Glass^ "£ 5^^ Book . "p5^ .-:^ A Letter TO THE ttON. HARRISON GRAY OTIS, — ^ A MEMBER OF THE SENATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, CN THE PRESENT STATE OF OUR NATIONAL AFFAIRS. WITH REMARKS VVOtf MR. P'ICxK:ERING'3 LETTER "iOVERJWR OF THE COMMOmVEALTH. OF MA^SACHUSETTTS. BY JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. NEW-HAVEN, 1S08. LETTER TO THE HON. HARRISON GRAY OTIS. Wajhington^ March SI, 1808, DEAR SIR3 I HAVE received from one of my friends In Bofton, a copy of a printed pamphlet, containing a letter from Mr. Pickering to the governor of the commonwealth, intended for communication to the iegiflature of the ftate, during their feffion recently concluded. But this objeft not having been accom- pliflied, it appears to have been publifhed by fome friend of the writer, whofe inducement is ftated, no doubt truly, to have been the importance of the mat- ter difcuffed in it, and the high refpedability of the author. The fubjecls of this letter are the Embargo, and the differences in controverfy between our country and Great Britain — -fubjeds upon which it is my misfor- tune, in the difcharge of my duties as a Senator of the United States, to differ from the opinions of my col- league. The place where the queftion upon the firfl"" t)f them, in common with others of great national con- cern, was between him and me, in our official capaci- ties, a proper objecl of difcuflion, was the Senate of the union. There it was difcuffed, and, as far as the conilitutional authority of that body extended, there it was decided. Having obtained alike the concurrence of the other branch of the national Iegiflature, and the approbation of the Prefident, it became the law of the land, and as fuch I have coniidered it entitled to the refpecl and obedience of every virtuous citizen. From thefe decifions however, the letter in ques- tion is to be confidered in the nature of an appeal ; in the firfl inflance, to our common conftituents, the Iegiflature of the flate- — and in the fecond, by the publication, to the people. To both thefe tribunal^ i fhall always hold mylelf accountable for every ad of my pubUc life. Yet, were my own political char- acter alone implicated in the courfe which has in this inftance been purfued, I fhouldhave forborne all no- tice of the proceeding, and have left my condu6l in this, as in other cafes, to the candor and difcretion pf my country. But to this fpecies of appeal, thus conduced, there are fome objections on coirftitutional grounds, which I deem it my duty to mention for the confideratiori of the public. On a ftatement of circumftances attend- ing a very important act of national legiflation,a ftate- ment which the writer undoubtedly believed to be true, but* which comes only from one fide of the queftion, and which I exped:to prove, in the moft es- jienticii points, erroneous, the writer with the moft an- imated tone of energy calls for the inter pofition of the commercial fiaies, and afTerts that "nothing but their fenfe, clearly and emphatically expreffed, will favd them from ruin.*' This folemn and alarming invocation is addrefled to the legiflature of MalTa-f jchufetts, at fo late a period of their feflion, that had it been received by them, they mufl have been comr peiled either to ad upon the views of this reprefenta- tion, without hearing the counter flatement of the other fide, or feemingly to difregard the preffing inr terefl of their conftituents, by negleding an admonir tion of the niofl ferious complexion. Confidering the application as a precedent, its tendency is danger- ous to the public. For on the firfl fuppofition, that the legiflature had been precipitated to ad on the fpur of fuch an infligation, they mufl have acted ori imperfect imformation, and under an excitement, not remarkably adapted to the compofure of fafe (deliberation. On the fecond, they v/ould have been expofed to unjuil imputations, which at the eve of an election might have operated in the moft inequitable manner upon the characters of individual members. Tiie interpofition of one or more ftate legiflaturesj to control the exercife of the powers veiled by the generd coiiftitution in the congrefs of the United States, is at leaft of queftionable policy. The view's of a ftate legiflature are naturally and properly lim- ited in a confiderable degree to the particular interefls of a ftate. The very objecT; and formation of the National deliberative affernbiies was for the compro- inife and conciliation of the interefts of all — ^^of the whole nation. If the appeal from the regular, legiti- mate meafures of the body where the v/hole nation is reprefented, be proper to one ftate legiflature, it muft be fo to another. If the commercial iiates are called to interpofe on one hand, will not the agrir cultural ftates be with equal propriety fummoncd to interpofe on the other ? If the eall is ftimulated againfl the v/eft, and the northern and fouthern fections are urged into collifion with each other, by appeals from the afts of Congrefs to the refpect-ive itates — :h what are thefe appeals to end ? * It is undoubtedly the rig'ht, and may often be,r come the duty of the ftate legiflature to addrefs that of the nation, with the exprefiion of its wilhes, in regard to interefts peculiarly concerning the ftate itfeif. Nor fhall I queftion the right of every mem- ber of the great federative compa6f to declare its own fenfe of meafures interefting to the nation at large. But whenever the cafe occurs that this fenfe Iliould be " clearly and emphatically'' expreffed, it ought furely to be predicated upon a full and impartial confider- ation of the whole fubje<5l — not under the ftimulus of a one ftded reprefentation — far lefs upon the im- pulfe of conje<5lures and fufpicions. It is not through the medium of perfonal fenfibility, nor of party bias, nor of profellional occupation, nor of geographical pofition, that the whole truth can be difcerned, of queftions involving the rights and interefts of this cn- tcnfive union. When their difcuflion is urged upon a ftate legiflature, the firft call upon its members ihould be to caft ail their feehngs and interefts a^ the citizens of a fmgle ftate into the comm.on ftock of the national concern. Should the occurrence upon which an appeal h made from tlie Councils of the Nation, to thofe of t fingle State be one, upon which the reprefentation of the State had been divided, and the member who found himfelf in the minority, feh impelled by a fenfe of duty to invoke the interpofition of his Conftituents, it would feem that both in juftice to them, and in candor to his colleague, fome notice of fuch inten- tion fhould be given to him, that he too might be pre- pared to exhibit his views of the fubjecl upon which the difference of opinion had taken place ; or at leafl that the refort fhould be had, at fuch a period of time as would leave it within the reach of polhbihty for his reprefentations to be