"mMM
\w\l)\t'J\<*
36th Congress, ) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. ( Report
2d Session. j \ No. 59
I
MINORITY REPORT.
Mr. Branch, a memher of the select committee of Jive, to whom was re-
ferred the President's message of the od of January, not concurring
with the majority of the committee, by leave submits to the House the
folloioing vieivs in relation to the bill to be entitled '• An act further to
provide for the collection of duties on imports."
The first section of the bill provides that, whenever, by reason of
any unlawful combination or other obstruction, it shall become imprac-
ticable to collect the revenue at any port of entry, it shall be the duty
of the President to make proclamation of the fact.
The second section provides that, if any vessel not engaged in the
coastwise trade shall thereafter attempt to enter such port, it shall be
seized by the revenue officers, " and the master or other person having
the charge or command of such ship or vessel shall forfeit, for every
such neglect, refusal, [to exhibit his manifest,] or offence, the sum of
five hundred dollars, in addition to the sum of five hundred dollars
imposed by section twenty-six of the act of March 2, 1799 ; and such
ship or vessel, together with her tackle, furniture, apparel, and cargo,
shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture."
The third section imposes the same penalties and forfeitures on
master and owner of any vessel which shall depart to a foreign port
or place without delivering a manifest and obtaining a clearance from
the customs officer.
The fourth section authorizes the taking of such vessel into any
port of entry in the United States, and confers on the circuit or dis-
trict court of the district in which such port of entry is situated " the
same power and jurisdiction over said ship or vessel, tackle, furniture,
apparel, or cargo, as if the same had been seized within the collection
district into which the said ship or vessel, tackle, furniture, apparel,
or cargo shall be so taken."
The fifth section authorizes the President to use the vessels of the
navy in aid of revenue cutters in executing this law.
The sixth section gives to the Secretary of the Treasury the same
power to mitigate or remit penalties as he has in reference to others
of a the similar character under existing laws.
The seventh section provides that, whenever the President shall
issue his proclamation declaring that the obstruction in any port has
ceased, then this act to be inoperative as to that port.
It is apparent, on the most cursory reading of the bill, that the title
does not correctly set forth its character and objects. The object, as
declared in the title, is "to provide for the collection of duties on
imports," and the means adopted in the body of the bill is preventing
any goods from being imported which, by law, are subject to pay
duties. There is so obvious an incompatibility between the proposed
ends and the chosen means, that we may well assign to the bill an
intent not named in the title.
2 COLLECTION OF DUTIES ON IMPORTS.
It is one of a system of measures by which it is intended to punish
certain States for asserting and endeavoring to maintain their inde-
pendence, and to coerce them into obedience to the federal authority.
Its provisions are war — cruel war — upon the citizens of the seced-
ing States, and must be so treated, especially in connexion with other
measures constituting a complete system of coercion and conquest
which it is proposed by the majority to enact.
Its means are to blockade their ports, and ronder unavailable to
them even the limited facilities nature has given to those States for
trade and intercourse with the rest of the world.
In modern times, and amongst Christian nations, it is an established
maxim that a belligerent may inflict the largest amount of injury on
the enemy nation, but must impose the least amount of distress on pri-
vate individuals. It is a beneficent maxim, alike dictated by chivalry
and by humanity. During the war of the revolution our forefathers
were admitted to be rebels, and did not deny that their rebellion, if
unsuccessful, would be treason. But private citizens engaged in
peaceful avocations were not warred upon, even whilst their home-
steads were in possession of British troops. So again in the war of
1812, large portions of our territory were invaded by the enemy's
troops, but no attempt was made to ruin or distress private citizens.
It is to be left to the government of the federal Union to war upon
a portion of the States of the Union, and to subject them to its
authority, by inflicting ruin and distress upon private citizens,
whilst carefully placing itself out of reach of guns, sabres, and other
usual and legitimate weapons of civilized warfare.
Other nations discriminate between friends and enemies, even in an
enemy's country. We alone are to wage indiscriminate war upon
friend and foe, dealing out to the most active promoter of secession,
and to the most devoted friend of the Union, equal measures of our
vengeance. Nor is this all. If South Carolina is rebellious, large
portions of Tennessee and North Carolina, whose foreign supplies are
derived through Charleston, must suffer equally with South Carolina;
and if Louisiana refuses to submit to federal authority, the loyal
States on the Upper Misssissippi and its tributaries must pay the
penalty when New Orleans is blockaded.
