"That he be authorised to call into actual service any number of the militia of the states of South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio, and the Mississppi territory, which he may thigk proper not exceeding 50,000, and to employ them, together with the naval and military force of the union, for effecting the object above mentioned, 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."

Is this not true, do we not agree in this unanimously, will any member of the senate deny it.... Is not our right to the navigation of that river a natural and inviolable right? It is not a favor granted to us, but is derived from nature itself; the treaty indeed describes the middle of the river as our boundary, but is it not perfectly free? What objection then can be made to this resolution? What does it further say, that we have an unquestionable right of deposit at New Orleans; have we not that right? It does not say that we have a right to the territory, but no man can controvert our positive and absolute right to the deposit of our commodities in that territory for ever; it is a right unlimited for ages, and the written instrument under which it is established can never be done away while the two kingdoms exist. It is further declared that this right is important;....can this be denied? nor can it be said to be exclusively important to the people in the immediate vicinity of the Mississippi, for it involves directly or indirectly, the whole of the states....it involves their internal trade, and their credits on the Atlantic side of the union, and it imposes on the people by diminishing the value of their produce; upon every principle of right and safety the resolu tions are supported.

Some gentlemen, nevertheless, doubted that this infraction of treaty was authorised. He did not enter into this spirit of doubt, he had no doubt that it was the authorised act of either France or Spain. It is now from twelve to eighteen months since the rumour of the cession of Louisiana has prevailed, and no authentic information on the subject has ever been furnished to the people of the United States; contradictory rumours had also gone abroad, but to this moment we are in a total state of uncertainty on the subject. How then

* The exact words of the speaker,

are we to account for this secrecy? If Spain determined to deprive us of a right, would she inform us of it by a message? No, she would pursue exactly the conduct she has done. The Spanish minister here, indeed, says, that the act is not authorized, or he should have been informed of it. The plain meaning of this is, that he is not sufficiently informed. The period at which this infraction took place affords strong presumption of the motive and design. It took place at the moment when the French thought they had completely overcome the blacks, and restored the island of St. Domingo to obedience; they had determined that the subjugation of that island should precede the attempt upon Louisiana, and in the moment of their imaginary triumph, they commenced their operations at New Orleans, by the suspension of our right. As to the assertions that Louisiana will be ceded, or is ceded, with a special regard to our limits, he did not regard them.... they were evidently made only to lull us.

The next resolution authorized the President to take possession of New Orleans. This may at first sight have the appearance of war; but if gentlemen will only call to mind their own declarations, that our right is indisputable, then the aggression has been against us. This point is essential to a fair consideration of the case. If, then, they have committed an hostile act, if they have deprived us of a natural and conventional right, if they have broken a treaty, does there any question remain but as to the means that ought to be employed to recover it? On this point the senate is divided....there are two opinions; one for negociating to have the right restored; the other, to possess it without delay. In the choice of one or the other of these recourses, he had no hesitancy; for possession will be the best guarantee to negociation. Without that possession, negociation must be a work of time, and always at the mercy of diplomatic procrastination. What will be the situation of the country in the mean time? The importation ceases, and the export stops....the western people will say that the hand of government, intended for their protection, is withheld from them, that we want zeal, and avoid justice in their cause. Spain and France know the western country as well as we do; they have an intimate knowlege of it; their able men have visited all parts of it. Instead, therefore, of supplicating them, they should be put in the situation of supplicants to us; the inhabitants of that vast tract confide more on the United States than they do on France or Spain. We are therefore taking the most safe and certain measures....it is

K

the opposition, Mr. President, who are in favor of supporting the executive, and not those who profess to be its friends.

What, sir, is the language that France will hold to you, if these resolutions are not carried? The first consul will say, Why do yo supplicate me, and what regard should I pay you ....you are a divided people, parties are nearly balanced among you, what are your complaints to me? But gentlemen say, the step recommended would be an invasion of their territory, but surely this is not a greater wrong than the invasion of our rights....we do not go to make ourselves masters of the soil; our only object is, to hold them as a pledge for the security of our rights by treaty. Gentlemen had referred to the transactions at Nootka Sound, between England and Spain. If he were to quote any case in preference to another, in support of the resolutions, it would be that. The British landed at Nootka, they erected a fortification, and what did the Spaniards do? They did not wait the tardy course of negociation; they went with a force, attacked the settlement, and broke it up; and when they had taken this precautionary measure, they agreed to negociate, and the effect was favorable as it was honorable to the spirit of Spain. The best way to negociate is with the alternative visible; if we should send by Mr. Munroe the account of our entering and holding the pledge of New Orleans, he might go to France or Spain with double confidence. If the whole province of Maine were invaded by an enemy, it would not be of so much importance as the stoppage of that river; if that was taken, or if the island of New York was in possession of an enemy, would we wait to negociate? The aggression is on their part, and the consequences they alone ought to be accountable for.