received, by their Common Conftituents, before they would be compelled to de" cide on the merits of the cafe. The fairnefs and propriety of this courfe of pro- ceeding muft be fo -obvious, that it is difficult to con^ ceive of the propriety of any other. Yet it prefents another inconvenience which muft necelTarily refult from this practice of appellate legiflation — When one of the fenators from a State proclaims to his conftitu- ents that a particular meafure, or fyftem of meafures which has received the vote and fupport of his col- league, are pernicious and deftrury was to be dilcovered on another page of the Britifli minifteriai policy t— On the face of Mr. R(^fe's inftructions, thefe orders of Coun- cil were as inviiible, as they are on that of Mr. Pick- ering's letter. They were not merely without official authenticity. Rumours had for feveral weeks been in circulation, derived from Englilh prints, and from pnvate corref- pondence, that fuch orders were to iffue ; and no incondderable pains were taken here to difcredit the fact. Aifarances were given that there was reafon to believe no fuch orders to be contemplated. Sufpi- cion was lulled by declarations equivalent nearly to a politive denial ; and thefe opiates were continued for wrecks after the Embargo was laid, until Mr. Erfkine received inilruclions to make the official comm.unica- tion of the orders themfelves, in their proper fliape, to our Government. Yet, although thus unauthenticated, and even al= though thus in fome fort denied, the probability of the circumftances under which they were announced, and the fweeping tendency of their effects, formed to my underfcanding a powerful motive, and together with the papers fent by the Prefident and his exprefs recommendation, a decifive one, for aflenting to the Embargo. As a precautionary meafure, I believed it would refcue an immenfe property from depredation, if the orders fhould prove authentic. If the alarm was groundlefs it mufl very foon be difproved, and the embargo might be removed with the danger. The omiiTimi of all notice of thefe facts in the pref- fmg enquiries " why the Embargo was laid r" is the' more furprifing, becaufe they are of all the fafts, the inoit material, upon a fair and impartial examination of the expediency of that Ad:, when it paffed — And becaufe thefe orders, together with the fubfequent " retaliating decrees of France and Spain, have fur- 11 iilifhed the only reafons upon which I have acqulefced in its continuance to this day. If duly weighed, they will fave us the trouble of reforting to jealoulies of fecret corruption, and the imaginary terrors of Napo- lean for the real caufe of the Embargo. Thefe are fictions of foreign invention — The French Emperor had not declared that he would have no neutrals— ^He had 7iot required that our ports fliould be iliut againft Britiili Commerce — but the orders of Council if fub- mitted to would have degraded us to the condition of Colonies. Ifreliifed would have fattened the wolves of plunder with our fpoils. The Embargo was the only flielter from the Tempeft — The ialt refuge of our violated Peace. I have indeed been myfelf of opinion that the Em- bargo, muft in its nature be a temporary expedient, and that preparations manifeiling a determination of refinance arainft thefe outraQ:eous violations of our neutral rights ought at Icaft to have been made a fub- iect of ferious deliberation in Consrefs. I have be- lieved and do ftill believe that our internal refources are competent to the eilablifhment and maintainance ^ofanaval force public and private, if not fully ade- quate to the proieclion and defence of our Commerce, at lead fuf&cient to induce a retreat from thefe hoRil- ities and to deter from a renewal of them, by either of the warring parties ; and that a iyftem to that effed might be formed, ultimately far more economical, and certainly more energetic than a three years Embargo. Very foon after the ciofure of our Ports, I did fub.- mit to the conllderation of the Senate, a propofition for the appointment of a committee to inftitute an en- quiry to this end. But myrefolution met no encour- agement. Attempts of a limilar nature have been made in the Hoiife of Reprefentatives, but have been equally difcountenanced, and from thefe determina- tions by decided majorities of both houfes, I am not fulEciently confident in the fuperiority of my own Wifdom to appeal, by a topical application to the con- genial feelings of any one — not even of my own na- tive Scdion uf the Union. 1? The Embargo, however, is a reftri(^ion always uji« der our own controui. It was a meafure altogether of defiance, and of experiment — ^If it was injudicioully or over-haftily laid, it has been every daylince its adop- tion open to a repeal : if it fliould prove ineffe<5lual ior the purpofes which it was meant to fecure, a fin^ gle day will fuffice to unbar the doors Still believ- ing it a meafure juftified by the circumftances of the time, I am ready to admit that thofe who thought otherwife may have had a wifer foreiight of events, and a founder judgment of the then exifting {late of thingfj than the majority of the National Legiilature, and the Preiident. It has been approved by feveral of the Stale Legiilatures, and among the reft by our own. Yet of all its effeds we are ftill unable to judge with certainty. It muft ftill abide the teft of futuri- ty. 1 ihall add that there were other motives which had their operation in contributing to the paffage of the act, unnoticed by Mr. Pickering, and which bav- in sr now ceafed will alfo be left unnoticed bv me. Xhe orders of Council of 1 1th Nov. ftill fabftft in a]! their force; and are now confirmed, with the additi- on of taxation, by ad of Parliament. As Lheyftandin front of the real caufes for the Embctrgo, fo they are entitled to the fame pre-emi- nence in enumerating the caufes of hoftility which the Britifh Minifters are accumulating upon our for- bearance. They ftrike at the root of our independence. They aifume the principle that we fliall have no com- jnerce in time of war, but with her dominions, and as tributaries to her. The exclufive confinement of commerce to the motiier country, is the great princi- ple of the modern colonial fyftem ; and fhould we by a derelidion of our rights at this momentous ftride of encroachment furrender our commercial freedom with- out a ftruggle, Britain has but a fingle ftep more to take, and (he brings us back to the ftamp ad and the tea tax. Yet thefe orders — -thus fatal to the liberties for which the fa-.