To the United States of America belongs the distinguished honor
of having propounded to the nations of the world, as a new article in
the international code, that private property on the high seas, not
contraband of war, shall no longer bo subject to capture. Shall it be
reserved for what remains of that once glorious confederacy to incul-
cate by its example that war is to be confined to invading private
property, and that nations are to be reduced by distressing individ-
uals, and destroying private fortunes, whilst no attacks are made on
the national organization ?
Already we may see foreshadowed in the proposed measure some of
the barbarities and monstrous horrors of civil war.
It is pertinent to inquire whether the proposed commercial arrange-
ments will probably inflict such wide-spread ruin and such unbear-
able distress on the citizens of the offending States as to reduce them
to subjection.
COLLECTION OF DUTIES ON IMPORTS, 6
This depends on circumstances, about which we are not fully in-
formed.
I. If it is true, as alleged by well-informed persons at the north, that
the secession movement has been originated and pushed forward at
the south by reckless adventurers who have no property and but
little stake in society, it is evident that a war upon property and
domestic comforts will not reach them, but will only add to the suffer-
ings of those who, as is alleged, are already the victims of an excite-
ment they cannot control, and are afraid to resist. On this theory
the remedy will tend to aggravate the disease by increasing the dis-
orders in society and completing the destruction of values by which
reckless adventurers may profit,
II. The bill sedulously guards against exportations from the infected
ports to foreign countries; and this is the feature on which most reli-
ance is placed for distressing and subduing the seceding States, To
render the blockade effectual, the revenue cutters are authorized to
examine vessels and cargoes going out of those ports, and forfeitures
are inflicted for violation of the law. This system of police may be
practiced towards vessels under our own flag wherever they may be
overhauled, but except within a marine league of our own shores, we
cannot visit or search any vessel sailing under a foreign flag so as to
ascertain whether she has on board contraband cargo, or is engaged
in a contraband voyage. This is the doctrine as to the right of visit
and pearch which we ourselves have insisted on and fought for, and
caused to be incorporated into the law of nations, at least so far as we
are concerned ; and foreign nations will not fail to hold us to it when
it will operate favorably to them. By employing vessels under foreign
flags to carry their cotton, the citizens of the beleaguered States will
avoid all the penalties of the law, unless the vessels should be over-
hauled within three miles of the shore. On the low, sandy coasts of
the southern States the shallows extend so far out seaward that a belt
of three miles affords very insecure cruising ground for even the
smallest sea-going vessel ; and favored by the vicissitudes of wind and
weather, and with the advantage of being able to choose their time of
sailing, few vessels would be overhauled and captured within that dis-
tance. The principal effect of the law might be to transfer the profits
of carrying the cotton crop from American to British ship-owners.
This is not the sole embarrassment we may encounter. Nearly five
millions of souls in the British Isles are directly and indirectly de-
pendent on a regular and sufficient supply of raw cotton for the means
of subsistence. Out off this supply, and the British government must
feed or fight much the larger portion of this five millions. It may
reasonably be expected that it will connive at any evasion of the pro-
visions of a law the enforcement of which would entail u[)on its sub-
jects such serious evils, and her own cruisers Avould probably have
orders to pass merchantmen laden with cotton, whilst the cruisers of
other nations would have no right to go on board, and consequently
no means of ascertaining whether they are provided with clearance
papers or not.
But Great Britain might not be content to rely for a commodity so
essential to her on the successful evasion of our laws by merchantmen.
4* COLLECTION OF DUTIES ON IMPORTS.
and might insist that we abide by another great principle of interna-
tional law to which this government is fully committed, namely: that
a blockade to be respected must be maintained by an adequate force.
If she should do so, we could not contend that a few revenue cutters,
with an armament on each scarcely more formidable than a few rifles
of approved construction, is a force adequate to blockade two thousand
miles of sea-coast, and to deny to the world its supply of raw cotton.
