The works of Daniel Webster ..

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world’s books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired, Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google’s mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at[http: //books . google .com/|

aarp ai

Iweyt ie

THE

WORKS

oF

DANIEL WEBSTER.

VOLUME III.

TWENTIETH EDITION.

BOSTON:
LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY.
1890.

LIBRARY

OF THE

LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR
UNIVERSITY.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1851, by
Geonox W. Gonpow ax Jauxs W. Pasor,
fn the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetta

wg

DEDICATION

OF THE THIRD VOLUME

To

CAROLINE LE ROY WEBSTER.

My veariy peLoven Wire:

I canxor allow these volumes to go to the press, without containing
a tribute of my affections, and some acknowledgment of the deep in-
terest that you have felt in the productions which they contain. You
have witnessed the origin of most of them, not with less concern, cer-
tainly, than has been felt by their author; and the degree of favor with
which they may now be received by the public will be as earnestly
regarded, I am sure, by you as by myself.

The opportunity seems, also, a fit one for expressing the high and
warm regard which I ever entertained for your honored father, now
deceased, and the respect and esteem which I cherish towards the
members of that amiable and excellent family to which you belong.

DANIEL WEBSTER.

vi CONTENTS.

Tne Revootion in Gregce . . . . . . .

‘A Speech delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States, on
the 19th of January, 1894.

‘HE TARIFF . . . . . . . . . .

‘A Bpeech delivered in the House of Representatives of the Unite: States, on
the Ist and 2d of April, 1824.

Tue Jopiciary . . . . . . . . .

Remarks made on the 4th of January, 1836, in the House of Representatives
of the United States, on the Bill to amend the Judiciary System.

‘Tue Panama Mission . . . . . . . .

A Speech delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States,
on the 14th of April, 1826.

Revotutionary Orricers . . .

A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 25th of April,
1828, on the Bill for the Relief of the Surviving Officers of the Revo-
lation.

Seconp Sreecn on THE TanirF . . ° .

Delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 9th of May, 1828, on the
‘Tariff Bill.

First Sregcu on Foot's Reso.vtion . . .
Delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 20th of January, 1830.

Sscoxp Sreecn on Foor’s Reso.vurion . . .

Delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 26th and + a7ch ‘ot
January, 1850.

Last Remarks on Foor's Resouvrion . . . . .
Delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 27th of January, 1830.

‘Tue Nomination or Mg. Van Buren as Minister To ENGLAND

Remarks made in Secret Session of the Senate of the United States, on the
‘24th of January, 1832, on the Nomination of Mr. Van Buren as Minister
to Great Britain.

Tue Apportionment or REPRESENTATION «+e

A Report made in the Senate of the United States, on the 5th of April, 1832,

‘on the Bill from the House of Representatives for the Apportionment of
Representation.

150

178

218

343

356

369

CONTENTS, vi

Banx or tae Unirep States . . . . . . 391

A Speech delivered in the Senate, on the 25th of May, 1832, on the Bill for
renewing the Charter of the Bank of the United States.

Fuarnee Remanxs on THE Bank of THe Unite States . 407
‘Made in the Senate, on the 26th of May, 1832.

‘Tus Passwentiat Vato or tae Unitep States Bane Brut 416

A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 11th of July,
11899, on the President’s Veto of the Bank Bill.

‘Tus Constirotion nor 4 Compact BgTween Sovereign Statzs 448
A delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 16th-of Feb-
ruary, 1835, in Reply to Mr. Calhoun’s Speech om the Bill “further to
provide for the Collection of the Duties on Import"

‘Tue Removat or tae Derosis =. ss we OB

‘Remarks, on different Occasions, on the Removal of the Deposiss, md om the
Subject of a National Bank, delivered in the Senate of the United States,
im the Course of the Session of 1833 - 34.

SPEECHES

IN THE

INVENTION TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION

OF THE

STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS.

ra

vo. ML

4 CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS.

Tr is obvious that the principal alteration proposed by the first
resolution is the omission of the declaration of belief in the
Christian religion as a qualification for office, in the cases of
the governor, lieutenant-governor, councillors, and members of
the legislature. T shall content myself on this occasion with
stating, shortly and generally, the sentiments of the select com-
mittee, as J understand them, on the subject of this resolution.