^es and heroes of our revolution toiled ^nd bled — thus ftudiouflv concealed until the mo^ 15 fiient when they burft upon our heads — thus ilfued 3t the verj' inftant when a niiflion of atonement was profefTedly fent — in thefe orders we are to fee no- thing but a " retaliating order upon France*' — in thefe orders, we muft not find fo much as a caufe — nay not fo much as a pretence, for complaint againft Britain. Xo my mind. Sir, in comparifon with thofe orders, the three caufes to which Mr. Pickering explicitly li- mits our grounds for a rupture with England, might indeed be jufUy denominated pretences — in compari- fon with them, former aggreflions fink into infig- nificance. To argue upon the fubjeft of our difputes with Britain, or upon the motives for the Embargo, and keep them out of fight, is like laying your finger over the unit before a feries of noughts, and then arithmetically proving that they all amount to nothing. It is not however in a mere omiilion, nor yet in the liiftcry of the Embargo, that the inaccuracies of the llatement I am examining have given me the moft fcrious concern— r-it is in the view taken of the quefr tions in controverfy between us and Britain. The wifdom of the Embargo is a quefi:ion of great, but tranfient magnitude, and omxiffion facrifices no na- tional right. Mr. Pickering's objed: was to dififuade the nation from a war with England, into which he fufpeded the adminiftration was plunging us, under French compulfion. But the tendency of his pam- phlet is to reconcile the nation, or at leaft the com- mercial dates, to the fervitude of Britifli protection, and war with ail the reft of Europe,., Elcnce England is renrefented as contendino: for the common liberties of mankind, and our only lafe-guard againft the ambi- tion and injuftice of France. Hence all cur fenfibili- ties are invoked in her favour, and all our antipathies againft her antagonift. Hence too all the ftjbjecls of differences between us and Britain are alledged to be on our part vnevQ pretences, of which the right is une- quivocally pronounced to be on her fide. Proceeding from a Senator of the United States, fpecially charged. i^s a member of the executive with the maintenanec 14 of the nation's riglits, againft foreign powers, and at a moment extremely critical of pending negotiation upon all the points thus delineated, this formal abanr d^mnent of the American caufe, this fummons of un- conditional furrender to the pretenfions gf our anta- gonift, is in my mind highly alarming. It becomes therefore a duty to which every other conlideration mud yield to point out the errors of this reprefenta- tion Before we ftrike the ftandard of the nation, le^ us at leaft examine the purport of the fummons. And firft, with refpe<5t to the impreffment of our feamen. We are told that " the taking of Britilh fear men found on board our merchant voitels, by Britilh {hips of war, is agreeably to a rights claimed and exr ercifed for a2:es." It is obvious that this claim and exercife of ages, could not apply to us, as an independr ent people. If the right was claimed and exercifed while our veffels were navigating under the Britiflt flag, it could not authorize the fame claim when their ov/ners have become the citizens of a fovereign ftate. As a relidt of colonial fervitude, whatever may be the claim of Great Britain, it fureiy can be no ground for contending that it is entitled to our fubrnilTion. If it be meant t at the right has been claimed and exercifed for ages over the merchant veiTeis of other nations, I apprehend it is a miftake. The cafe never occurred with fufficient frequency to conftitute even a pradice, much lefs a right. If it had been either, it would have been noticed by fome of the writers on the laws of nations. The truth is, the queftion arofe out af American Independence — ^from the feverance of one nation into two. It was never made a queftion betv/een any other nations. There is therefore no right of prefcription. But, it feems, it has alfo been claimed and exercifed^ during the whole of the three Adminiftiations of our national Government, And is it meant to hi aiferted that this claim and exercife conftitute a right ? If it is, I appeal to the uniform, unceafing and urgent rer monftrances of the three adminiftrations — I appeal not only to the warm feelings, but cool juftice of the American people— nay, I appeal to the found fenfe and honorable lentiment ot the Britifli nation itfelf, which, however it may have fubmitted at home to this practice, never would tolerate its fandion by law, againft the affertion. If it is not, how can it be af- firmed that it is on our part a mere pretence ? But the firft merchant of the United States, in an- fwer to Mr. Pickerings late enquiries has informed him that fmce the affiiir of the Chesapeake there has been no caufe of complaint — that he could not find a fmgle inftance where they had taken one man out of a merchant veffel. Who it is that enjoys the dignity of firft merchant of the United States we are not in- formed. But if he had applied to many merchants in Bofton as refpeent either of the proclamation, or of the queftion it involves in which our right is concerned ? The king of England's right to the fervice of his fubje6ts in time of war is nothing to us. The queftion is, whe- ther he has a right to feize them forcibly on board of our veffels v/hile under contract of fervice to our citi- zens, within our jurifdiction upon the high feas ? And whether he has a right exprefsly to command his na- val ofEcers fo to feize them — Is this an acknowledsfed principle ? certainly not. Why then is this procla- mation defcribed as founded upon uncontefted prin- ciple ? and why is the com.m.and, so juftly offenfive to us, and so mifchievous-as it might then have been made in execution, altogether omitted ? 16 But it is not the taking of Britifh fubjeds from oiir Veflels, it is the taking under color of that pretence our own native American citizens, which conftitutes the moft galling aggravation of this mercilefs practice. Yet even this, we are told is but a pretence — for three reafons. 1. Becaufe the number of citizens thus taken, is small. 2. Becaufe it arifes only from the impoffibility of diftinguifhing Engliflimen from Americans. 3. Becaufe, such impreffed American citizens are delivered up, on duly authenticated proof, 1. Small and great in point of numbers are relative terms. To fuppofe that the native Americans form a fmall proportion of the whole number impreffed is a miftake — The reverfe is the fad. Examine the cfE- cial returns from the department of fiate. They give the names of between four and five thoufand men im.- preffed lince the commencement of the prefent war. Of which number not one fifth part were Britifh fub- jecls — The number of naturalized Americans could not amount to one tenth — -I hazard little in faying, that more than three fourths were native Americans. If it be faldthat fome of thefe men, though appearing on the face of the returns American citizens, were re- ally Britifti fubjeds, and had fraudulently procured their protedlons ; I rep]y that this number muft be' far exceeded by the cafes of citizens impreffed, which never reach the department of (late^ The American conful in London eftlmates the number of impreff- ments during the war at nearly three times the am- ount of the names returned. If the nature of the of- fence be confidered in its true colors, to a people hav- ing a jufl: fenfe of pcrfonal liberty and fecurlty, it is in every fingle inftanco, of a malignity not inferior to that of murder. The very fame ad, w^hen com- mitted by the recruiting ofncer of one nation within the territories of another, is by the univerfal law^ and ufage of nations punifhed with death. Suppofe the crime had in every inftance, as by its eonfequences it has been in many, deliberate murder. Would it an- 17 swer or silence the voice of our complaints to be told that the number was small ? 