Not the least noticeable feature of the policy which this bill is to
inaugurate is, that whilst the commerce of one portion of the States
is nursed and fostered in every possible mode by bounties and special
favors, that of another portion is to be utterly annihilated. The right
to raise a revenue by imposing duties on imports is made to yield rich
protection to the industry of favored States, so that to them the com-
mercial and revenue powers of the federal government are as genial
showers, blessing them with wealth, prosperity, and happiness : the
same powers to the other States are to be a poisonous sirocco, drying
up the fountains from which they draw their subsistence, blasting
their prosperity, and consuming the fruits of their toil. Northern
legislatures may pass " personal liberty laws," nullifying the laws of
Congress ; northern governors may refuse, in palpable and acknowl-
edged violation of the Constitution, ''to deliver up on demand" fugi-
tives from justice ; and northern mobs may with impunity rescue
fugitives from labor out of the hands of officers bearing the commission
of the United States : in the midst of it all, every change in the rev-
enue laws adds to the favors and bounties heaped upon the offending
States. But let a southern State murmur discontent or raise an arm
to resist, and forthwith the same revenue and commercial powers are
found to be a whip of scorpions, with which they may be lashed into
silent acquiescence and dutiful obedience.
Having commented on the injustice and impolicy of the proposed
bill, it will now be considered with reference to its constitutional
bearings.
Has Congress power to coerce a State, or, to state the question with
more precision and more in the terms of the bill, has the Constitution
conferred on Congress the right to carry on hostilities, either legisla-
tive or military, against a State, or all the people of a State, because
obstructions and combinations, however formidable, prevent the exe-
cution of the laws in that State ?
The question will be considered on the hypothesis most favorable to
the existence of the right, that is to say, on the hypothesis that the
State is still a member of the confederacy. If the State has been ab-
solved from its federal obligations, and its citizens released from their
obligations to obey its laws, by a " palpable, deliberate, and danger-
ous infraction" of the Constitution, the question, of course, does not
admit of argument.
The undersigned has not heard any one contend that it is the right
of the federal government to make war upon a State. Even in a case
in which the Constitution, or Congress in pursuance of the Constitu-
tion, imposes a positive duty on a State, and tlie State neglects or
refuses to perform it, no one pretends that Congress can march an
army into the State or blockade its ports to enforce obedience, nor can
COLLECTION OF DUTIES ON IMPORTS. 5^
the same thing be done if a State does that which the Constitution
expreesl.y forbids.
If a State cannot be held to this responsibility for its own acts of
disobedience, much less can it be held to it for the acts of disobedience
of its individual citizens.
But it is contended by those who hold that the federal bond of union
is indissoluble, and who do not admit that a State can, in any case,
declare its citizens absolved from their obligation to obey, that the
laws must be enforced, under all circumstances, and by whatever
amount of force may be necessary, against each and every citizen. If
an individual commits an infraction of a federal law, this class of
persons would not allow him to escape on a plea that he is not bound
to obey, but would proceed to try and punish him as though he had
not claimed absolution. But before proceeding to punishment, they
would give him the benefit of all the provisions of the Constitution,
especially of those incorporated into it from Magna Charta, and consti-
tuting the boast and bulwark of Anglo-Saxon liberty.
In this theory of the Constitution and of the nature of the govern-
ment the bill proposed by the committee can find no sanction. So far
from being in execution of the laws of the Union, it abrogates those
very laws the enforcement of which is its professed object. Instead of
compelling individuals to pay duties on imports, it puts it out of the
power of those who wish to pay duties to do so. By its enactment
into a law large numbers of persons, including those who are willing
to pay all the duties exacted by the government, will be subjected to
direful calamities ; their property will be wasted and their means of
subsistence will be destroyed^, not for any refusal on their part to obey
the law, but because of a governmental policy adopted by their State,
over which they had no control. Charged with no violation of law,
they will be summarily punished ibr disobedience, without "public
trial by an impartial jury," without "being inlbrmed of the nature
and cause of the accusation," without "being confronted with the
witnesses against them," without "having compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in their favor," and without "having the assist-
ance of counsel for their defence."
By its operation millions of dollars of the property of peaceful
and industrious citizens, against whom no charge is made, and to
whom no opportunity will be afforded to show the alacrity with which
they will obey all laws, will be stricken down and destroyed. And
yet the Constitution guarantees to every citizen the right to trial by
jury " where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars,"
Thus the blow, which can be legitimately aimed only at the guilty,
falls with equal weight upon the innocent, and both guilty and innocent
are punished without allowing to them the benefit of those safeguards
which the Constitution secures even to the vilest malefactor. In the
execution of the laws hostile force can only be used against those
individuals who will not otherwise obey them. Nine hundred and
ninety of a thousand citizens in a given community may willingly
obey the law, and force can only be used against the one who disobeys;
nor can he be punished otherwise than according to the law and the
Constitution. So, if but one obeys, no force can be used against him;
6 COLLECTION OF DUTIES ON IMPORTS.
if all disobey, all may be forced, not in the aggregate, but each to
the discharge of his own individual obligation. They are not guaran-
tors for each other, nor is the State a guarantor for the good conduct
in this regard of all or any portion of its citizens.
