the extraordinary nature of the proposition itself, would justify a latitude and severity of remark, which, however, I am not disposed to indulge upon this occasion. I know that I address myself to a very respectable portion of the collected wisdom and patriotism of my country: I will, therefore, leave the honorable members from Pennsylvania and Delaware, (Mr. Ross and Mr. White,) in the undisturbed possession of their inflammatory appeals and declamatory effusions, and will manifest a becoming respect for the high authority to which I have the honor to speak, by moving on the ground of argument and of fact. To prevent losing myself in so spacious a field, I will consider the subject under three distinct heads: first, the injuries alleged to have been committed on the part of Spain: second, the nature, character and tendency of the remedy proposed: third, its justice and policy.

The importance of a free navigation of the Mississippi has been duly appreciated by the government; and a constant eye has been kept upon it, in our negociations with foreign powers. An attempt was, indeed, made, under the old confederation, to barter it away for twenty-five years, which, however, was efficiently controlled by the good sense and patriotism of the government. By the treaty of peace with Great Britain, in 1783, by the treaty of amity, commerce and navigation with her, in 1794, and by the treaty of friendship, limits and navigation with Spain, in 1795, the right of a free navigation of the Mississippi is recognized, and declared to exist, from its source to the ocean, in the citizens of the United States. By the

the expiration of the three years, if, during that time, it was found not to be prejudicial to the interests of Spain. And it was further stipu lated, that if it should not be continued there, an equivalent establishment should be assigned at some other place upon the bank of the Mississippi.

In October, 1802, the Intendant of New Orleans issued a proclamation, prohibiting the citizens of the United States from depositing their merchandize, &c. at New Orleans, without assigning any other equivalent establishment according to the provisions of the treaty.

COMPILER.

twenty-second article of the treaty with Spain, it is declared, that" in consequence of the stipulations contained in the fourth article, his Catholic majesty will permit the citizens of the United States, for the space of three years from this time, to deposit their merchandize and effects in the port of New Orleans, and to export them from thence without paying any other duty than a fair price for the hire of the stores. And his majesty promises either to continue this permission, if he finds, during that time, that it is not prejudicial to the interests of Spain, or if he should not agree to continue it there, he will assign to them, on another part of the banks of the Mississippi, an equivalent esta blishment." The twenty-second article, granting the right of deposit, is, therefore, founded upon the fourth article recognizing the right of free navigation, and is intended to give full and complete efficacy to it. By a proclamation of the Intendant of the province of Louisiana, dated the 16th of October last, the right of deposit is prohibited. The reason assigned for this daring interdiction is, that the three years, for which it was granted, having expired, it cannot be continued without an express order from the king of Spain. And, at the same time, no equivalent establishment is assigned according to the stipulations of the treaty.

There can be no doubt but that the suspension of the right of deposit at New Orleans, and the assignment of another place equally convenient, ought to have been contemporaneous and concurrent; that the conduct of the Intendant is an atrocious infraction of the treaty, and that it aims a deadly blow at the prosperity of the western states; but it is extremely questionable whether it was authorized by the government of Spain or not. On this subject I am free to declare, that I entertain great doubts, which can only be cleared up by the course of events, or perhaps it will ever be enveloped in darkness. On the one hand, the terms of the proclamation, indicating a misunderstanding of the treaty, the remonstrances of the governor of the