Two questions naturally present themselves. In the first
place, Have the people a right, if in their judgment the security
of thelr government and its due administration demand it, to
require « declaration of belief in the Christian religion as a qual-
Hfication or condition of office? On this question, a majority of
the committee held a decided opinion. They thought the peo-
ple hud such a right. By the fundamental principle of popular
and elective governments, all office ix in the free gift of the peo.
ple. They may grant or they may withhold it at plensnre;
and if it be for them, and ther onily, to decide whether they will
grant office, it is for them to decide, also, on what terms and what
conditions they will grant it. Nothing is more unfounded than
the notion that any man has aright to an offiee. This must
depend on the choice of athers, and consequently upon the opin-
ions of others, in relation to his fitness and qualification for
office. No man can be said to have a right to that which others
may withhold from him at pleasure, ‘There are certain rights,
no doubt, which the whole people, or the government aa repre-
senting the whole people, owe to each individual in return for
that obedience and persomal service, and those proportionate
contributions to the public burdens, which each individual owes
to the government. These rights are stated with sufficient ac-
curacy, in the tenth article of the Bill of Rights, in this consti-
tation. “Each individual in society has a right to be protected
by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according
to the standing laws.” Here is no right of office enumerated; no
right of governing others, or of bearing rule in the State, All
bestowment of office remaining in the discretion of the people,
they have of course a right to regulate it by any rules which
they may deem expedient. Hence the people, by their consti-
tution, prescribe certain qualifications for office, respecting age,
property, residence, and taxution. But if office, merely as such,
were a right which each individual under the social compact

6 CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS.

every hundred of the inhabitants profess to believe in the Chris-
tian religion. It is sufficiently certain, therefore, that persons of
this description, and none others, will ordinarily be chosen to
places of public trast. There is as much security, it is said, on
this subject, as the necessity of the case requires. And as there
ia o sort of opprobrium incident to this qualification, — a mark-
ing out, for observation and censorious remark, of a single indi-
vidual, or n very few individuals, who may not be able to make
the declaration, — it is an act, if not of injustice, yet of unkind-
ness, and of unnecessary rigor, to call on such individuals to
make the declaration, and to exclude them from office if they
refuse to do so.

‘There is also another class of objections, which have been
stated. It has been said, that there are many very devout and
serious persons, persans who esteem the Christian religion to be
above all price, to whom, nevertheless, the terms of this declara-
tion scem somewhat too strong and intense. ‘hey seem, to
these persons, to require the declaration of that faith which is
deemed essential to personal salvation; and therefore not at all
fit to be adopted as a declaration of belief in Christianity, in a
more popular and general sense. It certainly appears to me,
that this is a mistaken interpretation of the terms; that they
imply only a gencral assent to the trath of the Christian revela-
tion, and, at most, to the supernataral occurrences which estab-
lish its authenticity. There may, however, and there appears to
be, conscience in this objection; and all conscience ought to be
respected. Iwas not aware, before I attended the discussions
in the committee, of the extent to which this objection pre
vailed.

‘There is one other consideration to which 1 will allude, al-
though it was not urged in committee, It is thie. This qualifi-
cation is made applicable only to the executive and the members
of the legislature. It would not be easy, perhaps, to say why it
should not be extended to the judiciary, if it were thought neces-
sary for any office. There can be no office in which the sense
of religious responsibility is more necessary than in that of »
jndge; especially of those judges who pass, in the last resort, on
the lives, liberty, and property of every man, ‘There may be
among legislators strong passions and bad passions. Thera
may be party heats and personal bitterness. But legislation ia

BASIS OF THE SENATES

I axow not, Six, whether it be probable that any opinions ot
votes of mine are ever likely to be of more permanent impor
tance, than those which 1 may give in the discharge of my
duties in this body. And of the questions which may arise
here, I anticipate no one of greater consequence than the pres
ent, I nak leave, therefore, to submit a few remarks to the con-
sideration of the committee.