It seems clear, then, that, under the power to provide means " to
execute the laws of the Union," Congress cannot assume the right to
wage hostilities against a State, or against all the peojble of a State
in the aggregate.
Can it do so under the power " to suppress insurrection?"
Nothing would seem to be clearer, nor would any proposition receive
more universal assent, than that a State in its corporate or aggregate
political capacity cannot be guilty of insurrection any more than it
can be guilty of treason, felony, or riot. All or a portion of its citizens
may be. Some of its citizens, in conjunction with some of the citizens
of another State, may be in insurrection. In either such case the
government may suppress it, not by assailing the State or States and
all their citizens, for neither State lines nor State citizenship could be
noticed, but by seizing and punishing the insurgents according to the
law and the Constitution. If the object is to suppress the insurrection
by dispersing the insurgents, it must be done by an attack on them,
and not by a blind and ruthless assault upon all the people of the
State or neighborhood, for no principle of law or of justice will permit
the innocent and the guilty to be confounded.
The latter remedy cannot be used even against individuals except
whilst they are in jiagrante delicto, and for the purpose of dispersing.
Punishments can only be inflicted after civil process issued, and after
due prosecution according to law. To adopt the summary process
against a State on pretence that it is in insurrection against a law
which has been repealed, would be absurd, and might be treated as a
nullity if it did not involve civil war in its train.
In as far, then, as the bill is an attempt to coerce a State or States,
to punish whole communities for the delinquencies of individuals, as
a means of compelling States to relinquish their purposes of secession
from the Union, it is believed to be violative of the Constitution.
The Constitution gives to Congress power to regulate commerce,
but it may be questioned whether that carries with it a right to de-
stroy commerce, or to prohibit it in a portion of the States. It is not
doubted that Congress has a right to establish and to abolish ports of
entry, and so long as this right is exercised in good faith, its legiti-
macy cannot be successfully questioned. But when it is used con-
fessedly not to regulate, but to destroy, so that there shall be none to
regulate, it is a violation of the spirit and intent and of the very let-
ter of the Constitution, as much so as it would be for Congress to
enact under its power " to coin money and regulate the value thereof,"
that in certain States or in certain towns, on their being proclaimed
rebellious by the President, the use of money should be forbidden to
all the inhabitants.
Again: Art. 1, sec. 9, of the Constitution, says: " No preference
shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the
ports of one State over those of another." It would seem to an un-
sophisticated mind that to abolish all the ports of entry in a State,
COLLECTION OF DUTIES ON IMPORTS. fl
and to subject its citizens to heavy penalties for attempting to engage
in commerce, are certainly acts that give a preference to ports of other
States over those of the proscribed State. But it is said this bill is
general and applicable alike to all the States ; and that even if it was
applicable to only one State it would not violate the Constitution,
because it does not require all the ports to be closed in that State. To
this it may be replied, that the bill is adroitly framed so as to appear
to be general^ but in reality it is not so. It does not operate at all
except on a proclamation by the President, and it rests entirely with
him to say where it shall operate, as well as when and how long.
Under its provisions he may close up and blockade all the ports in one
State without closing any others. So that, under the very best con-
struction that can be placed on it, it is an attempt to authorize him to
do wbat the Constitution says shall not be done.
Still more clearly is the other clause of the same section violated —
" nor shall vessels bound to and from one State be obliged to enter,
clear, and pay duties in another." For after all the ports of entry
in Georgia have been closed, if a vessel shall sail from the West Indies
with a cargo of molasses bound to Savannah, she cannot go into Sa-
vannah river without having first entered and paid duties, and thence
cleared coastwise in some State whose ports have not been closed. If
she refuses to do that which the Constitution says shall not be required
of any vessel, the captain and his vessel will be seized and carried off
perhaps to Maine, where he will be fined a thousand dollars, and his
vessel and cargo will be confiscated.