province, whose authority does not extend to commercial and fiscal affairs, over which the Intendant has an exclusive control, and the prompt and decided assurances of the Spanish minister near the United States, would induce a belief, that the act of the Intendant was unauthorized. On the other hand, it cannot readily be believed that this officer would assume such an immense responsibility, and encounter an event so big with important consequences, not only to his country, but to himself, without knowing explicitly the intentions of his government. Such then, is the true state of the Spanish aggression: an important right has been secured to our citizens by the solemnity of a treaty; this right has been withdrawn by an officer of the Spanish government, and whether this aggression was directed by it or not, is not as yet known. Other aggressions have, indeed, been stated by the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Ross,) in order to darken the picture, and with the manifest design of exasperating our feelings, inflaming our passions, and prompting an immediate appeal to the sword. That gentleman has mentioned, that great and unwarrantable spoliations have been committed upon our commerce by Spain, and that redress is refused. The depredations, previous to the treaty of 1795, were satisfactorily provided for in it, and those subsequent are in a favorable train of negociation and adjustment. If it were permitted to me to draw aside the veil which covers our executive proceedings, I could establish, to the satisfaction of every person present, that the honorable mover has wandered widely from candor and the convictions of his own knowledge, in his representations on this subject. I will, at present, content myself with giving an unqualified contradiction to his declarations, and do cheerfully appeal to the information within the power of every member of the senate, for the accuracy of my assertion. I am fully satisfied that the court of Madrid has not only entertained, but has manifested in her negociations every disposition to

maintain inviolate the relations of amity with this country. When, therefore, the honorable mover proceeded to state, that several of our citizens had been seized and imprisoned by the colonial authorities of Spain, I might ask, whether any government in the world pretended to protect her citizens in the violation of the laws of other nations? Whether our citizens, in the situation he has represented, had not been concerned in illicit trade, and in violating the laws of the Spanish colonies? Instances may have indeed occurred, where innocent persons have been unjustly dealt with; and whenever representations to this effect shall be made to our government, I have no doubt but that ample redress will be instantly demanded and insisted upon. Nothing has been laid before us which can authorize the assertions made on this subject. Whenever such conduct shall be brought home to Spain, and prompt and complete satisfaction denied, I shall then consider it the duty of the government to vindicate the rights of our citizens at all hazards; and I cannot but congratulate the honorable mover, and the other side of the House, on the resurrection of that. ardent zeal in favor of their oppressed countrymen, which has so long and so soundly slept over British and French enormities.

As to the nature, character and tendency of the remedy proposed, there can be but one opinion. It proposes to enter the country of a foreign nation, with a hostile force, and to seize a part of its territory. It is not preceded by a formal declaration, and cannot, therefore, come under the denomination of a solemn war; but it partakes of the character of a war not solemn. It answers to the definition of war, by Burlamaqui, "a nation taking up arms with a view to decide a quarrel;" to that given by Vattel, who represents it to be, "that state in which a nation prosecutes its right by force." A state of general hostilities would as necessarily follow, as an effect would follow a cause: no nation would submit to the irruption of a

hostile army, without repelling it by force: the proud Castilian, as described by the gentleman from Delaware, would revolt at the insult; the door of negociation would be effectually closed, and as the appeal would be to arms, in the first instance, so the controversy must be finally decided by the preponderance of force. It would, therefore, not only have impressed me with a more favorable opinion of the honorable mover's candor, but also of his decision and energy as a statesman, if he had spoken out boldly, and declared his real object. War is unquestionably his designhis wish. Why then mask his propositions? Why then combine it with considerations connected with negociation? Why not furnish the American people, at once, with the real and the whole project of himself and his friends? If it is bottomed on patriotism, and dictated by wisdom, it need not shrink from the touch of investigation; it will receive their approving voice, and be supported by all their force. The resolution is, then, to be considered as a war resolution; in no other light can it be viewed; in no other light ought it to be viewed, and in no other light will it be viewed by the intelligence of the country.

In this point of view, I will proceed to consider its justice and policy, its conformity with the law and usage of nations, and the substantial interests of this country.

I shall not attempt to occupy your attention by threadbare declamation upon the evils of war, by painting the calamities it inflicts upon the happiness of individuals, and the prosperity of nations. This terrible scourge of mankind, worse than the famine or pestilence, ought not to be resorted to, until every reasonable expedient has been adopted to avert it. When aggressions have been committed by the sovereign or representatives of the will of a nation, negociation ought, in all cases, to be first tried, unless the rights of self-defence demand a contrary course. This is the practice of nations, and is enjoined by the