surpassed that of all the other neutral nations; and with the British dominions was very extensive, and of vast importance to both. To render the blockade of the British islands "complete," the commerce of neutrals with them must cease. This object, in respect to the United States, could be accomplished only by an Embargo. In four days after the arrival at Washington of Armstrong's despatches by the Revenge, containing the letters of the Grand Judge and Bonaparte's Minister Champagny, Mr. Jefferson recommended his Unlimited Embargo.*One more fact:-On the 8th of February 1808 (less than two months after the passing of the embargo law) the Secretary of State, Mr. Madison, in his letter to General Armstrong, on this subject, says, "The conduct of the French go"vernment, in giving this extended operation to its de"cree, and indeed in issuing one with such an appa"rent or doubtful import against the rights of the sea, "is the more extraordinary, inasmuch as the inability "to enforce it on that element, exhibited the measure "in the light of an EMPTY MENACE.So then, Mr. Jefferson's Embargo, which prostrated our immense commerce, which ruined many, and seriously injured *The following extract, recently found among my papers, of a letter, dated January 2, 1808 (eleven days after the embargo law had passed) from a respectable gentleman in New-York to his father, a member of Congress at Washington, merits attention. "It is said, and from correct sources, that Mr. Armstrong gave notice, in Amsterdam, that a general embargo would take place in the United States "immediately on the arrival of the Revenge; and that, in one day, sugar rose "from 13 to 19 dollars, and coffee from 21 to 27 stivers, in consequence of "that information." The Revenge arrived at New-York. The bearer of the despatches was Dr. Bullus, surgeon to the marine corps. New-York papers announced her arrival, and, among other articles of news, stated this-that the French Emperor said there should be no neutrals. I did not doubt the truth of the report ; but, not having the evidence of the fact, in my first letter to Gov. Sullivan, Feb. 16, 1808, on the embargo, I merely asked the question, "Has the French Emperor declared that he will have no neutrals?" J. Q. Adams, in his letter to Mr. Otis, dated the following 31st of March, roundly affirmed, that "The French Emperor had not declared that he would have no neutrals." Yet it afterwards appeared that Gen. Armstrong officially communicated the Emperor's declaration, "That the Americans should be compelled to take the positive character of either allies or enemies," that is, they should not be neutrals. + State Papers, vol. 1808-9, page 232. all, of our citizens, was founded on an empty menace! I now leave every intelligent reader to judge, whether the real object of the Embargo was, "to keep in safety "our vessels and merchandise," or, to render the French Emperor's decree of blockade of the British islands "complete." To him, it is certain, the Embargo was acceptable; he passed a decree to enforce its execution. And at a subsequent period (August 5, 1810) his minister informed Gen. Armstrong, that "the Emperor applauded the Embargo." Such were the grounds, or pretexts, for the Embargo. The President's message, and the four papers accompanying it, were referred to a committee, of whom John Q. Adams was one. In a short time they reported a bill for laying an Embargo. It was read once. A motion made to read it, immediately, a second time, was objected to; it was repugnant to a standing rule of the Senate, wisely formed, to prevent hasty decisions. To remove this difficulty, the Senate, on a motion for the purpose," Resolved, That so much "of the 12th rule for doing business in the Senate, as "requires that three readings shall be on three diffe"rent days, unless the Senate unanimously direct otherwise, be suspended for three days." The bill was then read a second time, as in committee of the whole, and reported to the House without amendment. Then the bill (having been quickly engrossed) was read a third time, and passed-yeas 22, nays 6. Those who voted in the negative were 66 Messrs. Crawford, Hillhouse, Maclay, The time occupied in this business, from the reception of the President's message, to the passing of the bill, was about four hours. It was Friday. A motion was made to postpone the further consideration of the bill until the next Monday: It passed in the negative. On motion of Mr. Crawford, That the bill be postponed till the next day, it passed in the negative, yeas 12, nays 16. Mr. Adams was among the nays. No 66 99 member of the Senate displayed equal zeal for the passing of the bill. In opposing a postponement, to obtain further information, and to consider a measure of such moment, of such universal concern, Mr. Adams made this memorable declaration: "The President has "recommended the measure on his high responsibility: I would not consider-I would not deliberate: I "would act. Doubtless the PRESIDENT possesses such further information as will justify the measure"!