On the 10th of January Mr. Hanson withdrew the second resolution, and offered the following as a substitute:

Resolved, That a committee be appointed to enquire whether Mr. Turreau, late minister of France, did or did not, on or about the 14th of June, 1807, write a letter to the secretary of state, setting forth the terms and conditions upon which his government would treat of amity and commerce with the United States, and urging certain complaints against this government, and requiring certain political sacrifices to be made as an indispensable pre-requisite to the formation of such a treaty, and whether the said letter was not withdrawn from the archives of the department of state, and how and when it was so withdrawn; and that the said committee have power to send for persons and papers.

On the following day, the first resolution passed in the affirmative without a division. On the question being stated on the second,

Mr. Cathoun said, it was a good rule generally in cases of this kind, that enquiry be granted, where it is moved in a proper manner. On such motions a very great liberality had usually prevailed in this house, which had been displayed in the vote just taken. But, as to the particular resolution before us, it is of that class which ought not to be passed in the present stage of its existence. To induce the house to pass this resolution, there ought to be three things stated. To warrant the adoption, a specific object ought to be first stated; secondly, what was expected to grow out of it; and thirdly, that the object was of a character to warrant the investigation. Such enquiries as that now proposed, without these three pre-requisites, would, he conceived, violate the spirit of the constitution. By that instrument diplomacy was confided wholly to the executive. This house had indeed the power to require information, but it was through the executive department that it ought to be sought for, and not through inquisitorial committees of this house, or on such vague statements as had been made.

Mr. Hanson said, he had flattered himself, when he had the honour to make a statement a few days ago on this subject to the house, that his object would be distinctly understood. As to the proceeding which this house in its wisdom might think proper to ground on this resolution, it was not for him to dictate. Certain it was, that if any high and responsible officer had done any act for which he was amenable to the constitutional authority, it was the duty of this house to lay the foundation for an enquiry. The statement which he had made, was, of itself, he conceived, sufficient foundation for the house to proceed upon. He entertained no wish on his part to examine the department

of state, as the gentleman appeared to suppose, or any officer of the government, in relation to the object of the enquiry: on the contrary, he pledged himself to be able to prove the statement he then made, without resorting to any department of the government. He denied in toto the principle laid down by the gentleman from South Carolina on the subject of the grounds necessary to authorize enquiry. Do we not know, said he, that it is the practice in this house, as well as in the British parliament, that information given by any member rising in his place may be made the foundation of an enquiry? It had been stated in this house, that a letter of a most insulting nature, requiring of this government the most degrading political sacrifices, a letter striking at the honour of the government, had been transmitted by the French minister to the secretary of state, and placed on the files of that department. And what constituted the files of that office? If such a letter had been transmitted to the department of state, and suffered to remain in that office, was it not on the files of the department? Was it necessary that it should be recorded, to constitute its admission? It had remained in the office sufficiently long to give it an official character.

the nature of this document? As far back as the year 1809— when a minister coming from England with full powers to negociate a treaty of amity and commerce was momently expected the French minister addresses to this government a letter, to be held as a rod in terrorem if we presumed to negociate with Britain. This letter set forth certain pretended grievances, and required particular political sacrifices of our government, on the presumption that it was going to make a treaty with Great Britain. It appeared from that letter, that France set forth certain disgraceful and dishonourable conditions, on which alone it would remain at amity with this government. Now, call this document public or private, the question was-had it been received by our government? The views and feelings of the French government had been spread on paper, and could be as well known through a private as through a public document. As to the objection that the letter was a private letter addressed to the gentleman who held the office of secretary of state, but not in his official capacity, Mr. H. said that this objection was perfectly frivolous. The letter was addressed to Robert Smith, Esq. as secretary of state; it treated of nothing but public business; and the minister said he felt himself thus called upon to explain to the American the views of the French government. Not to go fully into the subject at this time, but merely to show that this house was already possessed of sufficient information to act on this subject, it was enough to say that a document of immense

importance to the nation had been concealed and suppressed from public view; that whilst we have gone on to consider France as a friendly power, yet, as far back as 1809, our government perfectly well knew that it had nothing to expect from the justice of France. And, after having made those political sacrifices, one after another, and thus done every thing required of us by this tool of a despot, what had we received in return? Had there been any restoration of the millions on millions of property stolen from us, or did the house know to this day, even, that our minister had been accredited at the French court-It was of the utmost importance that such matters should be enquired into. It was a radical principle of our government that information should be as widely as possible diffused among the people; that they should not be kept in a situation of delusion; that they should not be hood-winked and blinded to the real state of our affairs with foreign nations—and it could not be denied that an impenetrable veil had heretofore been spread over our relations with France. Was it not of importance to this house and to the nation to know in what manner we had been involved in a war, which one half of this community knew to be unjust and unnecessary, and felt to be oppressive? Sir, said Mr. H. I want an opportunity to prove facts; and, if gentlemen then pronounce a verdict of acquittance, let them do so. But do not suppress an enquiry; do not, by smothering investigation, attempt to give impunity to such conduct. Gentlemen appeared to him, Mr. H. said, to take offence, as if they had a fee simple in the government, or a lease of power for ninety-nine years, renewable for ever, whenever any investigation was proposed which struck at the character of the executive. They must expect, said he, and if they do not they ought, that we shall use every fair and honourable means to oust them from the possession of power, which we feel they have abused. This house has pledged itself to the people, by implication, that this subject shall be investigated; and let me ask them what will be the impression if this motion be rejected? As to the impression I wish to produce, sir, the rejection of this motion will be tantamount to a positive proof of all that I have alleged.

