ページの画像
PDF
ePub

system, no plan. That which I believe in one place, I shall never hesitate to say in another. This is no time, no place for mincing our words. The people have a right to know, they shall know the state of their affairs, at least as far as I am at liberty to communicate them. I speak from personal knowledge. Ten days ago there had been no consultation, there existed no opinion in your executive department, at least none that was avowed; on the contrary, there was an express disavowal of any opinion whatsoever on the great subject before you, and I have good reason for saying that none has been formed since. Some time ago a book was laid on our table, which, like some other bantlings, did not bear the name of its father. Here I was taught to expect a solution of all doubts, an end to all our difficulties. If, sir, I were the foe, as I trust I am the friend to this nation, I would exclaim, "O that mine enemy would write a book." At the very outset, in the very first page, I believe, there is a complete abandonment of the principle in dispute. Has any gentleman got the work? [It was handed by one of the members.] The first position taken is the broad principle of the unlimited freedom of trade between nations at peace, which the writer endeavors to extend to the trade between a neutral and belligerent power, accompanied, however, by this acknowledgment-"But inasmuch as the trade of a neutral with a belligerent nation might, in certain special cases, affect the safety of its antagonist, usage founded on the principle of NECESSITY, has admitted a few exceptions to the general rule." Whence comes the doctrine of contraband, blockade, and enemy's property? Now, sir, for what does that celebrated pamphlet, "War in Disguise," which is said to have been written under the eye of the British prime minister, contend, but this "principle of necessity?" And this ground is abandoned by this pamphleteer at the very threshold of the discussion. But, as if this were not enough, he goes on to assign as a reason for not referring to the authority of the ancients, that "the great change which has taken place in the state of manners, in the maxims of war, and in the course of commerce, make it pretty certain" (what degree of certainty is this?) "that either nothing will be found relating to the question, or nothing sufficiently applicable to deserve attention in deciding it." Here, sir, as an apology of the writer for not disclosing the whole extent of his learning (which might have overwhelmed the reader), is the admission that a change of circumstances ("in the course of commerce") has made (and therefore will now justify) a total change of the law of nations. What more could the most inveterate advocate of English usurpation demand? What else can they require to establish all, and even more than they contend for? Sir, there is a class of men-we know them very well-who, if you only permit them to lay the foundation,

will build you up step by step, and brick by brick, very neat and showy, if not tenable arguments. To detect them, 'tis only necessary to watch their premises, where you will often find the point at issue totally surrendered, as in this case it is. Again, is the mare liberum any where asserted in this book? that free ships make free goods?—No, sir; the right of search is acknowledged; that enemy's property is lawful prize is sealed and delivered. And after abandoning these principles, what becomes of the doctrine that a mere shifting of the goods from one ship to another, the touching at another port, changes the property? Sir, give up this principle, and there is an end of the question.

SPEECH OF JOSIAH QUINCY,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, NOVEMBER 28, 1808,

On the following Resolution, “Resolved, that the United States cannot, without a sacrifice of their rights, honor, and independence, submit to the late edicts of Great Britain and France."

MR. CHAIRMAN,

Ostenta

I am not, in general, a friend to abstract legislation. tious declaration of general principles is so often the resort of weakness and of ignorance; it is so frequently the subterfuge of men who are willing to amuse, or who mean to delude the people, that it is with great reluctance I yield to such a course my sanction. If, however, a formal annunciation of a determination to perform one of the most common and undeniable of national duties be deemed, by a majority of this house, essential to their character, or to the attainment of public confidence, I am willing to admit, that the one now offered is as unexceptionable as any it would be likely to propose.

In this view, however, I lay wholly out of sight the report of the committee, by which it is accompanied and introduced. The course advocated in that report is, in my opinion, loathsome; the spirit it breathes disgraceful; the temper it is likely to inspire, neither calculated to regain the rights we have lost, nor to preserve those which remain to us. It is an established maxim, that, in adopting a resolution offered by a committee in this house, no member is pledged to support the reasoning, or made sponsor for the facts which they have seen fit to insert in it. I exercise, therefore, a common right, when I subscribe to the resolution, not on the principles of the committee, but on those which obviously result from its terms, and are the plain meaning of its expressions.