‘The subject before us, is the manner of constituting the legis-
lative department of government. We have already decided,
that the legislative power shall exist as it has heretofore existed,
in two separate and distinct branches, a Senate and a House of
Representatives. We propose also, at least I have heard no
intimation of a contrary opinion, that these branches shall, in
form, possess a negative on each other. 1 presume I may also
take it for granted, that the members of both these houses are
to be chosen annually, The immediate question now under
discussion is, In what monner shall the senators be elected?
‘They are to be chosen in districts; but shall they be chosen in
proportion to the number of inhabitants in each district, or in
proportion to the taxable property of each district, or, in other
words, in proportion to the part which each district bears in the
public burdens of the State. The latter is the existing provision
of the constitution; and to this I give my support.

‘The resolution of the honorable member from Roxbury ¢
proposes to divide the State into certain legislative districts, and

Remarka made onthe 18th of December, 1890, i the Convention, upon tha
Resolution to divide the Commonwealth into Districts for the Choice of
according to Population,

t General Dearborn.

10 CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS.

structed with any other check than such as arises simply from
dividing the members of this department into two houses? The

the resolutions of the Sea fer Bictesy, ees eee

same time, by the game electore, in the eame districts, and for
the same term of office. They will of course all be actuated by
the sume feelings and interests. Whatever motives may at the
moment exist to elect particular members of one house, will op-
erate equally on the choice of the members of the other. There
is so little of real utility in this mode, that, if nothing more be
done, it would be more expedient to choose all the members of
the legislature, without distinction, simply as members of the
legislature, and to make the division into two houses, either by
lot or otherwise, after these members thus chosen should have
come up to the capital.

1 understand the reason of checks and balances, in the legis-
lative power, to arise from the trath, that, in representative gov-
erments, that department is the leading and predomi
power; and if its will may be at any time suddenly and hastily
expressed, there is great danger that it may overthrow all other
powers, Legislative bodies naturally feel strong, because they
are numerous, and because they consider thernselves as the im-
mediate representatives of the people. ‘They depend on pub-
lic opinion to sustain their measures, and they undoubtedly pos-
sess gret means of influencing public opinion. With all the
gaards which can be raised by constitutional provisions, we are
not likely to be too well secured against cases of improper, or
hasty, or intemperate legizlation. It may be observed, also,
that the executive power, #0 uniformly the object of jealousy to
republics, has in the States of this Union been deprived of the
greater part both of its importance and its splendor, by the ex-
tablishment of the general government. While the States pos:
sessed the power of making war and peace, and maintained
military forces by their own authority, the power of the State
executives was very considernble and respectable. It might
then even be an object, in some cases, of a just and warranta-

2 CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS.

is not to be a check on the people, but on the House of
ventatives. It is the case of an authority, given to one agent, to
check or control the acts of another. The people, having con-
ferred on the House of Representatives powers which are great,
and, from their natare, liable to abuse, require, for their own se-
‘curity, another house, which shall possess an effectual negative
on the first, This does not limit the power of the people; bat
only the authority of their agents, It is not a restraint on their
rights, but a restraint on that power which they have delegated,
It limite the authority of agente in making laws to bind their
principals, And if it be wise to give one agent the power of
‘checking or controlling another, it is equally wise, most mani-
festly, that there should be some difference of character, sentl-
ment, feeling, or origin in that agent who is to possess this
control. Otherwise, it is not at all probable that the control
will ever be exercised. To require the consent of two

to the validity of an act, and yet to appoint agents eo similar,
in all respects, ax to create a moral certainty that what one does
the other will do also, would be inconsistent, and nugatory.
‘There can be no effectual control, without some difference of
origin, or character, or interest, or feeling, or sentiment, And
the great question in this country has been, where to find, or
how to create, this difference, in governments entirely elective
and popular.