Mr. Calhoun said he now hoped the house would refuse the enquiry proposed. He had asked for a specification of the object, and had received none. He had asked for practical consequences to result from it, and had received none. Mr. C. pronounced the resolution extraordinary in its character, and unprecedented in its form. The resolution went to break into the executive offices, to call ex parte witnesses before the house, for what purpose? For the highest purpose in the power of the

house? No; for a mere inquisitorial and vexatious procedure, which is, as no such purpose is avowed, to lay no foundation for impeachment, the only object which would justify the application of such means. Suppose it were proved that this letter was in fact written by gen. Turreau, and that all the other circumstances relating to it were true, which for himself he did not credit, what did it prove? Merely that an impertinent letter had been written by a foreign minister. Did the executive sanction it? No. What view the executive ought to take of such a letter, or how to treat it, depended on a variety of circumstances, on which this house had not the means to form an opinion. Mr. C. repeated the three requisites he had before stated as necessary to justify this enquiry. If gentlemen could show that a crime had been committed by the executive, of such a character as to make him amenable to the constitutional authority of this body, then and not till then would he consent to an enquiry which was equally a novelty in this house and in the history of legislation. The question on the adoption of the second resolution was decided in the negative, 60 to 100.

§ 11. The next day Mr. Roberts, of Pennsylvania, moved a resolution, in exactly the same words as the original second resolution of Mr. Hanson, and which Mr. H. had withdrawn in favour of the one which had been yesterday rejected.

Mr. Hanson stated, as a reason for varying the form of his original motion to that which was yesterday debated, that new circumstances had come into his possession not before known, which rendered it useless to send to the president. The subject would be consigned to the tomb of all the Capulets, buried for ever, if the proposed course was taken, as in a like case at last session. We ask for bread, and they give us a stone; we ask for information, and they give us an argument. The facts are all we want. Mr. H. then moved to amend the resolution, so as to read nearly as follows:

"Resolved, That this house will, on the day of next, receive evidence at the bar of the house, of the manner in which and time when a certain paper, &c. &c. was withdrawn, &c. and how and in what manner it came into the possession of a mem-` ber of this house, &c."

Mr. Hanson's amendment was negatived, and Mr. Roberts' motion carried by a large majority.

The answer of the executive to these resolutions will be found among the "State Papers" in a subsequent part of this volume, p. 24] and 26]. The letter of Turreau alluded to will be found in an appendix to this volume. It first appeared in a paper printed at Georgetown, D. C., and was stated by the editors to be in

VOL. III.

H H

the handwriting of Mr. Graham, chief clerk in the department of state.

On the 4th of February Mr. Hanson made another unavailing attempt to induce the house to receive testimony at the bar of the house relative to the manner in which the translation had come into his possession.

§ 12. On the 3d of January, in the house of representatives, Mr. Webster, of New Hampshire, moved that the message received last session from the president, in answer to certain resolutions of the house relative to the repeal of the French decrees, be referred to the committee of foreign relations.

The resolution was agreed to, after being so modified as to refer the message to a committee of the whole.

The subject, however, was not again acted on, the house refusing to take it up, on motion of Mr. Webster, on the 2d of April, 37 to 75.

CHAPTER VI.

§ 1. Rejection of the Russian mediation. § 2. Motion for papers relative to it. 3. Abstract of those documents. § 4. Motion for a suspension of military operations. § 5. Resignation of the speaker. § 6. Relations with France. §7. Organization of the navy department. § 8. Appropriations. § 9. Adjournment of congress.

1. On the 6th of January, the president communicated to congress a letter from lord Castlereagh, stating the rejection of the Russian mediation by Great Britain, but offering to treat at London or Gottenburg.

2. A few days afterwards, in the house of representatives, Mr. Calhoun, of South Carolina, after observing that, as the president had informed the house the Russian mediation was at an end, there could be no objection to calling for papers relative to it, offered a resolution to the following effect, which was agreed to, nem. con.

Resolved, That the president of the United States be requested to lay before the house such documents in relation to the Russian mediation, as, in his opinion, it may not be inexpedient to communicate.

In compliance with this resolution, the president communicated a correspondence between Mr. Daschkoff, the Russian minister in the United States, with the American secretary of