The resolutions he did not consider as imperative on the executive; but if gentlemen were desirous of so altering the phraseology, as to render them more explicitly optional, he was willing to accommodate them, and to leave it in the breast of the President to take possession or not, as the exigency may require....money and men are offered for his use, and he may use or not use them, according to his own judgment. In the course taken, we are pursuing a shadow....we are in truth sleeping under injury. War was certainly a serious thing, but all nations have been obliged to resort to it....it produces an energy in the human character, which never exists without it; what was the effect on our own country, under a strong sense of injury....and at a time when we were so many degrees inferior in numbers and resources to what we are at

present?....At the commencement of our own revolution, we had scarcely any resources, yet armies were raised, arms and arsenals provided, and we triumphed over the most powerful nation then in Europe. We suffered some evils, in the loss of many brave and valuable men; but even in that loss we had the consolation, as it produced an energy, a heroism, that will immortalize them to the latest posterity. It has been insinuated, that such a step would alarm foreign nations.... But turn your attention to the immediate consequences. It would be impossible for us to be involved in a war with France or Spain without having the navy of Great Britain on our side; necessity and the wisest policy would unite us, and we should bid defiance to all the maritime powers. But on the other hand, is not France as desirous of peace as any nation can be, is it not her interest to be at peace, seeing the immense conquests which she has made and secured? Do we not also know that Great Britain feels an eternal jealousy of her rival, and is she not this moment interfering, not to rescue her own territories, but to preserve the territories of others from being devoured. He was, upon the most mature examination of the subject, in favor of the resolutions....and against the amendments.

GENERAL J. JACKSON, (of Georgia.) Coming from a state, at the extreme of the Union in the south, and excepting the states immediately interested in the navigation of the Mississippi, the most concerned on the present occasion, of any in the Union, he hoped it would not be deemed improper in him to offer his sentiments on the resolutions before the senate; for, sir, no event can affect the settlers on the Mississippi, no change of masters can take place there, without the shock being felt on the frontiers of Georgia, The nation which holds New Orleans must eventually possess the Floridas, and Georgia cannot remain an indifferent spectator....in case of war, the blow struck on that river will be vibrated on the Saint Mary's, and the attack on the one will be seconded by an attack on the other,

The gentlemen from Kentucky and Tennessee have not those fears expressed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania; they have declared their citizens satisfied with negociation in the first place, and the conduct pursued by the executive.... He could say the same, as respects the citizens of the state he represents, and begged leave to read a letter on the subject, from a respectable gentleman of Georgia, applauding the appointment of Mr. Munroe. [He here read a letter express, ing the approbation generally expressed at the nomination.]

That there has been an indignity offered to the United States, by the Spanish government of New Orleans, he should not deny; so far, he joined the gentlemen on the other side, as not only to declare that sense of it, but to assert that the withdrawing the right of deposit, given under the 4th article of our treaty with Spain, concluded at San Lorenzo el Real, prior to the pointing out another place for that purpose, is such a violation of our right, and such an insult to the dignity of the nation, as ought not to be put up with in silence. We ought, we are bound to demand a restoration of that right, and to secure it to our western citizens, let the risk be what it may, if it even extends to life and fortune. He cordially agreed with the gentleman who had preceded him, (Mr. MaSON) that it is a momentous subject....but could not consent to go at once to war, without trying in the first place, every peaceable mode to obtain redress.

But the gentleman sees no war in the resolutions of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Ross.) He could not agree with him on that point; let us examine them, and it will not only be found that they contain war measures, but that part of the premises on which we are called upon to go to war, are not founded. The first part of the resolutions declares, That the United States have an indisputable right to the free navigation of the river Mississippi, and to a convenient place of deposit for their produce and merchandize, in the island of New Orleans. Now, sir, the former part of this resolution is not affected by any proceedings of the Spanish government. You are as perfectly in possession of the right as you ever were....your vessels are at this moment freely navigating that river....you have not heard of a single interruption....you have not learnt that the Spaniards, so far from interrupting that navigation, have ever doubted your right. Why then, sir, resolve on the assertion of rights which are not questioned, but of which you are completely in possession. He could compare it to no other case than that of a man in private life, in peaceable possession of his house, resolving on and publishing his own right to it, and thereby rousing the suspicions of his neighbors to doubt his title to it. Passing over the latter division of the first resolution, and which he acknowleged to be the fact, let us consider the second proposition, "That the late infraction of such their unquestionable right, is an aggression hostile to their honor and interest.' Sir, after a deelaration of this kind, can you retract? You cannot; it is in fact a declaration of war itself. Many of the courts of Eu