Gb./H^a

-.^

Cb7*/ V/

SPEECH

OF

HON. G. B. ADRAIN, OF NEW JERSEY,

ON

THE NEUTRALITY LAWS;

DELIVERED

IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 7, 1858.

WASHINGTON:
PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE.
1858.

THE NEUTRALITY LAWS

The House having resolved itself into the Committee of
the Whole on the state ofthe Union, and resumed the con
sideration of the President's annual message-
Mr. ADRAIN said:
Mr. Chairman: It is the interest and policy
of this Government to cultivate the most friendly
relations with all other Powers. Such has been
the policy of our Government from its foundation
down to the present period. It is a policy that
has preserved our domestic peace; it is a policy
which has preserved us from foreign war ; a policy
which has enabled our citizens to pursue their
various avocations'in peace; a policy which has
given rise to a wide and extensive commerce, until
our ships are now floating proudly upon every
sea. It is a wise and a judicious policy; a policy
adopted by the first President of this great and
powerful nation; and it is for this Government
to determine whether that policy shall be aban
doned, or whether another policy shall be pur
sued which will interrupt our friendly and peace
ful relations with foreign nations. How can those
friendly relations be preserved unless our Gov
ernment takes some effective and stringent meas
ures for the purpose of putting a stop to these
military expeditions that are forming in our midst
to go out and prey upon the property and lives of
those who are at peace with us? And the Presi
dent of the United States, in his message, calls
the attention of the House to this subject, and
proposes that we shall give to it our most serious
and deliberate consideration.
The neutrality laws which are upon our statute-
books are not sufficient to put a stop to this ma
rauding spirit, which is likely to bring us into
difficulty with foreign Powers, and which inter

rupts our peace and excites the hostility of for
eign nations against us. As this is the case, I
hope that when this matter is referred to the com
mittee, our laws will be so changed and so mod
ified as not to give fuller license to this maraud
ing spirit, but to prevent and check it.
Now, sir, it is proposed by the distinguished
gentleman from Mississippi that these neutrality
laws should be abolished, or altered in such a way
that they shall not infringe what he conceives to
be the rights of American citizens. Now, sir, I
am not in favor of having the rights of American
citizens interfered with at all by the Government.
But what are those rights? What right has any
citizen of the United States to band together with
others to form these military expeditions to go
out to make war upon foreign Powers ? I deny
the right. Every American citizen has the right
of leaving his country, of expatriating himself
if he please, and of seeking and receiving protec
tion in another country. But his right does not
extend so far as to allow him to get up a military
expedition for the purpose of making war upon
those Powers that are at peace with us, when
those military expeditions interfere with our great
national interests.
These neutrality laws, Mr. Chairman, are
founded upon the great law of nations. Laws
have been passed from the period of Washing
ton's administration to the present time, founded
upon this great law. Now what is this law of
nations? Although this law, by some nations,
has been disregarded, yet it is a law which is
founded upon morality, justice, and humanity.
Every nation ought to do as much good to another
in peace, and as little harm in war, as possible.