· This sentiment was so extraordinary, that I instantly wrote it down. It shocked even Mr. Jefferson's devoted partisans. "However I may vote, (a member was heard to remark) that is too much for me to say.' For my own part, I originally viewed, and I still view, the sentiment as so abhorrent to the principles of a free government, so derogatory to the character of a member of Congress, such a dereliction of duty, and so disgraceful to a man of sense, that I am incapable of conceiving of any counterbalance in official honours and emoluments. An embassy, a judgeship, or the presidency, to an honourable and independent mind, would, in the comparison, be "as a drop in the buck"et-and the small dust of the balance." Upon the principle advanced by J. Q. Adams, what becomes of the "checks and balances," which are the pillars of his father's "Great Work" (as it has been called) on the American Constitutions of Government? By the Constitution of the United States, the Senate and House of Representatives were intended as checks on the acts of each other, and both as checks on those of the President. The sentiment expressed by Mr. Adams resolves the whole business of legislation into the will of the Executive. The bill, passed by the Senate, was immediately sent to the House of Representatives. There it was long and earnestly contested; and did not pass until Tuesday, the 22d of December. On the same day it' received the President's approbation, and became a law. In the year 1807, the registered tonnage of the Uni ted States, employed in foreign trade, amounted to $48,306 tons. Of this, Massachusetts owned 310,309 tons, almost equal to the united tonnage of the three states of New-York, Pennsylvania and Maryland, which amounted only to 322,836 tons. That vast quantity of shipping belonging to Massachusetts, giving employment to many thousands of her citizens on the water and on the land, was to be laid waste by the Embargo, unlimited in its duration, and contemplated, I have not a shadow of doubt, by its author, to endure as long as the war between France and Great-Britain should continue. Seeing then, as every impartial reader will now see and acknowledge, that the reasons, presented to Congress for imposing the Embargo, were but shallow pretences, and, as resting on the Berlin decree, amounted, according to Mr. Madison, only to "an empty menace;" and as, according to J. Q. Adams (as will presently be shown) the four papers laid before Congress, containing Mr. Jefferson's reasons for recommending an Embargo, were but four "naughts ;" and viewing with horror and indignation its destructive effects; thought it to be my duty to give to the greatest navigating State in the Union, which I in part represented, such information concerning it as was in my power; that the State might take such measures to obtain a removal of the evil as her wisdom should direct. For this purpose, I wrote a long letter, dated the 16th of February 1808, to Mr. Sullivan, Governor of Massachusetts, to be laid before the Legislature, then in session; and through that channel to pass to all my fellow-citizens. But, from a knowledge of his party politics, apprehensive that my object would not be obtained through him, I sent a copy to my excellent friend, the lately deceased George Cabot-a man of so enlightened a mind, of such wisdom, virtue and piety, that one must travel far, very far, to find his equal. After waiting a few days, finding that the ori ginal was not communicated to the Legislature, Mr. Cabot sent the copy to a printer. It first appeared in a small pamphlet; and, being re-published in pamphlets and newspapers, was soon spread over the United States. In this letter I neither named nor alluded to my colleague, J. Q. Adams. 66 66 66 66 The Governor refused to communicate my letter to the Legislature. He sent it back to me, in a letter of rebuke, for my expecting him to make such a communication. In my reply, justifying the step I had taken, I said, "I confess there seemed to be a peculiar fitness "in a Senator's addressing the Legislature from whom ❝he immediately derives his appointment. And in the present case, seeing my letter embraced the highest "concerns of our country, in which Massachusetts "holds so large a stake, especially in a commercial point of view, I could not imagine that I was offending her chief magistrate, in presenting a view of those "concerns to him, to be afterwards laid before the Legislature." This reply was dated the 9th of March. On the 18th, the Governor wrote me a long, but not very courteous, letter. My answer, not destitute of reciprocity, was still longer; and, in the estimation of my friends in Boston, who caused it to be printed, was, in all respects, a complete vindication. The last paragraph in the Governor's letter contained these words: "Mr. Adams, your colleague, is quite opposed to you "in his opinion of the embargo. He voted for it, and "still considers it as a wise measure, and as a necessa❝ry one. I have his letters before me upon it." In answer to this, I say, "True-he did vote for the em"bargo; and I must now tell your Excellency how he "advocated that measure. It is not willingly, sir, that "I speak of him in an address to the public. Though "often opposed in opinion, on national measures, there "has never existed for a moment any personal diffe"rence between us. But as you have now contrasted "his opinion with mine, to invalidate my public state"ments, you compel me to relate the fact. 66 "In my first letter I informed your Excellency of "the haste with which the embargo bill was passed in "the Senate. I also informed you that a 'little more "time was repeatedly asked, to obtain further infor |