fideration of the petition until the 4th of July next. I did not intend to advocate fuch a meafure, nor do I think that the Congrefs can grant the prayer of the petitioners; but there is a propriety in obferving a decent refpect to fo refpectable a petition, with others of the fame tenor already referred. We fhould do well to confider what the feelings of the petitioners will be if treated in this manner. We all know, at least a great many of us, what were our feelings on the information of our petitions [prior to the revolution] being treated with contempt and difrefpect. Sir, my intention in laying that embargo was with a double view, the one to fave and fecare our property from the grafp of the propofed enemy, the other to keep from her those fupplies that will, or would, enable her to be better able to profecute a war. I think that this petition, with the others on the fame fubject of the embargo, ought to be committed to a felect committee, or the committee of Commerce and Manufactures, with inftructions to report to the Houfe their opinion-not to repeal the embargo, but affign the reafons why it was expedient to lay it, and the reafons of the impropriety of a repeal at this time. Such a courfe is due to the petitioners; it would be treating them with the refpect due to numerous and decent petitions. If you cannot grant them their prayer, at least deign to affign your reafons. This they expect, and I think have a right to, and I alfo think it would be the foundeft policy. I therefore move that this petition, together with all the others on the fame fubject, be committed to the committee of Commerce and Manufactures, and that they be directed to report to the Houfe their opinion. [The Speaker decided that the motion was not now in order, another motion being pending.]

Mr. RHEA-The objects and defign of the memorial are to perfuade and obtain a repeal of the embargo law. Is this House prepared to repeal that law? or are the members thereof prepared to excite a continuance of the delufory hopes which feem to prevail? From whence have thefe hopes arifen? Let thofe, if any fuch there be, who excited thofe hopes, be refponsible for the effects. If any fection of citizens will in fuch cafe act, with themselves be it; if injury occurs by a conduct bottomed on particular opinion-an opinion contrary to the reafon of things, perfevered in also against evidence, the laws are not cenfurable.

In this memorial the word rulers is ufed. If by this word is meant the Congrefs, Executive, and Judiciary of the United States, or either of them, it is apprehended that the use of that term in that fignification, however well it may apply to any foreign government, can have no relation to the government of the United States, or to any departments of that government. They who adminifter the faid feveral departments, and perform the duties belonging to each of them, are the reprefentatives, not the rulers, of the people. The people are fovereign, from them emanates all power; they are the true rulers-they create and

annihilate the power held by those whom the memorial defig. nates rulers. It appears difficult to eradicate ideas fpringing from monarchical principles, and more especially if the mind is habituated to the contemplation of them. The word rulers in the fenfe ufed in the memorial is abhorrent to the conftitution of this government-and it would be well if the ufe of it in that fenfe was omitted.

That all popular governments are bottomed on the people, and ought to be exerciled for the good of all, is a political axiom as old as the existence of popular governments. Whatever the number or periods of popular governments heretofore have been, the government of the U. States at the prefent day appears to be the only exifting popular government; consequently, to it is applicable in a peculiar manner, that it ought to be exercised for the good of all. The intereft and benefit of the greatest number are therefore to be contemplated and cherished, although that might produce fome partial ill. This will apply to nearly every law enacted, and fuch application is not new. The embargo law has been for feveral weeks in operation; and if the opinion of the citizens relative to that law is to be formed by a comparison of the numbers petitioning against the embargo law, with the numbers of those who have not petitioned, the inference is, that the great body of the people are fatisfied that the law is expedient, becaufe the number petitioning is fmall indeed, and bears little proportion to the numbers who have not petitioned. Hence it follows that there is evidence manifefting that the embargo law con tains a principle operating for the general good. At the time the law alluded to was enacted, they who were in favor of it believ ed that it would operate for the intereft of this nation; that it would to a certain extent be a means of preferving American feamen from flavery, and the property of American citizens from robbery; that it might operate as a cautionary notice to mercantile men, warning them that the times were daugerous, and advifing not to hazard men or property on the ocean. Since the day that law was made, no circumftance has occurred to al ter or change the reafon of the law, or to fhew that it ought to be repealed. Almoft every day brings information that feamen are impreffed, and property, neutral property of this nation, unlawfully and wrongfully taken. It is in the mean time admitted, that the law will more or lefs affect every fection of the Union. But it is prefumed, that its operation will effect a national benefit, more cfpecially when it operates as a preparatory to war. It is urged, that the language ufed in the memorial is refpectful, and that the memorialists are very refpectable. All that is admitted, but that will not go to prove that the prayer of the memori al ought to be granted. It prays for a repeal or modification of the embargo law, becaufe of the great quantity of produce fhut up in a particular fection. It would be gratifying indeed if the cafe was otherwife. [Continued in No. 31.]

CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER.

No. 31.] TWELFTH CONGRESS.... FIRST SESSION. [1811-12.

Debate on Mr. Rhea's motion to postpone the consideration of the petition of a number of the citizens of Albany till the 4th day of July next.

[Continued.]

May 6, 1812.

BUT this is one of thofe circumstances which generally are confequential to laws of a fimilar nature, and which when put in competition with the general fafety will partially remain until the proper remedy is applied. It is true, that the motion goes to fet afide the memorial, but for that it is not a denial generally of relief; the national legislature will no doubt give that relief which the prefent ftate of things requires, and it is hoped that the memorialifts will confide in the Legiflature of this Union, that the proper remedy at a proper time will be applied. Whether this nation will be ready or not to go to war within 60 days, is not at prefent neceffary to undertake to fhow. This confideration is refpecting a motion to poftpone a memorial, and does not neceffarily involve the question of being prepared to go Little by me, faid Mr. R. as yet has been faid on the fubject of war-and at prefent it is not deemed neceffary; a day may be when it may be otherwise.

It is urged that they do not believe the U. States can go to war. Well, if they do not believe, and will act accordingly, with themfelves be it, on themselves be the confequence. Several laws have been enacted during the prefent feffion, bearing ftrong evidence in themfelves, that they are preparatory to war, carrying with them alfo evidence that the U. S. can go to war at a time when the unprovoked injuries inflicted by a foreign nation render war neceffary-but they will not believe that the conftitutional government of this nation is fincere in refpect to war-well then, that they who will not believe may be convinced if poffible, let the further confideration of the memorial be poftponed until the fourth day of July next. Let this evidence of fincerity in addition to all those already offered, be afforded.

The agreeing to this motion will not ruin the people. If I thought, faid Mr. R. it would have that effect, far from me would be a difpofition to perfift in it. Several memorials of a fimilar nature have been poftponed to the fame fourth day of July next, and certainly the memorial ought to go the fame way. I have no inclination to injure any perfon; the memorialifts are all believed to be worthy, but that confideration affects not the queftion.

No. 31.

Mr. RANDOLPH said that to a stranger to the proceedings of the American House of Representatives it might appear strange that a discussion of the merits of an act similar to that now under consid eration, of an act so important in its consequences, should first take place on a motion to refer a petition from people complaining of the grievances of that act; and yet he believed substantially such was nearly the fact for it could hardly be said that the act was passed on the ground of any information properly derived from other co-ordinate branches of the government, or from any arguments advanced in its favor on this floor. To one to whom the character of the times was unknown, it would appear astonishing, with the general apathy prevailing in this House and out of it, that a slumbering Legislature and a people stupified under the effects of this powerful political narcotic the embargo, should have their dreams disturbed by the thought of war. War! when, as gentleman has justly asked, where are the means to carry it on? Not that I doubt, sir, said Mr. Rando`ph, that there will be war; for I am myself precisely in a situation similar to what would have been that of one of the unfortunate people of Caraccas, if preadvised of the danger which overhung his countryI know that we are on the brink of some dreadful scourge-some great desolation-some awful visitation from that power whom I am afraid we have taken, as yet, in our national capacity, no means to conciliate. If other civilised people, if the other nations of Christendom, have not escaped, what reason have we to suppose that we shall be preserved from the calamities which Providence has thought fit to inflict on those nations which have ventured to intermingle in the conflict now going on in Europe?