Again : article 3, section 2, of the Constitution says : " The trial
of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and
such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have
been committed." And the sixth amendment to the Constitution
says : "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right
to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and dis-
trict laherein the crime shall have been committed." *
Under the provisions of the bill, a vessel seized within the district
of Georgia_, that is, within three miles of its coast, may be carried,
with its captain and cargo, into any other State for trial and con-
demnation. It is said the offence is not technically " a crime," and
the proceeding is not " a criminal prosecution." Unacquainted with
the technicalities of the law, the undersigned is not prepared to con-
trovert this assertion ; but he respectfully submits that, if the captain
has not been guilty of such a crime as entitles him to the safeguard
guaranteed by the Constitution to petty offenders, he ought not to be
subjected to so severe a penalty as a fine of a thousand dollars and for-
feiture of his vessel and cargo, however valuable. The punishment is
disproportioned to the offence. If he has been guilty of a crime, he is
protected by the Constitution against being tried out of the district ; if
he has not been guilty of a crime, the pains and penalties of the bill
are excessive.
^ This is believed to be the only instance of a repetition in the Constitution — a proof at
once of the accuracy of the framers, and of their devotion to the great safeguard of trial
by jury of the vicinage.
S COLLECTION OF DUTIES ON IMPORTS.
So inconsistent with the nature of our confederacy is the effort to
substitute force for affection as the bond of Union, that every attempt
to frame measures of coercion must equally with this encounter grave
and manifold constitutional difficulties.
The undersigned is aware that, in recommending this bill in pref-
erence to one providing for the immediate use of military force within
the harbors of the seceding States, the committee were mainly actu-
ated by a desire to postpone as long as possible an actual collision of
military forces. But war will be the inevitable consequence of the
passage of this bill; and it is suitable that the House, in deliberating
on it, should take into its consideration the probable consequences of
war between the fiederal government and a large portion of the States.
No human eye can take in all the scenes of that bloody drama, which
will lay waste this fairest home of freedom, and blot out all traces of
the contentment, happiness, and prosperity which have been devel-
oped in an unparalelled degree under the mild and peaceful rule of a
government of affection. But some of its immediate and least doubt-
ful political consequences may properly be adverted to.
In the first place, what object will this government have in view in
entering upon and prosecuting the war? At what point will it be
willing to sheathe the sword, arrest hostilities on land and sea, and
repeal hostile legislation; would it be when the seceding States consent
to assume the payment of all dues to the federal government which
their citizens would become liable to pay under existing laws ? If so,
Congress had better tender that to them in advance as the alternative
of the sword. When, in 1813 and again in 1815, Congress was
driven by the necessities of war to levy an odious and unpopular tax,
which, as former experience taught them, would lead to popular
tumult if not insurrection, authority was given for the States respect-
fully to assume the portion which would be payable by their citizens.
If securing the revenue is the sole object of this war, and its
prosecution is to cease when that object is attained, why not make the
offer before the war commences ?
Will you prosecute it until you can get persons to accept the offices
of judge, marshal, district attorney, collector of customs, &c.? He
who is brave enough to accept federal office in the seceding States,
is too brave to bow under the federal lash. It will be easier to fill
these offices by persuasion before, than by compulsion after, the war
begins. Will you not cease hostilities until the seceding States con-
sent to send senators and representatives to Congress ? It will be
easier to induce them to that course by conciliation — by removing
grievances and all grounds of apprehension for their safety in the
Union — than by waging war.
Dissolution would inevitably follow war. What, then, is to be
gained by war, except to enable one portion of the people of the Union
to gratify a feeling of hatred and revenge towards another portion.
The cries that the "Union must be preserved at all hazards" and
that "the honor of the flag must be maintained," do not even gloss
over the real actuating motive of those who clamor for war, though
many honorable and patriotic individuals are undoubtedly blinded
COLLECTION OF DUTIES ON IMPORTS »
into tlie belief that such are their objects, and that their means are
conducive to their ends.
The Union cannot be preserved by civil war, nor can the honor of
the flag be added to or maintained on the bloody fields of fraternal
slaughter.
One more of the probable consequences ought not to be overlooked.
At present six States have withdrawn from the Union, and the ex-
pectation is entertained that only two more will at present pursue the
same course. There are seven other States having the same interest
in the institution of slavery, that are only restrained from severing
their connexion with the Union from a lingering hope that the non-
slaveholding States will take effectual steps to render them secure, and
to induce the return of those which have seceded. They are now dis-
charging faithfully, but in sadness, all the duties imposed on them by
the federal Constitution. Whilst they remain in the Union they will
fight its battles against all mankind and scrupulously obey all its
laws. But the undersigned feels justified in saying that not one of
those States will furnish men or money, nor in any other manner aid,
directly or indirectly, in waging war upon their brothers with whom
they sympathize even in their errors. Whenever the laws of the
Union impose that obligation, they will withdraw from the Union,
and throw off" the obligation of its laws. Not an arm will tliey
raise, nor a blow strike, to impose the yoke or inflict vengeance
on those who have been harassed and persecuted for thirty years by a
merciless and intermeddling fanaticism until at length they have been
driven into revolution.
