Читать книгу: «Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 (4 of 16 vol.)», страница 149
War Department, Feb. 10, 1813
Sir: In reply to the letter you did me the honor to write to me, on the 5th instant, by direction of the Committee on Military Affairs, I respectfully submit the following opinions:
1st. That an increased number of general officers is essential to the public service. The number of regiments provided for by law, is, two of light dragoons, three of heavy artillery, one of light artillery, one of riflemen, and forty-five of infantry, making, together, fifty-two regiments.
The simplest organization is ever the best. Hence it is, that, as a regiment consists of two battalions, so a brigade should consist of two regiments, and a division of two brigades.
This sphere of command will be found in practice, sufficiently large. The management of two thousand men in the field, will be ample duty for a brigadier, and the direction of double that number will give full occupation to a major general. To enlarge the sphere of command in either grade would not be a mean of best promoting the public good.
Taking these ideas as the basis of the rule, and taking for granted, also, that our ranks are filled, the present establishment would require twenty-five brigadiers and twelve major generals. But the latter admission requires qualification, and, under existing circumstances, it may be sufficient that the higher staff should consist of eight major generals, and sixteen brigadiers.
The general argument, on this head, might be fortified by our own practice during the war of the Revolution, and by that of European nations at all times. Believing, however, that this view of the subject has been already taken by the adjutant general, in a late communication to you, I forbear to do more than suggest it.
2. The recruiting service would be much promoted, were the bounty in land commutable into money, at the option of the soldier, and at the end of his service. This modification would be addressed to both descriptions of men – those who would prefer money, and such as would prefer land.
I need hardly remark that bounties, at the close of service, have many advantages over those given before service begins. The former tie men down to their duty; the latter furnish, if not the motive, at least the means of debauch and desertion.
Another, and a public reason, for the preference, may be found in the greater convenience with which money may be paid at the end, than at the commencement of a war.
I have the honor to be, with great respect, &c.
JOHN ARMSTRONG.
Hon. D. R. Williams,
Chairman Com. on Military Affairs.
The bill authorizing the appointment of additional general officers in the Army of the United States, was then read a third time, and passed by yeas and nays: for the bill 95, against it 30.
Monday, February 15
Suspension of Non-Importation
Mr. Cheves, from the Committee of Ways and Means, made the following report: —
The Committee of Ways and Means report: That they have deemed it to be their duty, that the public service may not suffer and that the public credit may be duly supported, to look beyond the ways and means of the present year, and to take into consideration the revenue which may be wanted for the year 1814. That an estimate of the probable amount of the revenue which will accrue under existing laws, and be receivable within that year, has been submitted to Congress in the Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury made during the present session. That, comparing the amount thereof with the sums which will probably be required by a prudent regard to the public credit, it appears to the committee indispensably necessary to make a further provision; that this may be done by a partial suspension of the non-importation acts, which will not greatly lessen their injurious effects upon the enemy, by an additional duty on foreign tonnage, and by the imposition of internal taxes and duties: That, in their opinion, all these means will be necessary to supply the revenue which will be wanted: That it is impracticable, during the present session, consistently with a due attention to the other business of the nation, to enact the laws necessary to embrace the last-mentioned object; but that this may be done without difficulty and without a delay which will be injurious either to the public credit or the public service, by an earlier meeting of Congress than the constitutional period, which it will be the duty of Congress, or the Executive branch of the Government, to fix at such time as shall be deemed most proper and expedient: That it is, however, necessary that the suspension of the non-importation acts which is contemplated should be enacted at the present session of Congress: and for this purpose and the imposition of additional duties on foreign tonnage, they beg leave to report a bill. They also report herewith a correspondence between the Secretary of the Treasury and this committee on the subject of this report.
Letter from the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means to the Secretary of the Treasury:
Committee-Room, Feb. 3, 1813.
Sir: I am directed by the Committee of Ways and Means to request from you the favor of a reply to the following questions:
1. What, in your opinion, would be the probable amount of revenue applicable to the service of the year 1814, which would result from a modification or partial repeal of the non-importation acts, such as is suggested in your letter, of the 10th of June, 1812, addressed to the Committee of Ways and Means?
2. Is the modification suggested by that letter the best in your opinion that can be devised to obtain a given revenue, with the least possible diminution of the effects of the non-importation acts? If not, be pleased to suggest such alterations and improvements as occur to your mind.
