be deemed satisfactory in support of the principle assumed in the royal instruction to which that reasoning has been applied. The minister of state has produced in favor of the principle in question the single argument that he who puts himself under the protection of another, does thereby take side with his protector, and renounces the advantages which belong to the quality of friend as to him against whom he seeks protection. In vain are the books examined to discover the source from which this argument is drawn; in vain are history and the records of diplomacy resorted to, for authority or for any countenance given to the doctrine which it embraces: but these books and these records, have they lost their title to respect? Have they become a dead letter? His majesty certainly does not assume to act on principles unknown to them; to originate a practice at once undefined in its limits and rigorous in its character beyond all precedent; in hostility also with the ancient doctrines of Denmark, and a stranger to all her maritime codes: so much a stranger as that it is not found even in the royal instructions issued on the 14th Sept. 1807. His excellency the minister of state supposes an acquiescence in this new rule upon the consideration that it is applied to Danish ships as well as to strangers. Certainly the United States will never dispute the equity or propriety of any law emanating from his majesty's authority and applied to his own subjects; but it is equally certain that they found their rights upon the public law only, and cannot consent to place them at the disposition of any partial authority, or to limit them by the convenience of the belligerent powers. It is not readily conceived how Danish ships or ships of the allies of Denmark, being subject to the capture of the enemy, can be found under his convoy; vessels carrying such flags, and so found, cannot but be enemy's property; but if by whatever means his majesty's subjects do put themselves under enemy's convoy, they are doubtless guilty of a high crime, and richly merit all the punishment which his laws inflict; but is the same rule to be applied to the property and to the citizens of a neutral and independent power?

Thus much the undersigned has found it his duty to say in addition to what has before been stated and remains unanswered respecting the principle assumed in the royal instruction of March, 1810: but he finds one part of the ministers note which as he apprehends goes much beyond that instruction and which would preclude the neutral from any kind of justification for being found under enemy's

convoy.

It were a gross dereliction of the interests of the United States should the udersigned leave the least room for his excellency to suppose that the American government will accede to the fiction propounded by his excellency, viz: "that neutral vessels found under enemy's convoy have eo facto lost their original quality of neutrals.” This idea was certainly more fully and distinctly expressed in conversation, and seeing that there are parts of his excellency's note which favor a different conclusion, he eagerly seizes the hope that it is not really ntended to carry the doctrine to such an extent; yet

CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER.

400

as in a matter of such importance nothing should remain equivocal, the undersigned desirous of laying it before the president in the most distinct manner, requests that he may be favored with an explanation as to whatever is susceptible of mis-construction.

His excellency, pursuing the idea above cited in mentioning the instructions which his majesty has now given to his tribunals to direct their examinations on American vessels found under enemy's convoy, says, "que les preuves les plus evidentes seront requises pour prouver qu'un navire sous pavillon Americain ait ete sous convoi Anglois." Yet it is hoped that the words oit ete are not intended to be connected with what is above quoted, but rather that they are to be governed by the sense of the words "s'etre mis sous la protection," found in the same sentence; by the words "la recherche et l'usage faites" in the paragraph preceding; by the words "se fait proteger," which will bear the same construction in the paragraph following; and finally, by the words in the article "d" clause 11th, of the royal instructions of March 1810, construed "using convoy," which must be supposed to mean a voluntary use of convoy, and cannot intend vessels which have been forced into, or have acciden tally found themselves in convoy. For, to condemn vessels under such unfortunate circumstances!--Is that the course of a power friendly to the neutral? This reflection so strengthens the above construction of the words used in the royal order of March 10th, as not to leave a possibility of supposing that his majesty intended that such innocent vessels should be affected by it.

The undersigned cannot conclude this note without expressing his full confidence that the friendly dispositions professed by his majesty will dispose him so to regulate the conduct of his tribunals upon the convoy cases as to satisfy the just claims of the United States, or without assuring his excellency the minister of state, in reply to the last observation in his note, that the American government is also fully sensible to the value of the commercial and friendly relations which have always subsisted between the two countries.

