FEBRUARY, 1814.]

The Loan Bill.

[H. OF R.

the rule of morality-I prefer that to any rule proposed by gentlemen on the other side of the House; but I know of no unerring rule of morality, except the unchangeable and eternal rule of right, which the Author of our existence has given us to govern our conduct by, and in which rule our duties to our Creator and to each other are briefly described. By examining these duties, we find they originate in and rise out of our relation to God and dependence upon him; or our relation to and dependence upon each other, and are unchangeably and eternally the same. What does this say? Kill, capture, burn, sink, and destroy? No, sir-it says: Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbor's, &c. I had no idea of introducing the subject of morality into this House; but, as gentlemen have been pleased to introduce the subject, let us have the principle fairly settled. I do not say gentlemen who voted for and are in favor of war, have violated this rule; but I will say, I have not violated it by refusing to kill. This, sir, is the rule by which I expect my morality to be tested in the presence of an impartial Judge, by whose decisions we must all abide. While it is the passion of some to rule, of some to accumulate, and of others to shine, I hope the leading passion of my heart will be one which Heaven inspires, which reason rectifies, and which conscience approves; that of preventing all the evil and doing all the good of which my humble powers are capable.

from the Bay of Passamaquoddy, on the north- | to defend their country, march with alacrity; east, to the Gulf of Mexico on the southwest, a but I never shall advise them to enlist for the distance of near two thousand miles, would be purpose of invasion. The gentleman from Virrelieved from the arduous task of such a block-ginia (Mr. SHEFFEY) has proposed conscience as ade, and have little else to do but to concentrate their forces, and annoy us much more effectually than they have by their blockade. These, sir, are some of the reasons which induced me to vote against the embargo, and I have seen or heard nothing since to alter my opinion. I fear my scruples will be confirmed, for I place no reliance on the magnanimity, justice, or mercy of the British, as an enemy. But, if I had doubted the correctness of my vote upon this subject, the effects of your embargo, since it became a law, would have removed all my doubts. I begin with a circumstance which happened in Alexandria, which, though limited in its effects, may be of some importance: A citizen of this place had purchased sixty bushels of oysters, which he had put on board of the packet which runs daily from Alexandria to this place; he also purchased a few barrels of flour, (perhaps four or five,) which he was about to send on board; the collector, who I understand had just received notice of the embargo, considered it his duty to demand security, conformably to the provision of the act laying an embargo; the owner or conductor of the packet, either unable or unwilling to give the security, or for want of time to draw a bond, omitted to comply. The consequence was, the packet had to be detained until the oysters were disembarked; and the men (as I am informed) had to give three dollars to a cartman to haul a load on the turnpike the next day. In North Carolina, the State which I have the honor to represent in part, it has prevented the manufacturers of salt from procuring the lumber necessary for extending the manufactory of that all important article; and when my honorable colleague, (Mr. KING,) | the other day, proposed so to amend a bill upon the subject as to extend the privilege of transporting lumber to be exclusively employed in manufacturing salt, the proposed amendment was rejected.

In 1812, eleven millions were borrowed; in 1813, sixteen millions were borrowed at first, and afterwards seven and a half millions; in 1814, thirty millions is proposed to be raised by loans and Treasury notes. The estimates for 1814, are said to be $45,350,000. But can any gentleman in this House recollect that with an effective force of eighteen thousand men, our expenses have been forty millions of dollars, But we have been charged with moral treason and say if our ranks are filled, and sixty-six for not supporting this war. The gentleman thousand men raised, we can support such an from Tennessee, (Mr. GRUNDY,) the gentleman army, and defray the expenses of the current from South Carolina, (Mr. CALHOUN,) and the year with sixty-six millions of dollars? Cergentleman from New York, (Mr. Fisk,) have tainly not. But gentlemen call on us to supgiven us several lectures upon moral trea-port the war because it has now become popuson and the doctrine of morality. I know not by what rule these gentlemen try our morality; not by the Constitution or laws of the United States I presume, for I have not wilfully transgressed these laws, and I trust gentlemen are not prepared to charge us with the violation of either the Constitution or the laws. So far from it, sir, I have given the war my constitutional support, and shall continue to do so. When the law requires me to part with a share of my property to secure the remainder, I do it cheerfully, and I advise my friends, and have the vanity to believe they will, when called on

lar, not the war of the Government but of the people. How do gentlemen prove this? Not by the elections for members of Congress, I presume. In New Hampshire three or four members voted for the war-all have been left out. In Massachusetts six or seven voted for the war, and all but one have been left out. In Vermont one voted against the war, who has been turned out by a general ticket, but is since chosen Governor of the State. In Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York, few changes have taken place, as very few voted for the In the Middle States little or perhaps no

war.