3. Are there, in your opinion, any further legal provisions necessary, or will any be expedient, more effectually to enforce the non-importation acts, or to insure the more effectual collection of the revenue?
4. Would it, in your opinion, be advisable to increase the duty on foreign tonnage? If it would, to what amount? and what would be the probable addition to the revenue applicable to the year 1814 by such increase? I am, &c.,
LANGDON CHEVES.
Hon. Albert Gallatin, &c.
Answer of the Secretary
Treasury Department, Feb. 9, 1813.
Sir: I have the honor to submit the following answer to the questions proposed in your letter of the 3d instant:
1. It is believed from the reasons stated in my letter of the 10th June last to the Committee of Ways and Means, that the amount of revenue applicable to the service of the year 1814, which would result from a modification of the non-importation acts suggested in the said letter, may be estimated at about five million of dollars, provided that modification takes place during the present session of Congress.
2. No better modification, for the purposes therein intended, has suggested itself than that proposed in the letter aforesaid. But it would seem requisite, for the same object, that no drawback should be allowed on the re-exportation of the merchandise which may be thus imported.
3. The most important legal provision which appears necessary to enforce the non-importation acts, is a positive prohibition of a restoration by order of court of merchandise, the importation of which is prohibited by law. It is also believed that it will be necessary to order all the cargoes of salt, particularly from Lisbon, to be discharged under the inspection of proper officers; and it appears reasonable that the expense should be defrayed by the importers.
4. It appears, in every point of view, highly desirable, that the duty on foreign tonnage should be increased. A duty of ten dollars per ton does not seem greater than what is required for the protection of American vessels. But I cannot form any correct estimate of the probable addition resulting to the revenue from such increase. Much would depend on the suppression of the trade carried on by American vessels with enemies' licenses.
With respect to the necessity of providing an additional revenue for the year 1814, I beg leave to refer to the statements made and opinions expressed, when I had the honor several weeks ago to wait on the Committee of Ways and Means. And I beg leave to add that this necessity has been considerably increased by the subsequent expenditures authorized by law; amongst which must be particularly mentioned the act for the increase of the navy, and that for raising twenty thousand men for one year. Indeed, considering the general rate of expenditure resulting from the war measures which have been adopted, I am of opinion it will be necessary to recur both to a modification or repeal of the non-importation acts and to the proposed internal taxes, in order to provide a revenue commensurate with those expenses. When an additional revenue of five millions was believed sufficient, that opinion was predicated on the supposition made by the committee, that annual loans of only ten or twelve millions of dollars would be wanted. With a revenue of twelve millions of dollars for this year, it is ascertained that a loan of at least sixteen millions is necessary.
I have the honor to be, &c.,
ALBERT GALLATIN.
Hon. Langdon Cheves, Chairman, &c.
The report and documents were read.
Mr. Cheves then introduced the bill above mentioned, which was read the first time, and ordered to be read a second time by a vote of 44 to 36.
Tuesday, February 16
Mr. Milnor presented a memorial of the Pennsylvania Society for promoting the Abolition of Slavery, complaining that American vessels, navigated by American citizens, are engaged in the African slave trade, under the flags of foreign nations, and praying that Congress will take this subject into consideration, and pass such laws as will remedy the evil of which they complain. – Referred to a select committee; and Mr. Milnor, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Grosvenor, Mr. Wheaton, and Mr. Earle, were appointed the committee.
Naturalization Laws
On motion of Mr. Lacock, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill to amend the naturalization laws of the United States; which, having been amended in committee, was reported to the House.
Mr. Lacock moved to amend the bill by extending the naturalization of aliens to all those "who have heretofore or may within nine months hereafter, declare their intention agreeably to law to become citizens of the United States," and declaring that they may be admitted as such.
This motion was negatived. – For the amendment 45, against it 48.
On the question of concurrence with the committee in striking out the second section of the bill, which deprives of his right to the privileges of citizenship any citizen who shall depart from and remain without the limits of the United States for a term of two years – the yeas and nays were, for striking out the section 71, against it 43.
The bill having been thus amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.
Wednesday, February 17
The engrossed bill supplementary to the several acts on the subject of a uniform rule of naturalization, was read a third time.
Mr. Bacon opposed its passage on the ground of the impolicy of encouraging the emigration of alien enemies during the existence of war; and concluded a short speech against the bill by moving its commitment to a Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Grundy supported the motion on the ground of defects in the detail of the bill, which he wished to amend.