have here a standard book upon the law of na
tions, and I beg leave to call the attention of the
House to a few remarks of the late Chancellor
Kent, when treating upon this subject. He says :
" The faithful observance of this law is essential to na
tional character, and to the happiness of mankind. Accord-
ding to the observation of Montesquieu, it is founded on
the principle, that different nations ought to do each other
as much good in peace, and as little harm in war, as possi
ble, without injury to their true interests.
" We ought not, therefore, to separate the science of
public law from that of ethics, nor encourage the dangerous
suggestion, that Governments are not so strictly bound by
the obligations of truth, justice, and humanity, in relation
to other Powers, as they are in the management of their own
local concerns. States, or bodies-politic, are to be consid
ered as moral persons, having a public will, capable and
free to do right and wrong, inasmuch as they are collections
of individuals, each of whom carries with him into the ser
vice of the community the same binding law of morality
and religion which ought to control his conduct in private
life. The law of nations is a complex system, composed
of various ingredients. It consists of general principles of
right and justice, equally suitable to the government of in
dividuals in a state of natural equality, and to the relation
and conduct of nations ; of a collection of usages and cus
toms, the growth of civilization and commerce ; and of a
code of conventional or positive law. In the absence of
these latter regulations, the intercourse and conduct of na
tions are to be governed by principles fairly to be deduced
from the rights and duties of nations, and the nature of
moral obligation; and we have the authority of the lawyers
of antiquity, and of some ofthe first masters in the modern
school of public law, for placing the moral obligation of na
tions and of individuals on similar grounds, and for consid
ering individual and national morality as parts of one and
the same science."
Here, sir, are the principles upon which the law
of nations is based. They are correct principles,
and I maintain that there is a moral obligation
resting upon our nation , as well as a moral obli
gation resting upon every individual, to observe
them. What right has any one to deprive another
of his property or his life ? If he does it, the law
punishes him; and if he gives out an indication of
his intention to commit a crime, the restraint of
the law is put upon him, and he is bound over to
keep the peace. If this is so, has not the Govern
ment an equal right to prevent its citizens from
committing depredations upon others who are at
peace with us ? Have not they the moral obliga
tion to prevent injury to their neighbors? Is not
that just? Is it not morally right? And is it not
humane ?
Therefore I maintain that the neutrality laws
of our county are founded upon the great law of
nations, which commends itself to the judgment
and conscience of every right-thinking man . This
law of nations is of modern growth. The ancient
¦Republics knew nothing about it; they knew
nothing of right or wrong, and they paid no re
gard to the rights and property of others. We
all know that the best fleets of Athens went out
upon these piratical excursions to deprive others

of their property and their lives. It is for us —
for this Government — for this great people, to de
termine whether we will go back to those ancient
times and imitate these piratical excursions, or
whether we will keep our citizens within the re
straints of law and morality and justice.
I am in favor, Mr. Chairman , of putting a stop
to this marauding spirit that is afloat in this coun
try. It is a mischievous, dangerous spirit. It is
a spirit that has done no good, but a great deal
of harm. It is a spirit that has excited the bad
passions of the youth of our country. It is a
spirit that has led them to disobey the laws of
our country, to disrespect our Government, to
disregard the property and lives of others. It is
a spirit, sir, which has interfered with the great
transit routes between the two oceans; and the
President tells us in his message that, in conse
quence of that interference, our citizens have sus
tained heavy losses. These are some of the
effects of this marauding spirit; and yet the dis
tinguished gentleman from Mississippi, [Mr.
Quitman,] and other gentlemen here, would have
us encourage that spirit instead of restraining it.
If our neutrality laws, as they now exist, cannot
restrain men in this country from doing what they
ought not to do, from committing unlawful acts,
in the name of common sense what will they do
if the restraints of the existing laws are removed !
Mr. QUITMAN. 1 challenge the gentleman
to refer to a single word that I have ever uttered
approving of a marauding spirit, or approving of
illegal transactions. And it is' a very remarkable
fact, Mr. Chairman, in regard to the relations
existing between us and the Central American
States, that the very State which'could complain
of marauding expeditions having been sen t against
it from this country— I refer to Nicaragua— is now
upon terms of greater amity with the United States
than another State against which such expedi
tions have never been directed — I refer to Para
guay. The President has informed us that we
are upon terms of hostility with that State, against
which no expeditions have ever been directed
from the United States.
But, sir, I merely rose for the purpose of say
ing that I have never, here or elsewhere, in any
speech, advocated, and that I do not now advocate
a marauding spirit or any violation of the law of
nations. But the gentleman from New Jersey has
not looked into the law of nations, if he deduces
from it a support for the neutrality law of 1818
for that act is in almost every feature violative of
the law of nations.
Mr. ADRAIN. It may be that I have not ex
amined the subject with sufficient care, and I may