[FEBRUARY, 1814. Gottenburg, and commence a negotiation for the adjustment of our differences. Let them know that this war has, with a force too small for successful offensive operations, already cost the United States (this year included) as much money as the whole Revolutionary debt at the adoption of the Federal Constitution. All which they ought to know, in order to decide cor

change has been made. In Virginia, three gentlemen have been turned out for voting against the war, and two for voting for war. In North Carolina one has been turned out who voted for war. It does not appear from this statement, and I presume it is correct, that the war is very popular. Nor does it appear from the recruiting service. We began with a bounty of sixteen dollars, we have raised it to one hun-rectly. And then ask them if they desire to dred and twenty dollars, and our ranks are not filled; our regiments are many of them mere skeletons. The sixty-three regiments amounting to perhaps twenty-five thousand, sick and wounded inclusive. If applications for office | prove the war popular, why then indeed it may be pronounced a very popular war. I presume we have ten or twelve thousand officers, and perhaps as many more applicants for office, and if we could form an army of officers and march immediately to Canada, I presume the province would soon be conquered if they could procure provisions.

A small majority are, perhaps, in favor of war. The citizens of the United States are strongly attached to a Republican Government; which certainly is the best form for a people who have virtue to enjoy and improve the blessings of liberty. This war was declared by those who call themselves Republicans, and who I hope are, but not exclusively Republicans, for we prefer a Republican Government. Many of the people, therefore, consider this a war for republican principles. They have been told, and no doubt honestly believe, the British contend for a right to impress native born Americans, and compel them to serve on board of their navy. Possessing, as they do, a high sense of liberty, and considering this a republican war clothed in the plausible dress of free trade and sailors' rights, perhaps a small majority would at this time vote for war. But strip this war for conquest of its borrowed plumage; let the people know that the King of England, although determined to adhere to his maritime system as a necessary measure when contending with the gigantic power of France, assisted, though perhaps reluctantly, by many of the powers of Europe, for the national existence of Great Britain, and what he (whether correctly or erroneously) considers the independence of the world, did, as early as 1806, give his cruisers instructions to respect the rights of American citizens, and gave the most positive assurance to the American Commissioners that prompt and immediate redress should be afforded on any representation of injury sustained by the Americans. Let them know that the Prince Regent, when the British and their allies are everywhere victorious, has proposed to appoint Commissioners to treat with us either at London or at Gottenburg, in Sweden, upon principles of perfect reciprocity, not inconsistent with the maxims of public law, and of the British maritime rights. That the President has acceded to the proposal, and has appointed five Envoys Extraordinary to repair to

prosecute this Quixotic war of conquest, at an expense of from fifty to seventy-five millions of dollars per annum, either to prove our ability to conquer Canada, or for the purpose of holding the inhabitants as hostages, or the country as a bond for the good behavior of the British Government in future; and, my life for it, the answer will be no. In examining the causes, progress, and effects of the war, and the motives for supporting or opposing a continuance of it. I have said but little respecting the conduct of the French, the American, or the British Governments, only as they were concerned in producing the present state of things. As to the French Government, or the Emperor of the French, I have uniformly detested his ambition and admired his talents, both as a politician and as a warrior, and I have been somewhat alarmed at his progress, though never disposed to change my course on that account. But discovering from his own acknowledgments that his plans are disconcerted, or, to use his own words, that all have turned against him; that Kings whom he had made have forsaken him; and his power appears to be broken, and the confederation of the Rhine dissolved; and that he appears convinced of his error, and disposed to be at peace, believing if he is reformed as well as convinced, he will be a great and good man-I had rather hear of his reformation than his overthrow. I hope France, confined within her natural boundaries, will remain a great and become a happy nation; and I am willing for them to enjoy the privilege I claim for myself, that is, of doing their own business in their own way; and if the Emperor Napoleon is the choice of the French people, I have no objec tion to his reigning over them.

MONDAY, February 14.
The Loan Bill.

The House again went into Committee of the Whole on the bill authorizing a loan for 1814. Mr. HANSON addressed the Chair as follows: Mr. Chairman: With difficulty I have been brought to participate in this discussion. Many days after the bill was reported, the intention had not entered my mind. By engaging in it I knew a burden would be imposed upon me, under the weight of which, a more vigorous mind and constitution than I possess might stagger. I shall, nevertheless, with as much calmness and temperance as the magnitude and character of the subject will admit of, examine it in all the relations embraced by the reflec‐ tions I have been able to bestow upon it.