The motion for recommitment was carried by a large majority, and the bill made the order of the day for Monday.
War Taxes
Mr. Little introduced the following resolution, with some remarks in favor of the policy of the non-importation act, to which he avowed himself to be very friendly, and to the suspension of which he was opposed:
"Resolved, That the Committee of Ways and Means be, and hereby are, instructed to report to this House a bill or bills laying taxes for the support of the War."
The question of considering of this resolution was decided in the affirmative, by yeas and nays – for consideration 66, against it 38.
The resolution being thus presented to the House for its adoption —
A desultory debate of two hours took place on it, in the course of which a motion was made by Mr. Grundy to lay the resolution on the table, and negatived – 60 to 45.
The following was the course of the debate, which was of too irregular a nature to be reported entire:
Mr. Grundy opposed the motion, because it had already been declared impracticable, by the Committee of Ways and Means, to act properly on the subject at the present session.
Mr. Little supported it, on the ground of his opposition to a suspension of the non-importation act, a measure which he reprobated as injurious to the manufactures of our country, and weakening our measures against Great Britain, of which he considered the non-importation act to be as powerful as any.
Mr. Stow advocated the motion, because he wished the House to redeem the pledge given at the last session, that taxes would be laid at this, and to observe something like consistency in their proceedings.
Mr. Weight was also warmly in favor of the measure, and rather imputed blame to the Committee of Ways and Means for not having before acted on this subject, without waiting for instructions from the House.
Mr. Bibb replied to the remarks which had been made in favor of the resolution. At the last session it was presumed that it would be necessary to lay taxes at this session; but the revenue accruing in the intermediate time had swelled so far beyond its anticipated amount as to render it unnecessary to levy taxes for the service of the ensuing year.
Mr. Wright again spoke in favor of the motion.
Mr. Richardson was decidedly in favor of a repeal or modification of the non-importation act, though he believed both that measure and the imposition of taxes would be necessary to supply the revenue.
Mr. McKim was in favor of the motion, because he was opposed to the suspension or weakening of the non-importation act.
Mr. Cheves spoke at length in defence of the Committee of Ways and Means, and in demonstration of the impracticability of acting on the subject properly at the present session. Sitting day and night, and passing by all other business, a proper system of taxation could not be digested and put into the form of law before the end of the session. Two only out of fourteen of the bills it would be necessary to pass to carry the system proposed at the last session into effect, would require the whole of the present session to perfect them. The passage of a system of taxation, besides, would not obviate the necessity of the passage of the law suspending partially the non-importation act. It would require both. The taxes, he agreed, must be laid, but could not at the present session.
Mr. Wright replied.
Mr. Stow again spoke. He would, if all the tax bills could not be passed, at least pass one, and break the charm which seemed to withhold the House from touching the subject.
Mr. Archer moved to strike out the whole of the resolution, for the purpose of inserting an instruction to the Committee of Ways and Means to report a bill or bills, pursuant to the report of the Committee of Ways and Means on this subject, which passed the House on the 4th day of March, 1812.
This modification of the motion was accepted by Mr. Little.
Mr. Cheves then withdrew his objection to the motion, as it contained a definite instruction, and he felt a delicacy as a member of the Committee of Ways and Means in opposing it, though he was convinced it would be impracticable to pass the bills at the present session.
Mr. Roberts opposed the motion, and expressed his regret that the discussion, which was fixed for to-morrow, should be forestalled by this resolution.
Mr. Johnson warmly opposed the motion, as going to cast censure on a committee which had labored day and night in its vocation, and requiring them to originate measures which they had already declared it impracticable to act on at the present session, &c.
Mr. Widgery also spoke against the motion, decidedly.
The question on the adoption of the resolution as modified by Mr. Archer, was decided in the negative – yeas 47, nays 69.
Thursday, February 18
Encouragement to Privateering
On motion of Mr. Little, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill remitting the claim of the United States to certain goods, wares, &c., captured by the private armed vessels of the United States.
Mr. McKim, under the belief that the bill as it now stands does not place privateers on a better footing than before, and does not answer the object intended by the resolution which produced it, proposed the following substitute by way of amendment:
"That all right and claim of the United States to British property, which may have been captured by American privateers, arising from forfeiture under any provision of the act entitled 'An act to prohibit commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France and their dependencies, and for other purposes,' and an act entitled 'An act concerning the commercial intercourse between Great Britain and France and their dependencies, and for other purposes,' and an act supplementary to the last mentioned act, be, and the same is hereby relinquished for the benefit of the owners, officers, and crews of the privateers respectively that may have captured the same."
