This intelligence was a disaster. The President communicated it to Congress in a brief message;[273] January 31; and so serious was its effect that on February 2, when the non-intercourse revived by proclamation, Eppes rose in the House and moved to recommit his bill on the ground that the behavior of France gave no excuse for action against England. “The non-intercourse went into operation to-day,” he said. “It had been considered by the Committee of Foreign Relations that in the present state of our affairs it would be better to provide for the relief of our own citizens and suspend the passage of the law for enforcing the non-intercourse until the doubts hanging over our foreign relations were dissipated.” The opposition would have done well to let Eppes struggle with his difficulties as he best could without interference; but Randolph, who liked to press an advantage, professing a wish to relieve the President “from the dilemma in which he must now stand,” moved the repeal of the Non-intercourse Act of March 1, 1809,--a step which if taken would have repealed also the President’s proclamation. The motion brought on a premature debate. Out-reasoned, out-manœuvred, and driven to the wall, the Republicans could only become dogged and defiant. They took the ground that retreat was impossible. Eppes avowed that he considered the national faith pledged to France; and although he would not enforce the non-intercourse against England until he had certain knowledge that the French Decrees were withdrawn, he must have unequivocal evidence that France had “violated the faith pledged to this nation” before he would vote to repeal the law. Apologetic throughout, he admitted that indemnity for the French seizures had always been considered an essential part of any arrangement with Napoleon, yet held that the national faith was pledged to that arrangement, although an essential part of the Emperor’s obligation was omitted. Every speaker on the Republican side, with the exception of Dr. Samuel L. Mitchill of New York, asserted with increasing vehemence that the Act of May 1, 1810, created a contract with France, made perfect by Cadore’s letter of August 5. This legal view of Napoleonic statesmanship had much force with the Republican lawyers of the Eleventh Congress, although its necessary consequence followed its announcement; for since law, whatever lawyers might sometimes seem to assert, was not politics,--differing especially in the point that law had a sanction of force, while international politics had none,--and since Napoleon could in no way be controlled by any sanction, and still less be trusted, the so-called contract, while binding on America, in no way bound France.