Various modes have been attempted in various States. Tn
some, a difference of qualification has been required in the per+
sons to be elected. ‘This obviously produces little or no effect
All property qualification, even the highest, is so Jow, as to pro-
duce no exclusion, to any extent, in any of the States. A dif-
ference of age in the persons elected is sometimes required;
but this is found to be equally unimportant. Neither has it hap+
pened, that any consideration of the relative mak of the mem-
bers of the two houses has had much effect on the character of
their constituent members. Both in the State governments, and
in the United States government, we daily see persons elected
into the House of Representatives who have been members of
the Senate. Public opinion does not attach so much weight
an! importance to the distinction, as to lend individuals greatly
to regard it. In some of the States, a different sort of qualifi-
cation in the electors is required for the two houses; and this is

M CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS. ,

something in which the members possess unequal shares, tt is
just that the weight of cach person in the common councile

similar sentiments. Ti Inde at ety male ower eel

which he possessed in the government. By this regulation,
he observes, some bore with the greatness of their tax because
of their proportionable participation in power and credit; others
consoled themselves for the smallness of their power and credit
by the smallness of their tax, One of the most ingenious of
political writere is Mr. Harrington, an author not now read eo
much as he deserves, It is his leading object, in his Oceana, to
prove, that power naturally and necessarily follows property.
He maintains that a government founded on property is legiti-
mately founded; and that a government founded on the disre-
gard of property is founded in injustice, and can only be main-
tained by military force. If one man,’ ays he, “be sole land-
lord, like the Grand Seignior, his empire is absolute. If a few

the land, this makes the Gothic or feudal constitution.
If the whole people be landlords, then is it a commonwealth."
“It is strange,” says an ingenious person in the last century,
“that Harrington should be the first man to find out so evi-
dent and demonstrable a trath as that of property being the
true basis and measure of power."* In truth, he was not the
first. The idea is as old as political science itself. Tt may be
found in Aristotle, Lord Bacon, Sir Walter Raleigh, and other
writers. Harrington seems, however, to be the first writer who
has illustrated and expanded the principle, and given to it the

* Spence"s Anecdotes of Books and Men, p- 75.

16 CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS.
forgotten that it was the popular magistrates, elevated to office

by:
bers, drowned the voice of those who had,—that laid the neck
of Rome at the feet of her conqueror. When Cesar, manifest-
ing a disposition to march his army against the capital, ap-
that little stream which has become so memorable

|

H
|
:
ie
i
:
f

i
BEF

Fi
ui
&
i
;
E

in achieving the independence of the country.

I would not be thought, Mr. Chairman, to be among
who undermte the value of military service. My heart beats, I
trust, as responsive as any one’s, to a soldier's claim for honor
and renown. It has ever been my opinion, however, that while
celebrating the military achievernents of our countrymen in the
Revolutionary conteet, we have not always done equal justice to
the merits and the sufferings of those who sustained, on their
property, and on their means of subsistence, the greut burden of
the war. Any one, who has had occasion to be acquainted with

all, in the cause of the country. -Instances were not infrequent,
in which «mall freeholders parted with their last hoof, and the

— SSE

1s CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS.
gence? What living fountain feeds this ever-lowing, ever
h ‘stream of public instruétion and gen-

eral ini 2 If we take away from the towns the power
of assessing taxes on property, will the school-houses remain
open? If we deny to the poor the benefit which they now
derive from the property of the rich, will their children remain on
their forme, or will they not, rather, be in the streets, in idleness
and in vice?