2. The impossibility of distinguishing English from American seamen is not the only, nor even the most frequent occasion of impressment. Look again into the returns from the Department of State — you will see that the officers take our men without pretending to enquire where they were born; sometimes merely to shew their animosity, or their contempt for our country ; sometimes from the wantonness of power. When they manifest the most tender regard for the neutral rights of America, they lament that they want the men. They regret the necessity, but they inust have their complement. When we complain of these enormities, we are answered that the acts of such offi- cers were unauthorised; that the commanders of Men of War, are an unruly set of men, for whose vio- lence their own Government cannot always be answer- able — that enquiry shall be made — A Court Martial is sometimes mentioned — And the issue of Whitby's Court- Martial has taught us what relief is to be ex- pected from that. There are even examples I am told, when such officers have been put upon the yel- low list. But this is a rare exception. — The ordinary issue when the act is disavowed, is the promotion of the actor. 3. The impressed native American Citizens how- ever, upon duly authenticated proofs are delivered up. Indeed ! how unreasonable then were complaint ! how effectual a remedy for the wrong ! An American ves- sel, bound to a European port, has two, three or four native Americans, impressed by a British Man of War, bound to the East or West Indies. When the American Captain arrives at his port of destination, he makes his protest, and sends it to the nearest Ameri- can Minister or Consul. When he returns home, he transmits the duplicate of his protest to the Secretary of State. In process of time, the names of the im- pressed men, and of the Ship into which they have been impressed, are received by the Agent in Lon- don. He makes his demand that the men may be C 18 delivered up. — llie Lords of the Admiralty, after a. reasonable time for enquiry and advisement, return for answer, that the Ship is on a foreign Station, and their Lordships can therefore take no further steps in the matter — Or, that the ship has been taken, and that the men have been received in exchange for French pris- oners — Or, that the men had no protections (the im- pressing officers often having taken them from the men) — Or, that the men were probably British subjects. Or that they have entered, and taken the Bounty; (to which the officers know how to reduce them.) Or, that they have been married or settled in England. In all these cases, without further ceremony, their dis- charge is refused. Sometimes, their Lordships, in a vein of humor, inform the agent that the man has been discharged as iin&ei'v'iceable. Sometimes, in a sterner tone, they say he was an impost er. Or pler- haps by way of consolation to his relatives and friends, they report that he has fallen in Battle, against nations in Amity with his Country. Sometimes they coolly return that there is 7%o such man o?i board the ship ; and what has become of him, the agonies of a wife and children in his native land may be left to conjecture. When all these and many otl"ber such apologies for re- fusal fail, the native American seaman is discharged — and when by the charitable aid of his Government he has found his way home, he comes to be informed, that all is as it should be — that the number of his fel- low-sufferers is small — that it was impossible to dis- tinguish him from an Englishman — and that he was delivered up, on duly authenticated proof. Enough of this disgusting subject — I cannot stop to calculate how many of these wretched victims are natives of Massachusetts, and how many natives of Virginia — I cannot stop to solve that knotty question of national jurisprudence, whether some of them might not possibly be slaves, and therefore not Citizens of the United States — I cannot stay to account for the wonder, why, poor, and ignorant, and friendless as most of them are, the voice of their complaints is so^ seldom heard in the great navigating States. I ad- 19 mit that we have endured this cruel indignity, through all the administrations of the General Government. — I acknowledge that Britain claims the right of seizing her subjects in our merchant vessels, and that even if we could acknowledge it, the line of discrimination would be difficult to draw. We are not in a condition to maintain this right, by War, and as the British Government have been more than once on the point of giving it up of their own accord, I \voiild still hope for the day when returning Justice shall induce them to abandon it, without compulsion. Her subjects we do not want. The degree of protection wJiich we are bound to exteiKl to them, cannot equal the claim of our own citizens. I would subscribe to any compro- mise of this contest, consistent with the rights of sove- reignty, the duties of humanity, and the principles of reciprocity ; but to the right of forcing even her own subjects out of our merchant vessels on the high seas^ I never can assent. The second point upon v\iiich Mr. Pickering defends the pretensions of Great-Britain, is her denial to neu- tral nations of the right of prosecuting with her enemies and their colonies, any commerce from which they are excluded in time of peace. His statement of this case adopts the British doctrine, as sound. The right, as on the question of impressment, so on this, it surrenders at discretion— and it is equally defective in point of fact. In the first place, the claim of Great-Britain is not to *' a right of imposing on this neiiitral commerce souie lijiiits and restraints''' — but of interdicting it altogether, at her pleasure, of interdicting it without a momenta's notice to neutrals, after solemn decisions of her courts of admiralty, and formal acknowledgnients of her min- isters, that it is a lawful trade — And, on such a sudden, unnotified interdiction of pouncing upon all neutral com- merce navigating upon the faith of her decisions arid ac- knowledgments, and of gorging with confiscation the gi-eediness of her cruisers — This is the right claimed by Britain — This is the power she has exercised — What Mr. Pickering ' calls "limits and restraints,'* slie calk, relaxations of her right. m 20 It is but little more than