No. 3.

Count Rosenkrantz to Mr. Erving.

Copenhagen, 9th July, 1811. The undersigned, minister of state and chief of the department of foreign affairs, has seen with very particular satisfaction, from the note of Mr. Erving, minister of the United States of America, under date of the 30th ultimo, that he was not disappointed in his expectation of finding that Mr. Erving would acknowledge the sentiments of justice and equity which animate the king his master, as well as the desire of his majesty to maintain a good understanding with the United States. But it is not without pain that the same minister of state sees that Mr. Erving remonstrates against the sentences already definitively pronounced. It is with the same sentiment that the undersigned finds himself charged by the orders of his sovereign to repeat to the minister of the United States, that his ma

st make any general change in the regulations of the ordiprivateering, issued on the 28th March of last year, and in quence none in the 11th, which under the letter "d" declares, neutral vessels, that make use of the convoy or of the protection of the vessels of war of Great Britain, are to be considered as good prize if the Danish privateers capture them under convoy. The undersigned must repeat, that the rule laid down by that article of the ordinance, will be followed by the prize courts whenever the proofs are clear; that the vessels under American flags, as well as those of other nations, are found in a convoy under the protection of the enemies of Denmark. He does not wish to repeat here what he had the honor of stating on this subject in his preceding note; but he begs Mr. Erving to be so good as to observe to his government, that none of the powers of Europe have called in question the justice of this principle.

Mr. Erving has observed, that notwithstanding the Danish courts had not been directed to consider the certificates of origin granted by the French consuls in the ports of America as false until after the 22d September of last year, there has nevertheless been imposed upon two vessels acquitted by the supreme court of admiralty, a fine solely for having these certificates on board, as Mr. Erving has been informed. The undersigned, although he is not informed of these facts, will not call in question the assertion of the minister of the United States; and he must consequently suppose, that the suspicion of the legality of these certificates was excited by the public declaration which was before made on the part of the French government, that the consuls of France were not authorized to grant the certificates in question, and that for that reason the courts have decided that the captors were justified in bringing in the vessels for examination.

(Signed)

ROSENKRANTZ.

DEBATE ON THE NAVY BILL-[Continued.]

House of Representatives, January 18, 1812. MR. SEYBERT. I rife under a preffure of more than ordinary embarraffment-prudence on one hand bids me fhrink from the tafk which I am about to undertake; whilft on the other hand, a confcious duty impels me to engage in the confideration of the queftion now before this honorable committee. My friend from South Carolina (Mr. Cheves) fays, this queftion is all important to this nation; in this I perfectly coincide with him, and there. fore cannot reft fatisfied with a mere vote on this occafion. Sir, it is not my intention to follow the gentleman from South Carolina through all the windings of the labyrinth into which he has ventured to penetrate. I will not pretend to chafe reason on the wing this fubject is one, which may be demonftrated by figures and calculations-its inveftigation fhall be attempted in this way.

The gentleman from South Carolina and myself do not differ as regards the intimate connection of the agricultural and commerciai interefts. On this part of the fubject, he has left nothing further to be faid. But, fir, he mistakes when he remarked, that it was the common fentiment, that the commerce of the United States ought not to be protected-at any rate, for one, I will not be confidered fubject to this accufation, though I fhall maintain, that we cannot protect the commerce of this country on the ocean. The facts in fupport of this opinion will be ftated presently. In common with iny friend, I will lay before this committee "a dry detail of facts." I hope gentlemen will indulge me with a portion of their time, though there may not be much pleasure in hearing fuch details. I will not particularly follow the gentleman in his comparifon of the army and naval eftablishments of the United States. He has ftated to us, that the army has coft this nation much more than the navy; he concludes we ought to be equally liberal in our appropriations for both these purpofes. Sir, I perceive no reafon in this aflertion; fome gentlemen on the other fide of the houfe may fay, that we have been lavith in our appropriations for an army; even admitting that in this refpect we have been liberal to extravagance, it furely cannot be inferred that we thould make ourfelves doubly guilty of this charge; fome better reafon must be offered before I will agree to make appropriations for the establishing a navy for the United States. The gentleman from South Carolina has told us, that when the war which we are about to wage, frall be over, our army will leave us. Sir, I am happy to hear that on fuch an event the military will be readily difbanded; a dread of the contrary gave much uneafinefs to many in this Houfe a few days fince-this is juft what we with fhall take place. On the other hand, faid he, your proud navy" will remain. It is for this, with many other reafons, why I am opposed to a navy. I with he could have proved to us, that with the end of the war the navy would alfo leave us ; perhaps I fhould then agree with him in favor of its eftablifhment-though the "proud navy" will remain with us, he has neglected to tell us at what rate of expense.