But let me, sir, if I can, confine myself to the meritts of this petition; and, that I may be strictly in order, bring my discourse to the level of the insipidity of the court Gazette. Amidst this fresh cry of war, the sound "restrictive system" struck my ear with dreadful apprehension. Restrictive system!! Yes, sir, there's the rub! The embargo, engendered from a fortuitious concourse between the Executive and the committee of Foreign Relations, has been laid as the precursor of war and not as a restrictive measure; and yet it is defended in this House, if not by the same arguments certainly by the same feeling which supported the celebrated embargo of Mr Jefferaon's administration. In this there is in my judgment the most manifest inconsistency. An embargo laid on the same principle as that laid on by Mr. Jefferson might be defended by such as deemed it constitutional and wise, and might be stretched to the utmost extent to give a fair trial to the experiment. But not so with that laid on a recent occasion. That was a sort of chance medley; it came nobody knows whence, and nobody knows how. Now, for its operation I--say that as a precursor of war its operation is manifestly detrimental to the best interests of the country. In the character under which it affects to pass, it is, if not an imposture, at least utterly inadequate to the purposes for which its friends say it is intended. It

is nothing more than a sort of never-end to the old system of restriction-it is something like what the Rump Parliament in the days of Cromwell was to all the Parliaments which preceded it-it is pork still without even changing the sauce. I shall not step out of the way to prove, as unquestionably I might, that the operation of the other part of the restrictive system has been manifestly injurious to the agricultural and commercial interests; for, although flour was before the embargo at ten dollars, but for the non-importation it would have been at twelve-because our merchants, being prevented from bringing return cargoes, sustain a loss of 20 per cent. in exchange, and of course cannot give so much for flour by 20 per cent. as if the restriction did not exist; indeed by more, because the merchant not only suffers by the difference in exchange, but by the loss of his usual profit on a return cargo. That very difference of exchange against Great Britain, which has been vaunted as shewing the balance of trade in our favor, was in fact a dead loss to the American people. I have heard it whispered on this floor that flour yet bears a good price; that a dollar used to be considered a good price for a bushel of wheat. Is this an answer to be given, when government reduces its price 50 per cent. in a night? But, sir, what is it that keeps wheat at a dollar and flour at seven dollars and a half? It is this: the whole operation of this system is entirely upon the grower of the commodity, upon the miller and upon him who purchased previous to the laying of the embargo and was unable to get his commodity out. It diminishes the price here too, three or four dollars a barrel, it has the effeet again to raise the price abroad perhaps as much, making a difference, between the price before and after the embargo, of from five to seven dollars a barrel. I speak from no theory, but from as authentic commercial information as any in the nation, when I say, that if any persons wish to export flour, vessels from the eastern states can be got to clear out coast-wise,take all risks on themselves, and put that flour in any port named by the person chartering the vessels, for a less sum per barrel than the difference in price between flour here and abroad; in some cases for less than the difference in price here before and since the embargo. This is the actual state of things. The original grower of the article and the miller therefore suffer almost exclusively.

Let us take it in another point of view. It is true, as the petitioners have stated, and pity 'tis that it is true, that the Hudson and Northern rivers have been blocked up all the spring by ice, whilst the southern rivers have been open. But, sir, is that all the difference in the relative hardship of the Embargo? For my part, I can conceive nothing more iniquitious in principle than the law in operation. The embargo is at Baltimore and Alexandria for ninety days; in New Orleans for how many? It is here in its full operation from the day of its imposition to the 3d day of July; in New-Orleans it went into operation perhaps about 4 weeks after it went into operation here. The people here are suffering under the pressure of the em