two years, since this question was agitated both in England and America, with as much zeal, energy, and ability, as ever was displayed upon any question of national Law. The British side was supported by Sir William Scott, Mr. Ward, and the author of War in Disguise. But even in Britain their doctrine was refuted to demonstration by the Edin- burgh reviewers. In America, the rights of our coun- try were maintained by numerous writers, profoundly skilled in the science of national and maritime Law. The Aiisiver to War in Disguise was ascribed to a gentleman whose talents are universally acknowledged, and who by his official situations had been required thoroughly to in- vestigate every question of conflict between neutral and belligerent rights which has occurred in the history of modern War. Mr. Gore and Mr. Pinckney, our two commissioners at London, under Mr. Jay's Treaty, the former, in a train of cool and conclusive argument ad- dressed to Mr. Madison, the latter in a memorial of splendid eloquence from the Merchants of Baltimore, supported the same cause ; memorials, drawn by law- yers of distinguished eminence, by Merchants of the highest character, and by statesmen of long experience in our national councils, came from Salem, from Boston, from New-Haven, from New- York andfrom Philadelphia, together with remonstrances to the same effect from New- buryport, Newport, Norfolk and Charleston. This ac- cumulated mass of legal learning, of commercial infor- mation, and of national sentiment, from almost every in- habited spot upon our shores, and from one extremity of the union to the other, confirmed by the unanswered and unanswerable memorial of Mr. Munroe to the British minister, and by the elaborate research and irresistible reasoning of the exammation of the British doctrine, was also made a subject of full and deliberate discussion in the Senate of the United States. A committee of seven members of that body, after three weeks of arduous in- vestigation, reported three resolutions, the first of which was in these words — " Resolved that the capture and con- demnation, under the orders of the British government, and adjudications of their courts of admiralty, of Ameri- can vessels and their cargoes, on the pretext of their being 21 employed in a trade with the enemies of Great Britain, prohibited in time of peaee, is an iniprovoked aggres- sion upon the pro^^erty of the citizens of these United States, a violation of their neutral rights, and an en- croachment upon their national Independence.'''' > On the, 13th of Februar}% 1806, the question upon the adoption of this Resolution, was taken in the Sen- ate. The yeas and nays were required ; but not a solitary nay was heard in ans^ver. It was adopted by the unanimous voice of all the Senators present. They were twenty-eight in number, and among them stands recorded the name of Mr. Pickering. Let us remember that this was a question most pe- culiarly and immediately of comjnercialy and not agri- cultural interest ; that it arose fi'om a call, loud, energet- ic and unanimous, from all the merchants of the United States upon Congress, for the national interposition ; that many of the memorials invoked all the energy of the Legislature, and pledged the lives and properties of the memorialists in support of any meiasures v>iiich Congress might deem necessary to vindicate tliose rights. Negociation was particularly recommended from Boston, and elsew^here — negociation was adopted — negociation has failed — and no^v Mr. Pickering tells us that Great Britain has claimed and maintained her right ! He argues that her claim is just — and is not sparing of censure upon those who still consider it as a serious cause of complaint. But there was one point of view in which the Brit- ish doctrine on this question was then only consider- ed incidentally in the United States — because it was not deemed material for the discussion of our rights. We examined it chiefly as affecting the principles as between a belligerent and a neutral po^ver. But in fact it was an infringement of the rights of War, as well as of the rights of Peace. It was an unjustifiable enlargement of the sphere of hostile operirdons. The enemies of Great Britain had by the universal Law of Nations a right to the benefits of neutral Commerce within their dominions (subject to the exceptions of actual blockade and contraband) as well as neuti-al na- 22 tions had a right to trade with them. The exclusion from that commerce b)^ this new principle of warfare which Britain, in defiance of all inikncmorial national usages, undertook by her single authority to establish, but too naturally led her enemies to resort to new and extraordinary principles, by which in their turn they might retaliate this injury upon her. The pretence upon which Britain in the first instance had attempted to color her injustice, was a miserable fiction — It was an argument against fact. Her reasoning was, that a neutral vesoel by mere admission in time of war, into Ports from which it would have been excluded in time of peace, became thereby deprived of its national character, and ipso facto was transformed into enemy's property. Such "was the basis upon which arose the far famed rule of the war of 1756 — Such was the foundation upon which Britain claimed and maintained this supposed right of adding that new instrument of desolation to the horrors of war — It was distressing to her enemy — yes ! Had she adopted the practice of dealing with them in poison — Had Mr. Fox accepted the services of the man who offered to rid him of the French E:n- peror by assassination, and had the attempt succeeded, it would have been less distressing to France than this rule of the war of 1756 ; and not more unjustifiable. — Mr. Fox had too fiiir a m^ind for either, but his com- prehensive and liberal spirit was discarded, with the Cabinet which he had formed. It has been the struggle of reason and humanity, and above all of Christianity for two thousand years to mitigate the rigors of that scourge of human kind, War. It is now the struggle of Britain to aggravate them. Her rule of the war of 1756, in itself and in its effects, was one of the deadliest poisons, in which it was possible for her to tinge the "weapons of her hos- fility. in itself and in its effects, I say — For the French decrees of Berlin and of Milan, the Spanish and Dutch decrees of the same or the like tenor, and her own orders of January and No^xmbcr — these alterna- Lora 23 lions of licenced pillage, this eager competition be- tween her and her enemies for the honor of g-iving the last stroke to the yitals of maritime nciitralit;-, all are justly attributable to her assumption and exercise of this single principle. The rule of the war of 1756 was the root, from which all the rest iue but suckers, still at every shoot growing ranker in luxuriance. In the last decrees of France and Spain, her own in- genious fiction is adopted ; and