SPEECH OF DE WITT CLINTON, DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, On the following resolutions: Resolved, That the United States of America have an indisputable right to the free navigation of the river Mississippi, and to a convenient deposit for their produce and merchandize in the island of New Orleans: That the late infraction of such their unquestionable right is an aggression, hostile to their honor and interest: That it does not consist with the dignity or safety of this union to hold a right so important by a tenure so uncertain: That it materially concerns such of the American citizens as dwell on the western waters, and is essential to the union, strength and prosperity of these states, that they obtain complete security for the full and peaceful enjoyment of such their absolute right: That the President be authorized to take immediate possession of some place or places, in the said island, or the adjacent territories, fit and convenient for the purposes aforesaid, and to adopt such measures for obtaining that complete security, as to him, in his wisdom, shall seem meet: That he be authorized to call into actual service any number of the militia of the states of South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio, and the Mississippi territory, which he may think proper, not exceeding fifty thousand, and to employ them, together with the naval and military force of the union, for effecting the object abovementioned; and that the sum of five millions of dollars be appropriated to the carrying into effect the foregoing resolutions, and that the whole or any part of that sum be paid or applied on warrants, drawn in pursuance of such directions as the President may from time to time think proper to give to the secretary of the treasury.* MR. PRESIDENT, THE extraordinary manner, in which the subject, now under consideration, has been introduced; the extraordinary manner in which it has been treated, and By the treaty of 1795, between the United States and Spain, the free navigation of the river Mississippi, and a privilege of deposit in the island of New Orleans, for three years, were secured to the citizens of the United States. The treaty stipulated that this privilege should be continued after 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 stipulated, 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 establishment." 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 |