T might ask again, Sir, how is it with religions instruction ?
Do not the towns and parishes raise moncy by vote of the ma-
jority, assessed on property, for the maintenance of religious
worship? Are not the poor as well as the rich benefited by the
means of attending on public worship, and do they not equally
with the rich possess voice and vote in the choice of the
minister, and in all other parish concerns? Does any man, Sir,
wish to try the experiment of striking out of the constitution
the regard which it has hitherto maintained for property, and of
foregoing also the extraordinary benefit which society us
for near two centuries has derived from laying the burden of re-
ligious and literary instruction of all classes upon property?
Does any man wish to see those only worshipping God who are
able to build churches and maintain ministers for themselves,
and those children only edueated whose parents possess the
means of edueating them? Sir, it is as unwise as it is unjost
to make property an object of jealousy. Instead of being, in
any just sense, a popular course, such a course would be most
injurious and destructive to the best interests of the people.
‘The nature of our laws sufficiently secures us against any dan-
gerous accumulations; and, used and diffused ax we have it, the
whole operation of property is in the highest degree useful, both
to the rich and to the poor. I rejoice, Sir, that every man in this
community may call all property bis own, so far as he has oc-
casion for it, to furnizh for himeelf and his children the blessings
of religious instruction and the elements of knowledge. "This
heavenly and this earthly light he is entitled to by the funda
mental laws. It is every poor man's undoubted birthright, it is
(he great blessing which this constitution has secured to him, it
.6 his solace in life, and it may well be his consolation in death,
that hix country stands pledged, by the faith which it has plight-
ed to all its citizens, to protect his children from ignorinee, bar
barism, and vier

a CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS,

is also to be protected; and when it is remembered how great a
portion of the people of this State possess property, 1 cannot
understand how its protection or ita influence is hostile to their
rights and privileges. For these reasons, Sir, ] am in favor of
maintaining that check, in the constitution of the legislature,
which hus so long existed there.

Tunderstand the gentleman from Worcester* to be in favor
of m check, but it sccms to me he would place it in the wrong
house, Besides, the sort of check he proposes appears to me
to be of a novel nature, as a balance in government. He pro-
poses to choose the senators according to the number of inhab-
ifants; and to choose representatives, not according to that
number, but in proportions greatly unequal in the town carpo-
rations. It haa been stated to result from computation, and I do
not understand it to be denied, that, on his system, a majority
of the representatives will be chosen by towne not containing
one third part of the whole population of the State. I would
beg to ask, Sir, on what principle this can stand; especially in
the judgment of those who regard population as the only just
basis of representation. But, Siz, I have a preliminary objec-
tion to this system; which is, that it reverses all our common
notions, and constitutes the popular house upon anti-popular
principles, We are to have a popular Senate of thirty-six mem-
bers, and we are to place the cheek of the system in a House of
Representatives of two hundred and fifty members! Al money
bills are to originate in the House, yet the House is not to be
the popular branch. It is to exceed the Senate, seven or cight
to one, in point of numbers, yet the Senate is to be chosen on
the poputar principle, and the House on some other principle.

It is necessary here, Sir, to consider the manner of electing
representatives in this Commonwealth, as heretofore practised,
the necessity which exists of reducing the present number of
representatives, and the propositions which have been submitted
for that purpose. Representation by towns or townships (as
they might have been originally more properly called) is peculiar
to New England. It has existed, however, since the first settle.
ment of the country. ‘These local districts are so small, and of
such unequal population, that if every town is to have one rep

* Mr. Lincola.

Pe CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS.

hups, it is no great departure from former habits; because these
small towns, being by the present constitution compelled to pay
their own members, have not ordinarily sent them oftener, on
the average, than once in two years.

‘The honorable member from Worcester founds his argument
on the right of town corporations, as such, to be aoe in
the legislature. ne helonieeaeae that right which the constitu-
tion at present secures, his observation is true, while the consti-
tation remains unaltered. But if be intend to say that such
tight exists prior to the constitution, and independent of it, 1
ask, Whence is it derived? Representation of the people has
heretofore been by towns, because such a mode has been
convenient. Still it has been the representation of the people
It is no corporate right, to partake in the sovereign power and
form part of the legislature. To establish this right, as a cor-
porate right, the gentleman has enumerated the duties of the
town corporation; such as the maintenance of public worship,
public schools, and public highways; and insists that the per
formance of these duties gives the town a right to a representa.
tive in the legislature, But I would ask, Sir, what
ground there is for this argument. The burden of these duties
falls not on any corporate fands belonging to the towns, but on
the people, under assesaments made on them individually, in
their town meetings. Ae distinct from their individual inhabit-
ants, the towns have no interest in these affairs, These duties
are imposed by general laws; they are to be performed by the
people, and if the people are represented in the making of these
laws, the object is answered, whether they should be represented
in one mode or another.