This amendment produced some discussion, in which Messrs. McKim and Wright advocated the motion, and Messrs. Roberts and Fisk opposed it; when the question was taken and lost, without a division.
Mr. Roberts moved to amend the bill, so as to include captures made of goods which were shipped anterior to as well as since the declaration of war was known in England. This amendment was adopted, 46 to 32.
The committee then rose, reported the bill to the House, as amended; the amendments were concurred in, and the bill ordered to be engrossed and read a third time to-morrow, 47 to 39.
Friday, February 19
Another member, to wit, from New Hampshire, George Sullivan, appeared, and took his seat.
Encouragement of Private Armed Privateering
The engrossed bill to release the claims of the United States on certain goods, wares, and merchandise, captured by private armed vessels, was read a third time, and debated.
The bill was passed by the vote, by yeas and nays – for the bill 52, against it 38:
Capture of the Java
The following Message was received from the President of the United States:
To the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States:
I lay before Congress a letter, with accompanying documents, from Captain Bainbridge, now commanding the United States frigate "the Constitution," reporting his capture and destruction of the British frigate "the Java." The circumstances and the issue of this combat afford another example of the professional skill and heroic spirit which prevail in our naval service. The signal display of both by Captain Bainbridge, his officers, and crew, command the highest praise.
This being a second instance in which the condition of the captured ship, by rendering it impossible to get her into port, has barred a contemplated reward of successful valor, I recommend to the consideration of Congress the equity and propriety of a general provision, allowing, in such cases, both past and future, a fair proportion of the value which would accrue to the captors on the safe arrival and sale of the prize.
Feb. 22, 1813.
JAMES MADISON.
U. S. Frigate Constitution,
St. Salvador, January 3d, 1813.
Sir: I have the honor to inform you that, on the 29th ultimo, at 2 P. M., in south latitude 13° 6´, and west longitude 38°, about ten leagues distant from the coast of Brazil, I fell in with, and captured, His Britannic Majesty's frigate Java, of 49 guns, and upwards of four hundred men, commanded by Captain Lambert, a very distinguished officer. The action lasted one hour and fifty-five minutes, in which time the enemy was completely dismasted, not having a spar of any kind standing. The loss on board the Constitution was nine killed and twenty-five wounded, as per enclosed list. The enemy had sixty killed and one hundred and one wounded, certainly; (among the latter, Captain Lambert, mortally;) but by the enclosed letter, written on board this ship, by one of the officers of the Java, and accidentally found, it is evident that the enemy's wounded must have been much greater than as above stated, and who must have died of their wounds previously to their being removed. The letter states sixty killed and one hundred and seventy wounded.
For further details of the action, I beg leave to refer you to the enclosed extracts from my journal. The Java had, in addition to her own crew, upwards of one hundred supernumerary officers and seamen, to join the British ships of war in the East Indies; also, Lieutenant General Hislop, appointed to the command of Bombay, Major Walker, and Captain Wood, of his staff, and Captain Marshall, master and commander in the British navy, going to the East Indies to take command of a sloop of war there.
Should I attempt to do justice, by representation, to the great and good conduct of all my officers and crew, during the action, I should fail in the attempt; therefore, suffice it to say, that the whole of their conduct was such as to merit my highest encomiums. I beg leave to recommend the officers particularly to the notice of Government, and also the unfortunate seamen who were wounded, and the families of those brave men who fell in the action.
The great distance from our own coast, and the perfect wreck we made of the enemy's frigate, forbade every idea of attempting to take her to the United States. I had, therefore, no alternative but burning her, which I did on the 31st ultimo, after receiving all the prisoners and their baggage, which was very tedious work, only having one boat left out of eight, and not one boat left on board the Java.
On blowing up the frigate Java, I proceeded to this place, where I have landed all the prisoners, on their parole, to return to England, and there remain until regularly exchanged, and not to serve in their professional capacities, in any place, or in any manner whatever, against the United States of America, until said exchange is effected. I have the honor to be, &c.
WILLIAM BAINBRIDGE.
Hon. Paul Hamilton, Secretary Navy.