The objects for which the Union was formed, as they are set forth
in the preamble to the Constitution, were —
1. To form a more perfect union than had previously existed.
2. To establish justice.
3. To insure domestic tranquillity.
4. To provide for the common defence.
5. To promote the general welfare.
6. To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Civil war cannot conduce to one of those ends, nor can it coexist
with even a semblance of regard to those great objects. When Con-
gress so far forgets the great and beneficent objects for which it was
created as to endeavor to hurl one half of the Union against the other
half in bloody conflict, its commands will not be obeyed ; the obliga-
tions of the Union will be promptly and sternly thrown off. The re-
sponsibility will surely rest on those who command so unnatural an
act ; but Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee,
Kentucky, and Missouri, with seven millions of population, will take
upon themselves all the responsibility incident to the occasion. In
the name of Christianity and civilization they will protest against it,
and, if necessary, with arms in their hands, and with such assistance as
they can obtain from other States, will forbid the foul and infamous
deed.
It may be asked. Are the laws of the Union to be set at naught,
and its authority denied ? When only private individuals assume to
disregard them, they can and ought to be enforced. The government
H. ReT3. Com. 59 -2
10 COLLECTION OF DUTIES ON IMPORTS.
has always been strong enough in physical forces and in the affections
of its citizens to execute them when only opposed by individuals.
Wide-spread discontent and formidable combinations have been over-
come without the shedding of blood by an armed soldiery.
Similar difficulties could now be overcome in a similar manner. It
is a striking fact that up to the moment of secession the laws of the
United States have been scrupulously and punctually obeyed in every
seceding State. No tendency to relapse into anarchy, or disposition to
escape from the restraints of law, has been anywhere exhibited.
But when the resistance proceeds from States — not a single State,
but an entire class of States — and the resistance is not to a law, but
to the whole authority of government, the difficulty not only becomes
greater in magnitude, but the nature of the case is altogether changed.
It ceases to be a criminal misdemeanor, and becomes a political revo-
lution.
Constables with writs can deal with the one, whilst only soldiers
with the implements of war can overcome the other. Our govern-
ment is amply provided for dealing with individual malefactors, but
as the Constitution does not recognize the right of a State to secede,
so it has made no provision for putting down revolution by force. If
on the one side there is no right to do, there is on the other equally
no right to prevent.
It ought not to be forgotten that the existing government was
formed by the voluntary secession of the States from the old, and their
voluntary accession to the new, confederacy. North Carolina and
Rhode Island prelerred the old to the new, and opposed the secession
of the other members. The 13th article of confederation had ex-
pressly declared that "the union shall be perpetual," and the framers
had affixed their signatures to this declaration: "And we do further
solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents
* * that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States
we respectively represent, and that the union shall be perpetual."
But the States had learned from experience that a change was neces-
sary to their prosperity and happiness, and they made the change.
State after State seceded, and the new government was put into opera-
tion, leaving North Carolina and Rhode Island alone clinging to the
confederation. It never occurred to those States that they had a right
to raise armies in the name of the confederacy, and make war under
its flag against the seceding States. Least of all was it sus])ected
that George Washington, president, and James Madison, Benjamin
Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Rufus King, and their compatriots,
members of the convention which framed the present Constitution,
were guilty cf treason, although the articles of confederation, as has
been seen, expressly negatived any right of secession.
The undersigned would rejoice to see the seceding States return of
their own accord into the bosom of the confederacy. He does not
doubt that they would joyfully do so if they could be assured of peace
and security under its wing. He therefore respectfully submits that
the remaining iew days of the session can be better devoted to per-
fecting plans of adjustment and pacification than "^ organizing civil
COLLECTION OF DUTIES ON IMPORTS. U
Avar and devising ingenious schemes for distressing and maltreating
the citizens of the seceding States.
To give any hope either of a satisfactory adjustment or of a peaceful
separation, we must refrain from war, and from whatever will inevi-
tably lead to war ; and as the undersigned is convinced that the pro-
posed bin will be the most irritating form of hostilities, he cannot
concur with the committee in recommending its passage.
L. O'B. BRANCH.
:-U:^
r'\