But, farther, Sir, are these municipal duties rendered to the
State, or are they not rather performed by the people of the
towns for their own benefit? The general treasury derives no
supplies from all these contributions. If the towns maintain
religious instruction, it is for the benefit of their own inhabitants;

_ if they support schools, it ix for the education of the children of
their inhabitants; and if they maintain roads and brieges, it is
also for their own convenience. And therefore, Sir, although I
repeat that for reasons of expediency L am in favor of maintain«
ing town representation, as far as itean be done with a proper
regard to equality of representation, I entirely disagree to the

a CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS.

the towns have all a right to send representatives to the legista-
ture, in a certain fixed proportion to their numbers. It has been
found thut the full exercise of this right fills the House of Rep-
resentatives with too numerous a body. What, then, is to be
done? Why, Sir, the delegutes of the towns are here assem-
bled, to agree, mutually, on some reasonable mode of reduction.
Now, Sir, it is not for one party to stand sternly on its right,
and demand all the concession from another. As to right, all
are equal, The right which Holl possesses to send one, is the
same as the right of Boston to vend fifty. Mutual concession
and accommodation, therefore, can alone accomplish the pur-
pose of our meeting. If Boston consents, instead of fifty, to
send but twelve or fifteen, the small towns must consent, either
to be united, in the choice of their representatives, with other
small towns, or to send a representative less frequently than
every year; or to have an option to do one or the other
of these, hereafter, as shall be found most convenient. This
is what the report of the committee proposes, and, as far as
we have yet leamed, a great majority of the delegates from
small towns approve the plan. I am willing, therefore, to vote
for this part of the report of the committee; thinking it os
just and fair a representation, and as much reduced in point
of numbers, as can be reasonably hoped for, without giving up
entirely the systern of representation by towns. It is to be con-
sidered also, that, according to the report of the committee,
the pay of the membera is to be out of the public treasury.
Every body must see how this will operate on the large towns.
Boston. for example, with its twelve or fourteen members, will
pay for fifty. Be it so; it is incident to its property, and not at
all an injustice, if proper weight be given to that property, and
proper provision be made for its security.

‘To recur, again, to the subject of the Senate. There is one
remark, made by gentlemen on the other side, of which I wish
to take notice. It is said, that, if the principle of representa-
tion in the Senate by property be correct, it ought to be car
tied through; whereas, it is limited and restrained by a provis+
jon that no district shall be entitled to more than six Senators.
Bat this is a prohibition on the making of great districts, gen-
erally; not merely a limitation of the effect of the property
principle. It prevents great distriets from being made where

INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY."

Reorers are vain for what is past; yet I hardly know how it
has been thought to be a regular course of proceeding to go into
committee on this subject, before taking up the several proposl-
tions which now await their final readings on the president's
table. The consequence is, that this question comes on by sur-
price. The chairman of the select committee is not present;
many of the most distinguished members of the convention are
personally so situated as not to be willing to take part in the
debate, and the first law officer of the government, a member of
the committee, happens at this moment to be in a place (the
chair of the committee of the whole) which deprives us of the
benefit of his observations. Under these circumstanees, I had
hoped the committee would rise. It has, however, been deter
mined otherwise, and I must therefore beg their indulgence
while I make a few observations.

As the constitution now stands, all judges are liable to be re-
moved from office by the governor, with the consent of the
council, on the addreas of the two houses of the legielature, It
is not made necessary that the two houses should give any rea-
sons for their address, or that the judge should have an opportu.
nity to be heard, I look upon this as against common right, as
well as repugnant to the general principles of the government.
The commission of the judge purports to be, on the face of it,
during good behavior. He has an interest in hie office, To
give an authority to the legislature to deprive him of it, with-
ont trial or accusation, ix manifestly to make the judges depend-
ent on the legislature.