under them, every neu- tral vessel that submits to English search, has been car- ried into an English port, or paid a tax to the English government, is declared denationalized^ that is, to have lost her national character, and to have become Eng- lish property. This is cruel in execution ; absurd in argument. To refute it were folly ; for to the under- standing of a child it refutes itself. But it is the rea- soning of British Jurists. It is the simple application to the circumstances and powers of France, of the rule of the war of 1756. I am not the apologist of France and Spain ; I have no national partialities ; no national attachments but to my own countr}\ I shall never undertake to justify or to palliate the insults or injuries of any foreign fower to that country which is dearer to me than life, f the voice oP Reason and of Justice could be heard by France and Spain, they would say- --you have done wrong to make the injustice of your enemy towiu-ds neutrals the measure of your own. If she chastises with whips, do not you chastise with scorpions ?— Whether France would listen to this language, I know not. Tiie most enormous infractions of our rights hitherto committed by her, ha^•e b^en more in menace than in accomplishment. The alarm has l3een justly great ; the anticipation threatening ; but the amount of actual injury small. But to Britain, what can we say ? If we attempt to raise our voices, her Minister has declared to Mr. Pinckney that she \\\\\ not hear. The only reason she assigns for her recent orders of Council is, that France proceeds on the same princi- ples. It is not by the light of blazing temples, and amid the groans of women and children perishing in the ruins of the sanctuaries of domestic habitation at 24 Copenhagen, that we can expect our remonstrances against this course of proceeding will be heard. Let lis come to the third and last of the causes of complaint, which are represented as so frivolous and so unfounded — "the unfortunate affair of the Chesa- peake." The ordersof Admiral Berkley, under which this outrage was committed, have been disavowed by his Government. General professions of a willingness to make reparation for it, have been lavished in pro- fusion ; and we are now instructed to take these pro- fessions for endeavors ; to believe them sincere, be- cause his Britannic Majesty sent us a special envoy ; and to cast the odium of defeating these endeavors up- on our own government. I have already told you, that I am not one of those who deem suspicion and distrust, in the highest order of political virtues. Baseless suspicion is, in my esti- mation, a vice, as pernicious in the management of public affairs, as it is fatal to the happiness of domestic life. When, therefore, the British Ministers have declared their disposition to make ample reparation for an injury of a most atrocious character, committed by an officer of high rank, and, as they say, utterly without authority, I should most readily believe them, w^ere their professions not positively contradicted by facts of more powerful eloquence than words. Have such facts occurred ? I will not again allude to the circumstances of Mr. Rose's departure upon his mission at such a precise point of time, that his Com- mission and the orders of Council of 11th November, might have been signed with the same penful of ink. The subjects were not immediately connected with each other, and his Majesty did not chuse to associ- ate distinct topics of negociation. The attack upon the Chesapeake was disavowed ; and ample reparation was withheld only, because with the demand for satis- faction upon that injury, the American Government had coupled a demand for the cessation of others; alike in kind, but of minor aggravation. But had rep- aration really been intended, would it not have been offered, not in vague and general terms, but in precise and specific proposals ? Were any such made ? None» 25 But it is said Mr. Monr«e was restricted from negocia- ting upon this subject apart ; and therefore Mr. Rose was to be sent to Washington ; charged with this single object ; and without authority to treat upon or even to discuss any other. Mr. Rose arrives — The American government readily determine to treat upon the Chesapeake affair, separately from all others ; but before Mr. Rose sets his foot on shore, in pursuance of a pretension made before by Mr. Canning, he con- nects with the negociation, a subject far more distinct from the butchery of the Chesapeake, than the general impressment of our seamen, I mean the Proclamation, interdicting to British ships of war, the entrance of our harbors. The great obstacle which has always interfered in the adjustment of our differences with Britain, has been that she would not acquiesce in the only principle upon which fair negociation between independent nations can be con- ducted, the principle of reciprocity, that she refuses the application to us of the claim which she asserts for her- self. The forcible taking of men from an American vessel, was an essential part of the outrage upon the Chesapeake. It was the ostensible purpose for which that act of war unproclaimed, was committed. The President's Proclamation was a subsequent act, and was avowedly founded upon many similar aggressions, of ^\^hich that was only the most aggravated. If then Britain could with any color of reason claim that the general question of impressment should be laid out of the case altogether, she ought upon the principle of reciprocity to have laid equally out of the case the proclamation, a measure so easily separable from it, an(i in its nature merely defensive. Wlien therefore she made the repeal of the Proclamation an indispensable preliminary to all discussion upon the nature and extent of thart reparation which she had offered, she refused to treat with us upon the footing of an independent power. She insisted upon an act oflself-degradation on our part, Ijefore she would even tell us what redress she would condescend to grant for a great and acknowledged wrong. This was a condition which she could not but knoAv to be inadmissible, and is of itself proof nearly D 26 conclusive that her Cabinet ne^er intended to make for that wrong any reparation at all. But this is not all — It cannot be forgotten that when that atrocious deed was committed, amidst the general burst of indignation which resounded from every part of this Union, there were among us a small number of persons, w^ho upon the opinion that Berkley's orders were authorized by his government, undertook to justify them in their fullest extent — These ideas, probably first propagated by British official characters in this country, were persisted in until the disavowal of the British Go- vernment took away the necessity for persevering in them, and gave notice where the next position was to be taken. This patriotic reasoning however had been so satisfactory at Halifax, that complimentary letters were