I agree to this resolution, because, in my apprehension, it offers a solemn pledge to this nation;-a pledge not to be mistaken, and not to be evaded, that the present system of public measures shall be totally abandoned. Adopt it, and there is an end of the policy of deserting our rights, under a pretence of maintaining them. Adopt it, and we no longer yield to the beck of haughty

21

Нн

belligerents the rights of navigating the ocean-that choice inheritance bequeathed to us by our fathers. Adopt it, and there is a termination of that base and abject submission, by which this country has for these eleven months been disgraced and brought to the brink of ruin.

That the natural import and necessary implication of the terms of this resolution are such as I have suggested, will be apparent from a very transient consideration. What do its terms necessarily include? They contain an assertion and a pledge. The assertion is, that the edicts of Great Britain and France are contrary to our rights, honor, and independence. The pledge is, that we will not submit to them.

Concerning the assertion contained in this resolution, I would say nothing, were it not that I fear that those who have so long been in the habit of looking at the orders and decrees of foreign powers, as the measure of the rights of our own citizens, and have been accustomed, in direct subserviency to them, of prohibiting commerce altogether, might apprehend that there was some lurking danger in such an assertion. They may be assured there can be nothing more harmless. Neither Great Britain nor France ever pretended that those edicts were consistent with American rights. On the contrary, both these nations ground those edicts on the principle of imperious necessity, which admits the injustice done, at the very instant of executing the act of oppression. No gentleman need have any difficulty in screwing his courage up to this assertion. Neither of the belligerents will contradict it. Mr. Turreau and Mr. Erskine will both of them countersign the declaration to-morrow.

With respect to the pledge, contained in this resolution, understood according to its true import, it is a glorious one. It opens new prospects. It promises a change in the disposition of this house. It is a solemn assurance to the nation, that it will no longer submit to these edicts. It remains for us, therefore, to consider what submission is, and what the pledge not to submit implies.

One man submits to the order, decree, or edict of another, when he does that thing which such order, decree, or edict commands; or when he omits to do that thing, which such order, decree, or edict prohibits. This, then, is submission. It is to do as we are bidden. It is to take the will of another as the measure of our rights. It is to yield to his power; to go where he directs, or to refrain from going where he forbids us.

If this be submission, then the pledge not to submit implies the reverse of all this. It is a solemn declaration, that we will not do that thing which such order, decree, or edict commands, or that we will do what it prohibits. This, then, is freedom. This is

honor. This is independence. It consists in taking the nature of things, and not the will of another, as the measure of our rights. What God and nature has offered us, we will enjoy in despite of the commands, regardless of the menaces of iniquitous power.

Let us apply these correct and undeniable principles to the edicts of Great Britain and France, and the consequent abandonment of the ocean by the American government. The decrees of France prohibit us from trading with Great Britain. The orders of Great Britain prohibit us from trading with France. And what do we? Why, in direct subserviency to the edicts of each, we prohibit our citizens from trading with either. We do more; as if unqualified submission was not humiliating enough, we descend to an act of supererogation in servility; we abandon trade altogether; we not only refrain from that particular trade which their respective edicts proscribe, but lest the ingenuity of our merchants should enable them to evade their operation, to make submission doubly sure, the American government virtually reenact the edicts of the belligerents, and abandon all the trade, which, notwithstanding the practical effects of their edicts, remain to us. The same conclusion will result if we consider our embargo in relation to the objects of this belligerent policy. France, by her edicts, would oppress Great Britain, by destroying her commerce and cutting off her supplies. All the continent of Europe, in the hand of Bonaparte, is made subservient to this policy. The embargo law of the United States, in its operation, is a union with this continental coalition against British commerce, at the very moment most auspicious to its success. Can any thing be more in direct subserviency to the views of the French emperor? If we consider the orders of Great Britain, the result will be the same. I proceed, at present, on the supposition of a perfect impartiality in our administration towards both belligerents, so far as relates to the embargo law. Great Britain had two objects in view in issuing her ordersFirst, to excite discontent in the people of the continent, by depriving them of their accustomed colonial supplies. Second, to secure to herself that commerce of which she deprived neutrals. Our embargo coöperates with the British views in both respects. By our dereliction of the ocean, the continent is much more deprived of the advantages of commerce, than it would be possible for the British navy to effect; and by removing our competition, all the commerce of the continent which can be forced, is wholly left to be reaped by Great Britain. The language of each sovereign is in direct conformity to these ideas. Napoleon tells the American minister virtually, that we are very good Americans; that, although he will not allow the property he has in his hands to escape him, nor desist from burning and capturing our vessels on every occasion, yet that he is, thus far, satisfied with our co

« 前へ次へ »