Sir, the gentleman from South Carolina fays, many oppose a navy, because they deem it an anti-republican inftitution. On this head, I fhall remark but little: I will only afk if it is to remain with us in times of peace with its numerous train of officers, may it not become a powerful engine in the hands of an ambi. tious executive ?

Sir, it was thought proper to make the foregoing remarks as preliminary to the fubject. The queftion of a naval establishment for the United States more especially concerns those who inhabit commercial diftricts. As one of thefe I am much interested. Many perlons maintain, that a naval fyftem of defence is indifpenfably neceffary to a nation, whofe feaboard extends more than 1500 miles, with a fhipping intereft amounting to 1,300,000

tons. In this refpect, ranking the fecond of modern nations, the argument is as fpacious as it is plaufible; it is liable to many, and in my opinion, to infuperable objections. The propofition before us will be confidered as leading to a permanent naval eftablishment. This courfe is warranted by the report of the Secretary of the Navy, as well as by the mode which was purfued by my friend from South Carolina. I fhall not hefitate to declare my decided oppofition to fuch an establishment, and will proceed to flate the of jections whereon my opinion is grounded.

Sir, I deem it inexpedient to commerce a permanent naval cftablishment at this time. We are quite unprepared for it-we are in want of all the neceffary materials-though we have been told that our forefts abound in all the necellary timber, it was faid little of this material was to be found in our dock-yards. The gentleman from South Carolina has told us, that a fufficiency of seasoned timber, to build four feventy-four's, was now on hand, and that the proper authority deemed it advifable to be used for frigates. Sir, this timber is a portion of that which was purchafed fome years fince, for the purpose of building fix feventyfour's. It now appears, that of this timber as much as was fufficient for two of thefe veffels, has been employed to build smaller veffels or gun-boats, I prefume. This is all of a piece with our pretended economy. This mode of proceeding will not aufwer, fir. We are in the wrong from the commencement of our navy. I do not wifh it to be understood, that I have decided a navy will ever be a proper mode of defence for this nation-but whenever it fhall be determined on, we fhould begin right; this can only be done by following thefe nations who have had moft experience on the fubject. Our first ftep fhould be to ftore away the proper timber. This thould be done in times when we can beft afford it-in times when our markets are glutted-in times when labor can be commanded at fair prices-at a period when we enjoy peace, and furely not when we are about to engage in a war. We have heretofore paid the higheft price for every article-we have given double wages for labor-and inftances might be mentioned, when the workmen were tranfported in ftage coaches, at an enormous expenfe, from our large feaport towns to the navyyard of this city. Contracts for timber were made in hafte and at a very advanced price. As foon as it was obtained, it was put together, and in a few months we faw it floating in the form of a fhip of war-rotten fhips I may fay, fir, for I believe without exception, in the frigates, which were built by the United States, the more important parts decayed and were rotten in 2, 3 or 4 years in many inftances the expenfe for repairs was equal to the original coft a fingle frigate, the Constitution, has coft for repairs, from October 1802, to March 1809, the enormous fum of $302,582 21-100, or upwards of $43,000 per annum for seven years in fucceffion. Sir, we are not without fome "consolation' on this item. The Secretary of the Navy, in his letter of Decem