received from Ad. Berkley himself,, highly approving the spirit in which they were inculcated, and remarking- how easily Peace between the United States and Britain might be preserved, if ^Aarmeasure of our national rights could be made the prevailing standard of the country. When the news arrived in England, although the gen- eral sentiment of the nation was not prepared for the for- mal avowal and justification of this unparallelled aggres- sion, yet there were not wanting persons there, ready to claim and maiiita'm the right of searching national ships for deserters — It was said at the time, but for this we must of course rest upon the aedit of inoffigial authori- ty, to have been made a serious question in the Cabinet Council ; nor was its determination there ascribed to the eloquence of the gentlemen who became the official organ of its communication — Add to this a circum- stance, which without claiming the irrefragable credence of a diplomatic note, has yet its weight upon the com- mon sense of mankind ,- that in all the daily newspapers known to be in the ministerial interest, Berkley was jus- tified and applauded in every variety of form that publi- cation could assume, excepting only that of official Pro- clamation. — The only part of his orders there disappro- ved was the reciprocal offer which he made of submitting his own ships to be searched in return — that was very unequivocally disclaimed — The ruffian right of superior force was the solid base upon which the claim was as- 27 serted, and so familiar wrs this argument grown to the casuists of British national Jurisprudence, that the right of a British man of war to search an American frigate, was to them a self-evident proof against the right of the American frigate to search the British man of war. The same tone has been constantly kept up until our ac- counts of latest date ; and have been recently further invigorated by a very explicit call for war with the Uni- ted States, which they contend could be of no possible injury to Britain, and which they urge upon tlie min- istry as affording'them an excellent opportunity to ac- complish a disinember7nejit of this Union — These sen- timents have even been avowed in Parliament, where the nobleman who moved the address of the house of Lords in answer to the king's speech, declared that the right of searching national ships, ought to be maintain- ed against the Americans, and disclaimed only with respect to European sovereigns. In the mean time Admiral Berkley, by a court mar- tial of his own subordinate officers, hung one of the men taken from the Chesapeake, andcalled his name Jenkin Ratford. — There was, according to the answer so fre- quently given by the Lords of the Admiralty, upon ap- plications for the discharge of impressed Americans, no such man on boaixi the ship. The man thus executed, had been taken from the Chesapeake by the name of Wilson. It is said, that on his trial he was identified by one or two witnesses who knew him, and that before he was turned off, he confessed his name to be Ratford, and that he was born in England. But it has also been said that Ratford is now living in Pennsylvania — and af- ter the character which the disavowal of Admiral Berk- ley's own government has given to his conduct, what confidence can be claimed, or due to the proceedings of a court-marticil of his associates held to sanction his proceedings. The three other men had not even been demanded in his orders ; they were taken by the sole authority of the British searching lieutenant^ after the surrender of the Chesapeake. There was not the shad- ow of a pretence before the court-martial that they were British subjects, or born in any of the British domin- ions. Yet b}^ tlijs court-martial they were sentence^ 28 to suffer death. They were reprieved from execution, only upon condition of renouncing their rights as Amer- icans by vokuitary service in the king's ships — They have never been restored. To complete the catastro- phe with which this bloody tragedy was concluded, Ad- miral Berkley himself, in sanctioning the doom of these men — thus obtained — thus tried — and thus sentenced, read them a grave moral lecture on the enormity of their crime, in its tendency to provoke a war between the United States and Great Britain. Yet amidst all this parade of disavowal by his govern- ment — amidst all these professions of readiness to make reparation, not a single mark of the slightest disapproba- tion appears ever to have been manifested to that ofii- cer. His instructions were executed upon the Chesa- peake in June — Rumors of his recal have been circula- ted here — But on leaving the station at Halifax in De- cember, he received a complimentary address from the colonial assembly, and assured them in answ^er, that he had no official information of his recal. From thence he went to the West Indies ; and on leaving Bermuda for England in February, was addressed again by that colonial government, in terms of high panegyric upon his energy, with manifest allusion to his atchievement upon the Chesapeake. Under all these circumstances, without applying any of the maxims of a suspicious policy to the British pro- fessions, I may still be permitted to believe that their ministry never seriously intended to make us honorable reparation, or, indeed, any reparation at all, for that "unfortunate affair." It is impossible for r.ny man to form an accurate idea of the British policy towards the United States, without taking into consideration the state of parties in that gov- ernment ; and the views, characters and opinions of the individuals at their helm of State — A liberal and a hostile policy towards America, are among the strong- est marks of distinction between the political systems of the rival statesmen of that kingdom — The liberal party are reconciled to our Independence ; and though ex- tremely tenacious of every right of their own country, are systematically disposed to preserve peace with the 29 United States. Their opponents harbor sentiments of a very different description — Their system is coercion — Their object the recovery of their lost dominion in North America. This party now stands high in power. Although Admiral Berkley may never have received Avritten orders from them for his enterprize upon the Chesapeake, yet in giving his instructions to the squad- ron at Norfolk, he knew full well under what administra- tion he was acting. Every measure of that administra- tion towards us since that time has been directed to the same purpose — to break down the spirit of our national Independence. Their purpose, as far as can be collect- ed from their acts, is to force us into a war with them or with their enemies ; to leave us only the bitter alter- native of their vengeance or their protection. Both these parties are no doubt willing that we should join them in the war of their nation against France and her allies — The late administration would