not be as well acquainted with it as the distin
guished gentleman from Mississippi; butl am sat
isfied of one thing — that it is the bounden duty of
Government not to annul the neutrality laws ofthe
the country , but, if anything, to increase them and
make them more stringent. I do not wish, nor
do I intend, to misrepresent the gentleman. Par
from it. I was merely arguing from the position
which he took in regard to the neutrality laws. I
certainly understood him to disapprove of them;
and the very fact of his moving to refer this sub
ject to a special committee, was an evidence that
he did not wish it to go to the Judiciary Com
mittee; that he had some specific purpose, and
that that purpose was to have a special committee
raised to carry out his peculiar views.
Mr. Chairman , it has been proposed here , upon
this floor — and I must say that it struck me with
great astonishment — that we should send General
Walker and his men back to Nicaragua. It is
said that Commodore Paulding did an illegal act
when he arrested General Walker, and sent him
back to this country. It may be so. That act
may have been illegal ; the commodore may have
gone beyond the line of his instructions. When
we have all the facts and the law from the Pres
ident, as 1 hope we will have in a few days, we
will then fully understand whether he went be
yond his instructions or not.
But suppose he did; suppose he had no right
to bring General Walker back, under his instruc
tions: are we to send Walker and his men back
again, when the President says they went out on
an unlawful predatory expedition, and that their
acts were acts of murder and robbery? Why,
air, by so doing this Government would indorse
those acts of robbery and murder. Are we pre
pared to do that? Will this Government do that?
Because Commodore Paulding, in his zeal for the
interests of his country, and his love and respect
for our Government, has exceeded the letter of
his instructions, are we to sanction or countenance
proceedings which the President has condemned
in his message ?
Suppose, now, that we send Walker and his
men back: I say that' if this Government should
take such a step, it would give the Nicaraguan
Government direct cause for war, and it might
actually lead to war. Suppose Walker and his
men are sent down there in one of our national
ships, under our national flag, and when about to
land are met by an opposing force: what then?
We have resolved to send them back, and that
opposing force refuses to permit them to come
back. To fulfill our pledge to Walker, we must
carry him and his .men through, and plant them

in the very position from which they were taken ;
and do not gentlemen see at once the consequences
which would flow from that act ?
I am not willing, Mr. Chairman, as a general
rule, to allow either our civil or military officers to
transcend their duty or go beyond the line of their
instructions; but there maybe circumstances ina
particular case which will palliate if not justify
their conduct in doing so. What did Commodore
Paulding do ? Why, he did the very thing that
the Government wanted done. I do not mean to
say that the Government wanted Commodore
Paulding to lay his hand upon Walker and his
men upon a foreign soil, but it wanted this expe
dition broken up ; it wanted to stop the depreda
tions of Walker and his men upon the rights and
property of States with which we are at peace.
I say, therefore, that Commodore Paulding did
the very thing that the Government wanted done,
so far as the results were concerned ; and in doing
that he did an act which will be approved, as I
conceive, so far as those results are concerned, by
the Government and by a large majority of the
people of this country. I am not ready to con
demn one of the bravest and most gallant com
manders in our Navy for such an act. His mo
tives were good. His intentions were right. He
knew what the Government wanted , and he wished
to accomplish it. It was accomplished. Walker
snd his men are back in this country; and I pray
God that he may never get away from it again,
but that such restraints may be put upon him as
will make him obey the neutrality laws, as he
pledged himself to do.
Mr. KEITT. I wish to ask the gentleman from
New Jersey one question. He says that Com
modore Paulding knew what the Government
wanted. Mr. ADRAIN. I beg the gentleman's pardon.
That is not what I said. I said that Commodore
Paulding knew what the Government wanted, as
far as his instructions would indicate.
Mr. KEITT. How did he know what the
Government wanted ?
Mr. ADRAIN. He knew that the Government
wanted a stop put to these marauding expeditions.
That he knew.
Mr. KEITT. Did he know that the Govern
ment wanted him to arrest Walker and his men
on the island of Punta Arenas, and bring them
back to this country ?
Mr. ADRAIN. No, sir. He did not know it;
and he admits in his letter, like a brave, frank
man, that he went beyond the line of his instruc
tions . He assumed the whole responsibility him
self. But, sir, he is not the first man who has

