from place to place, along shore, as the occasion may require. Guns on shore are stationary; a ship, with a fair wind and tide, will pass them nine times out of ten; but if she passes another ship, she may meet her again when she least expects it. But, say the gentlemen, the English will have them as soon as you have built them. Sir, if the captain of a British ship should see an American of equal force, he will be very careful not to crowd sail in order to get himself into difficulty; nor will the American in that case be in a hurry to get off. If an American frigate meets one more than her match, she can run from her; and it is well understood that no frigates on the ocean can outsail the American frigates. It is said they will rot and decay; so will your houses-yet every man wants a house to protect him from the inclemency of the weather. This negative reason will go to the annihilation of the human species; all men are born to die-therefore, take no pains to nurse and bring up our tender offspring. Surely this kind of opposition cannot have weight with this Committee. But there is another reason: they are "the means of external war; they invite aggressions, and hence the Danes lost their fleet at Copenhagen-our ships would share the same fate." There is no similarity in the two cases: as well might gentlemen compare the dim taper of a damp cell to the bright luminary of Heaven. Copenhagen is on an island, surrounded with navigable water, that enabled the British fleet to land an army on one side and lay their fleet on the other, and at the same time prevent their getting a reinforcement from the mainland. The United States are a continent, containing large rivers and harbors, in which her fleets may lie safe, and from which assistance cannot be prevented. But gentlemen are so candid as to say they never will vote anything to the support of commerce, as they believe it not for the interest of our country. |