YiRve drawn us into it by treaty, the present are attempt- ing it by compulsion. The former would have admit- ted us as allies, the latter will have us no otherwise than as colonists. On the late debates in Parliament, the lord chanceller freely avowed tliat the orders of Council of 11th November were intended to make America at last sensible of the policy of joining Eng- land against France. This too, Sir, is the substantial argument of Mr. Pickering's letter. The suspicions of a design in our own administration to plunge us into a war with Britain, I never have shared. Our administration have every interest and every motive that can influence the conduct of man to deter them from any such purpose. Nor have I seen any thing in their measures bearing the slightest indication of it. But between a design of war with Eng- land, and a surrender of our national freedom for the sake of war with the rest of Europe, there is a material difference. This is the policy now in substance recom- mended to us, and for which the interposition of the commercial States is called. For this, not only are all the outrages of Britain to be forgotten, but the very as- sertion of our rights is to be branded with cdium. — Jmpress7neiit — Neutral trade — British tcxatioii--^\t ry so thing that can distinguish a state of national freedom from a state of national vassalage, is to be surrendered at discretion. In the face of every fact we^pe told to believe every profession- -In the midst of ever)^ indignity^ we are pointed to British protection as our only shield against the imiversal conqueror. Everj^ phantom of jealousy and fear is evoked— The image of Friuice with a scourge- in her hand is impressed into the service, to lash us into the refuge of obedience to Britain — Insinuations are even made that if Britain " with her thousand ships of war," has not destroyed our commerce, it has been ow- ing to her indulgence, and we are almost threatened in her name with the " destruction of our fairest cities." Not one act of hostility to Britain has been committed by us ; she has not a pi'etence of that kind to alledge — But if she will wage war upon us, are we to do nothing in our own defence ? If she issues orders of universal plunder upon our commerce^ are we not to withhold it from her grasp ? Is American pillage one of those rights which she has claimed and exercised until we are fore- closed from any attempt to obstruct its collection ? For what purpose are we requii-ed to make this sacrifice of every thing that can gi^ e valor to the name of freemen, this abandonment for the very right of self-preservation? Is it to avoid a war ? Alas ! Sir, it does not offer even this plausible plea for pusillanimity--For as submission would make us to all substantial purposes British colo- nies, her enemies would unquestionably treat us as such, and after degrading oursehes into voluntary servitude to escape a ^^'ar with her, we should incur inevitable war with all her enemies, and be doomed to share the desti- nies of her conflict with a world in arms. Between this unqualified submission, and offensive resistance against the war upon maritime neutrality wag- ed by the concurring decrees of all the great belligerent powers, the Embargo was adopted, and has been hither- to continued. So far was it from being dictated by France, that it was calculated to withdraw, and has with- drawn from within her reach all the means of compulsion which her subsequent decrees would have put in her pos- session. It has been added to the motives both of France and England for preserving peace with us, and hasdimin- 31 ished their mducemcnts to war. It has lessened th(fir ca- pacities of inflicting injury upon us, and given us some preparation for resistance to them — It has taken from their violence the lure of interest — It has dashed the philter of pillage from the lips of rapine. That it is dis- tressing to ourselves — that it calls for the fortitude of a people, determined to maintain their rights, is not to be denied. But the only alternative was between that and war. Whether it will yet save us from that calamity, cannot be determined, but if not, it will prepare us for the further struggle to which we may be called. Its double tendency of promoting peace and preparing for wnv, in its operation upon both the belligerent rivals, i^ the great advantage, which more than outweig'h all its evils. If arty statesman can point out another alternative, I am ready to hear him, and for any practicable ex- pedient to lend him every possible assistance. But let not that expedient be, submission to trade under British licences, and British taxation. We are told that even under these restrictions we may yet trade to the British dominions, to Africa and China, and with the col- onies of France, Spain, aad Holland. I ask nothow much of this trade would be left, \t hen our intercourse with the whole continent of Europe being cut o'fF, would leave us no means of piuxhase, and no market for sale ? — I ask not, what trade we could enjoy with the colonies of nations with which we should be at war ? I ask not how long Britain would leave open to us avenues of trade, which even in these very orders of Council, she boasts of leaving open as a special indulgence ? If we yield the principle, we abandon all pretence of national sovereignty. — To yearn for the fragments of trade which might be left, would be to pine for the crumbs of com- mercial servitude. — The boon, which we should humili- ate ourselves to accept from British bounty, "\vould soon be Avithdrawn. Submission never yet sat boundaries to encroachment. From pleading for half the empire, we should sink into supplicants for life. — We should sup- plicate in vain. If we must fall, let us fail, freemen — If we must perish, let it be in defence of our rights. 32- To conclude, Sir, I am not sensible of any necessity for the extraordinary interference of the commercial States, to controul the general Councils of the nation. — If any interference could at this critical extremity of our affairs have a kindly effect upon our common welfare, it would be an interference to promote union and not division — to urge mutual confidence, and not universal distrust — to strengthen the, arm and not to relax the sinews of the nation. Our suffering, and our dangers, though differing perhaps in degree, are universal in ex- tent. — As their causes are justly chargeable, so their removal is dependent, not upon ourselves, but upon others. But while the spirit oi Independence shall con- tinue to beat in unison with the pulses of the nation, no danger will be truly formidable — Our duties are, to prepare with concerted energy, for those which threat- en us, to meet them without dismay, and to rely for their issue upon Heaven. I am, with great respect and attachment, Dear Sir, your friend and humble servant, JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. Hon. Harjrison Gray Otis. LEA. ^'09