H. OF R.]

The Loan Bill.

[FEBRUARY, 1814.

a vigorous prosecution of this war! My moral | I say it is ruinous and destructive of public sense, sir, revolts at the invitation. Neither threats, denunciation, nor entreaty, can force or seduce me to plant a poignard in the breast of my country, already bleeding and languishing under so many wounds.

I am already admonished, sir, to prescribe limits to the range of debate I find myself gliding into. I proceed, at once, to examine the budget before the House. It is with some diffidence I enter upon an examination of the estimates submitted by the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means. That branch of the debate I was content to have confined to the two honorable gentlemen (Mr. PITKIN and Mr. SHEFFEY) who preceded me. I must, however, endeavor to supply some striking omissions in their luminous exposition of the public finances and resources. The prominent and great defect which runs through the exposition of the honorable chairman of the Committee of Finance is so important that I must claim the indulgence of the House while I attempt to explain it. Though the House has been amused by fanciful, fallacious, and exaggerated estimates, to show the capacity of the people to lend, it has failed to elucidate the ability of the Government to borrow. That ability depends upon the disposition of the people to invest money in the public stock. To produce that disposition, their interest must be consulted. It must be made their interest to lend, by furnishing sufficient Government securities, providing indemnity against loss. If a permanent, efficient fund is created, coextensive and coeval with the public debt, and that fund pledged for the payment of the interest, the capitalist may then see his interest in becoming a public creditor. You then create the ability to borrow, by producing a corresponding disposition to lend, which, in finance, are convertible. But if, from a fear of losing popularity by resorting to an odious system of taxation, you fail to provide a permanent revenue, adequate to the punctual payment of the interest, and looking to the gradual extinction of the principal of the debt to be created, the public credit must suffer, and the moneyed men will find it to their interest not to aid the loan. I have too much respect for the understanding of the House to enlarge upon this topic.

After a fair and deliberate examination, I pronounce the system of ways and means, submitted to the House, deceptive and disingenuous. These are strong and harsh terms, but I speak in the language of the distinguished gentleman who now presides in this House with so much ability, dignity, and impartiality. I speak the language of the late Committee of Finance, and of this House, who adopted the memorable report of that committee, which denounced and reprobated in the strongest terms the very system now recommended. I speak the language of every financier and political economist, whose opinions are respected in free and well-regulated Governments, when

credit to enter upon a system of loans without providing the ways and means commensurate with the demands of Government; without creating and pledging a fund securing the pub lic creditors in the punctual payment of the interest, and ultimate reimbursement of the principal of the public debt. It is a maxim in finance-a fundamental principle of public credit-never to borrow without providing the means of paying the interest, and finally extinguishing the principal. To act upon a dif ferent system-to rely upon loans to pay the interest of loans-is to adopt a most desperate system of fiscal gambling; sapping the founda tion of public credit, and conducting to national bankruptcy. Well versed in finance, the predecessor of the present chairman of that committee could not be induced to sanction, much less recommend, a system of ways and means founded in a studied concealment of the public finances, and not built upon the substantial resources of the country. Disdaining to act upon a system of temporary expedients, to preserve the people's favor at the cost of the country's interest, he frankly communicated to the House the real state of the finances. He acknowledged the wants of the Government; he introduced a system of revenue to meet the public exigencies, and preserve the public credit. Gentlemen cannot so soon have forgotten the letter addressed by the Hon. Langdon Cheves to Mr. Gallatin. The reply of that Minister must also be fresh in their recollection. So direct and explicit was Mr. Gallatin's answer in regard to taxes, that many at the time supposed-I was fully persuaded his object was to deter the Congress from declaring war, by holding up to their view a frightful picture of internal taxation-the inevitable consequence of war.

The present men in power have not only endangered the public credit by a violation of "all those principles held sacred by every country," but they have deliberately violated the public faith. The fact is demonstrable. The eight million sinking fund, pledged for the pay; ment of the old public debt, has also been pledged for the payment of the eleven million loan, the sixteen million, the seven and a half million loan, and it is to be again pledged for the twentyfive million loan. The same sinking fund is also pledged for the redemption of the Treasury bills. These Treasury bills, by law, are made receivable at the custom-house for the imposts. These bills, possessing no intrinsic value a mere artificial value, imparted to them by the fund pledged for their redemption-destroy the value of that very fund. The sinking fund is rendered valueless, and may ultimately, as far as it is derivable from commerce, consist merely in these bills, which are a legal tender for commercial duties. This position is so evident that it requires no illustration.

