negociation, and avert war; that we will lose our character, if we do not; that delay will give Spain time to prepare; that our executive has taken no course that we know of, and that the opposition will lend us their aid if we follow their advice. In opposition to these suggestions, we say that the seizure of New Orleans is war in fact, and will shut out negociation; that character is to be lost, not by firm and honorable moderation, but by rash and boyish precipitation; that delay is an evil that cannot be avoided, if we pursue the path of negociation, which is the course our government has taken, and that if it gives our adversary time for preparation, it will also furnish us with the same advantage; that however desirable it may be to produce an union of sentiment and action among our fellow-citizens, we are certain that it will not result from the adoption of the present measure; that the great body of the people will consider it rash and unjust; and that, in gaining the transient and doubtful support of a small minority, we will alienate the affections, and lose the confidence of our best friends, who will certainly desert us, when we desert the laudable principles which ought alone to entitle us to their esteem and attachment. If negociation shall prove successful, and of this I have no doubt, all the evils resulting from war will be averted. If, on the contrary, it shall eventuate unfortunately, and we shall be compelled to face all consequences, and risk all dangers in the maintenance of our national honor and national rights, great and abundant advantages will still result from the pursuit of this course, and we will be enabled to appeal to the sword with a full conviction of the justice of our conduct, with the unanimous suffrage of our country, and to the perfect satisfaction of the world. In the mean time, we can form some necessary preparations, and we can ascertain the feelings and bearings of foreign governments. Every day of procrastination will find ns better prepared, and will give us more people, more resources, more treasure, more force, with less debt. Our national character will stand high for moderation and justice; our own citizens, and foreign nations, will entertain but one opinion on the subject; and we can then confidently appeal to that great and good Being, who holds in his hands the destiny of nations, to smile upon our cause: but, if in the inscrutable decrees of his providence, it is ordained that we must perish, we will at least fall with dignity, and maintain our character, when we lose our existence. SPEECH OF JAMES ROSS. ON HIS RESOLUTIONS RELATIVE TO THE FREE NAVIGATION OF THE MISSISSIPPI,* DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MR. PRESIDENT, THE propriety of introducing these resolutions becomes every day more apparent. Since they have been laid on the table, our national councils have taken a new direction, and assumed a much more promising aspect. Until these resolutions were brought forward, there has been no military preparation; no proposal to detach militia; to build arsenals on the western waters; to provide armed boats for the protection of our trade on the Mississippi. I am happy in seeing gentlemen on the opposite side, pursuing a more vigorous course than they were at first inclined to adopt; and I hope they will, before long, consent to take stronger and more effectual measures for the security of what is in hazard. As I have, on a late occasion, stated at large my reasons for presenting these resolutions, I will not detain the senate with a repetition of them, except where they have been misrepresented or distorted during the debate. I cannot suppose that any gentleman would intentionally misstate what has been said; but it is *See page 236. very certain, that sentiments and assertions have been ascribed to me, in the course of the discussion, not warranted by any thing I have advanced. Every gentleman, who has spoken in this debate, excepting the honorable gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Wright,) admits, that the United States have an indisputable right to the free navigation of the river Mississippi, and to a place of deposit in the island of New Orleans. All agree, that this right is of immense magnitude and importance to the western country. All agree, that it has been grossly and wantonly violated-and all agree, that unless the right be restored and secured, we must and will go to war. Upon what, then, do we really differ? Upon nothing but the time of acting-whether we shall take measures for immediate restoration and security, or whether we shall abstain from all military preparation, and wait the issue of negociation. There is no disagreement but upon this point; for if negociation fails, every man, who has spoken, has pledged himself to declare war. A number of the objections, made against the adoption of measures we have proposed, deserve to be noticed. The honorable gentleman from New York, (Mr. Clinton,) when composing his speech, has made an elaborate research into ancient and modern history, for the purpose of showing what had been the practice of nations. He has collected all the objections together and classed them under three heads. Other gentlemen, who have spoken in opposition, have taken nearly the same ground, and made, in substance, the same objection: I will, therefore, follow the arrangement made by the honorable gentleman, (Mr. Clinton,) and I am persuaded, that it will be easy to show, he has, in many instances, mistaken the most material features of the authorities he has adduced, and more than once misstated the positions which I undertook to refute. He has, however, admitted the magnitude of the right, that it has been violated, and that if ne gociation should fail, we must go to war. He has made objections under these three heads, and insisted: first, that the infraction may be unauthorized; second, that negociation ought, in all cases, to precede the employment of force; third. that reasons of policy should dissuade us from using force at present, even supposing we have just cause of immediate war. The first objection has already been amply refuted by the gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. Dayton,) the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. J. Mason,) and the gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. White.) I will only remark, in addition, that whether authorized or not, is not now very material. If authorized, the temper, the design must certainly be that of an enemy, and you should act accordingly. If unauthorized, seize the culprit and send him home to his master, who will punish him for a breach of duty. Let him answer with his head for embroiling two friendly nations who wish to live in peace. Why wait till you send three thousand miles and inquire whether he had orders or not? He is visibly a wrongdoer: remove him, and protect what he would wrest from No man, when proceeding on the highway to market, and stopped by his neighbor's servant, would send out into the country to inquire whether his master had authorized the outrage. No, he would punish and remove the aggressor and proceed on his journey, leaving the circumstance of orders, or no orders, to be settled between himself and the master afterwards. Besides, in this instance, the person inflicting the injury, declares he has no right to the country. If so, why make inquiry whether he has orders? No orders could give him authority to interfere with your unquestionable right, where his master pretends to no right himself. you. Under this head of aggression and spoliation, the senator from New York, (Mr. Clinton,) in a tone and manner not very decorous in debate, has declared it to be within my knowledge, that indemnity has been |