6

taken the responsibility of going beyond the line
of his duty. We have the example of General
Jackson, the brave and illustrious old hero, out
of respect to whose memory this House has just
passed a resolution for an adjournment until Mon
day next. Sir, that glorious old hero loved to
assume responsibilities, and the country admired
and rewarded him for it.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, much interest in the
progress of free principles. I did not hear very
distinctly the gentleman who last addressed the
House, [Mr. Thayer;] but I have no doubt he
made a very able speech from what I did hear.
I am as much interested in the spread of free and
liberal principles as that gentleman or any gentle
man upon this floor, but it must be done in the
right way. Gentlemen may entertain different
views as to what is the right way; and according
to the theory and genius of our institutions each
man has the right to think and act for himself.
Other gentlemen claim that privilege, and I trust
I shall be allowed to exercise the same privilege
for myself. Therefore, I say that if free and lib
eral principles are to go abroad, are to be dissem
inated — if free Governments are to be established
in other countries where they do not exist now,
it is not to be done by fire and sword, but by the
peaceful example of our own free and enlightened
Government. Our Government is a Government
ofpeace. Our Government is a Government which
endeavors to avoid entangling alliances with for
eign Powers, and to give them no just cause of
offense. We wish to adopt the great principles
of morality and humanity towards other nations,
| so that they may see that we are a just and an
honest people. If we are not, then our Govern
ment is not fit to be imitated. Therefore, I am
against the spread of free principles — against the
Americanization of Central America, in any other
way than by peaceful emigration. That is the
way which is proposed by the President of the
United States, and it is the only legitimate way.
It is the only way compatible with the neutrality
laws of the Government, founded upon the great
law of nations. I care not how many men may
emigrate to Central America and settle there, if
theyplease. Thegentleman from Massachusetts,
who has talked so much about emigration, if he
pleases to emigrate there peacefully and quietly,
may go; though, from the specimen of a speech
which he gave us to-day, I should regret that we
would not have another opportunity to hear fur
ther from him.
Mr. Chairman, it is a fortunate circumstance
that this discussion has arisen in regard to the
neutrality laws of this couii try. I had supposed ,

at first, when this subject was introduced, that it
was premature. I thought it would have been
better to wait until the President had given us the
necessary information upon the subject, in answer
to the resolutions which the House has passed. -:'.ti
But, I do not think that it is premature to discuss
the neutrality laws, or to meet the great question
of raising these military expeditions to go out from
our midst and prey upon the lives and property
of our neighbors; I am as desirous as the gentle
man from Mississippi, or any other gentleman,
an be, that these questions should be met, and
met soon ; and that the voice of this Congress, and
the voice of this nation should be heard upon this
subject. I regretted very much to hear the gentleman
from New York, [Mr. Haskin,] who spoke yes
terday upon this subject, go, as it seemed to me
he did, a little too far in stating the opinions of
the northern Democracy in relation to Walker and
his followers. That gentleman took the ground,
as I understood him , of opposition to all such pri
vate enterprises. He was opposed to Walker
and his men going out in the way they did; but
he countenanced such expeditions upon the part
of the Government; in other words, he was op
posed to petit larceny, but was in favor of grand
larceny. I hold in my hand his reported speech,
which represents him as uttering these sentiments.
Sir, if they are his sentiments, they are not the
sentiments ofthe Democracy ofthe North. They
are not the sentiments of the people of my dis
trict, or of my State. We are an honest people.
We believe in morality and justice. We have
been brought up to be honest. We do not believe
in grand larceny any more than we do in petit
larceny, and I know my colleagues will concur
with me in the sentiments which I utter. We are
opposed to individuals taking the lives or prop
erty of others, and we are opposed to the Gov
ernment doing the same thing. I do not concur
with the gentleman in recommending the Gov
ernment to follow the example of England. Eng
land has not furnished us an example which, I
think, we should follow. She has not adhered
to the great law of nations. She has committed
depredations upon the rights of others which have
disgraced her in the eyes of all nations, and ought
to disgrace her. I am not willing that this Gov
ernment should copy the example of England, or
any example which is not in accordance with the
principles of right, justice, and humanity.
Mr. Chairman, I will not trouble the commit
tee further. I have already extended my remarks
further than I intended. I feel a deep interest
in this subject. It is an interest which every

American citizen ought to feel, and it is ,*n in
terest which is taken by the Government ii's&f.
The President of the United States, in his mes
sage, says:
" It is one of the first and highest duties of an independent
State, in its relations with the members ofthe great family
of nations, to restrain its people from acts of hostile aggres
sion against their citizens or subjects. The most eminent
writers on public law do not hesitate to denounce such hos
tile acts as robbery and murder."
Those are th/j sentiments of the President.
They are right sentiments, and I am willing to sus

tain him in them. I believe that this House and
the whole country will sustain him. And when
this matter is reported back, as it will be, from
the Committee on the Judiciary, I hope that we
will have such laws passed as will define specifi
cally the duties of American citizens, giving
them the rights which justly belong to them,
and depriving them of the power of committing
the mischiefs which, the President in his mes
sage says, are great wrongs of robbery and
murder.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08866 1518