I must now be indulged with a few remarks upon the ability of the Government to borrow,

FEBRUARY, 1814.]

success.

or the capacity and disposition of the people to | here may fret, rail, and argue, until doomsday. lend. It has been admitted by one gentleman They may set up new-fangled doctrines, unthat the loan would be filled. I entertain no known to public law, and deny old and estabsuch opinion. I believe it will fail. Unless a lished principles, but as far as depends upon the most exorbitant interest is given, it must fail. opinions of the ablest jurists, and the practice Nor is it certain that any premium will insure of the oldest regular Governments, the point in controversy is long ago settled. It is immutably determined. It is inherent in the very nature of society and Government. If it were otherwise, every political society would contain the seeds of its own dissolution and destruction, instead of the great inherent principle of perpetuity and power. Sir, we have no right to the service of the subjects of a foreign Prince. We can, if we choose, and have the power, protect them against the superior claim of their native country-we may declare a war for such an object, but we derive no such right from social regulations or the public law of nations.

The Eastern States, being free from blockade, have become the depot of most of the foreign articles imported into the United States, for the supply of the whole American continent. These articles, owing to the combined efforts of the public enemy and our own Government, cannot be paid for in the produce of the Southern and Middle States, and must be met by specie. If the coasting trade were not destroyed-if the trade of the several States with each other had to contend only against the public enemy, the debt thus accrued, in favor of the North, would have been discharged during the Winter months, by the bulky articles of Southern growth, easily transported by our coasting

craft.

It is a fundamental maxim of the common law of England, which, I believe, we have no power to repeal, or just pretension to render nugatory in its operation, "that natural allegiance is perpetual, and cannot be affected by time, place, or circumstances, nor can it be changed by swearing allegiance to another Sovereign-the subject may to be sure by such means entangle himself, but he cannot unloosen the bands which connect him with his native country."-[See Blackstone's Commentaries.

The President, in a manner not to be disregarded, recommended to Congress to stop this traffic. The mandate was obeyed; and specie alone must go to meet the demands of the merchants of New England. This causes such a pressure from the East, on the banks of the Middle and Southern States, as will deprive them of the means, if they have the disposition, to fill the loan. The accumulation of capital in the State of Massachusetts alone, enables that State, by pressing New York, to reach the extreme Southern end of the chain of banks. It cannot be concealed, or denied, that a very general alarm is felt for the critical situation of the banks, produced by an accumulation of capital to the North in the manner mentioned. The consequence is, that the whole circulating medium of the country is in danger. Sir, gentlemen seem not to be aware of the difficulties with which they are beset. I do not wish to ruffle their serenity, by exciting apprehensions; but they should be prepared to encounter troubles which they have hitherto been strangers to. They should be prepared for an explosion, the noise of which may not reach their ears in time for their retreat. The very foundations of the Government tremble beneath it. The ground on which Ministers stand is hourly washing from under their feet. Let them fail in their loan, and they are undone. They have no excuse for not providing the ways and means called for by the public exigencies, but the fear of offending the people, and yet the popularity of the war is the favorite theme of its authors. A crisis has arrived in the finances of the Government, which, unless promptly and vigorously met by efficient measures, will bring on certain ruin. The credit of the Government once Mr. Chairman, when we look for a moment destroyed, cannot be easily reinstated. It must at the present situation of our country, and be destroyed if this system is pursued. contrast it with the power, resources, prosperiMr. Chairman, upon this question of impress-ty, and fortunes of England, it ought to bring ment, allegiance, protection, and retaliation, gentlemen to a pause. They should determine which has been connected with it, gentlemen at once to travel no further in the road to ruin,

VOL. V.-13

Availing themselves of the indulgence of pursuing their happiness in whatever climes their fortunes may lead them, if they form engagements with another Government inconsistent with their prior and permanent obligations to their native country, it is an act done in their own wrong. They enter into a contract from its nature void, ab initio, because it requires two parties, both able, to make a valid contract. In the case mentioned one of the parties to the contract of naturalization was disabled from contracting. If the foreigner, owing original and permanent allegiance to his native country, from which he has no power to absolve himself, except by her consent, express or implied, engages to perform opposite and irreconcilable duties, he alone is to blame for the difficulties in which he may find himself involved. This I conceive a full answer to every thing alleged of the hardship of naturalized citizens being forced to perform conflicting duties. Is it said naturalized citizens may be forced to bear arms against their native country, and therefore are entitled to protection from their adopted country, as native citizens are within, and without our territorial jurisdiction? They were not forced to abjure allegiance to their Government. The fault is their own, if they have "entangled themselves" by an act done in their own wrong.