* Remarke made on the 30th of December, 1820, {9 the Convention, upon

Resolution to make Judicint Orticers removable by the Governor and Counail upon
the Address of two thirds (instead of a majority) of each Braveh of the Legislature

CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS.

28
and out of it, the mode was by judgments obtained in the
courts, It is well known, that after the prosecution against the

a judgment in favor of the crown; his predecessor being removed
to make room for him. But since the Revolution of 1688, an
entire new character in this respect has been given to English
judicature. The judges have been made independent, and the
benefit has been widely and deeply felt. A similar improvement
seems to have made its way into Scotland. Before the union
of the kingdoms, it cannot be said that there was any judicial
independence in Scotland; and the highest names in Scottish
jurisprudence have been charged with being under influences
which could not, in moder times, be endured. It is even said,
that the practice of entails did not extensively exist in Scodand
till about the time of the reigns of the last princes of the Stuart
race, and that it was then introduced to guard against unjust
forfeitures. It is strange, indeed, that this should happen at so
Jate a period, and that a most unnatural and artificial state of

y should be owing to the fear of dependent judicatures,
I might add here, that the heritable jurisdictions, the greatest
almost of all evils connected with the administration of justice,
were not abolished in Scotland till about the middle of the last
century; #0 slowly does improvement make progress when op-
posed by ignorance, prejudice, or interest.

In our own country, it was for years a topic of complaint,
before the Revolution, that justice was administered, in some of
the Colonies, by judges dependent on the British crown. The
Declaration of Independence itself puts forth this as a promi-
nent grievance, among those which justified the Revolution
The British king, it declares, “had made judges dependent on
his own will alone, for the tenure of their offices.” It was there
fore to be expected, that, in establishing their own governments,
this important point of the independence of the judicial power
would be regarded by the States. Some of them have made
greater and others leas provision on this subject; the more recent
constitutions, 1 believe, being generally framed with the best
guards for judicial independence.

a. = =8

——E—E—————

30 CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS.

and their conduct is often liable to be canvassed and censured,
where their reasons for it are not known, or cannot be under-
stood. ite Te abs bei ae eee
pensation other departments; it applies, as. as taises,
all revenne, It is a numerous body, and necessarily

stituents. It would seem to be plain enough, that, without con-
stitutional provisions which should be fixed and certain, such a
department, in case of excitement, would be able to encroach
on the judiciary. Therefore is it, that a security of judicial
independence becomes necessary; and the question is, whether
that independence be at present sufficiently secured.

The constitution being the supreme law, it follows of course,
that every act of the legislature, contrary to that law, must be
void. But who shall decide this question? Shall the legislature
itself decide it? If so, then the constitution ceases to be'a legal,
and becomes only a moral restraint on the legislature. If they,
and they only, are to judge whether their acts be conformable to
the constitution, then the constitution is admonitory or advisory
only; not legally binding; because, if the construction of it rest
wholly with them, their discretion, in particular cases, may be in
favor of very erroneous and dangerous constructions. Hence
the courts of law, necessarily, when the case arises, must decide
upon the validity of particular acts, These cases are rare, at
least in this Commonwealth; but they would probably be less
80, if the character of the judiciary were less reepectable than
it is.

It is the theory and plan of the constitution to restrain the
legislature, as well as other departments, and to subject their
acts to judicial decision, whenever it appears that such acts
infringe constitutional limits. Without this check, no certain
limitation could exist on the exercise of legislative power. ‘The
constitution, for example, declares, that the legislature shall not
suspend the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus, except under
ccttain limitations. If a law should happen to be passed re-
straining personal liberty, and an individual, feeling oppreased
by it, should apply for his habeas corpus, must not the judges
decide what ix the benefit of habeas corpus intended by the
constitution, what it is to suspend it, and whether the acts of

SSE]

ae CONSTITUTION UF MASSACHUSETTS.

tie lara aunres ds ‘The most essen
tinl rights connected with political liberty are there canvassed
discussed, and maintained; and if it should at any time so hap-
pen that these rights should be invaded, there is no remedy but
a reliance on the courts to protect and vindicate them. There
is danger, also, that legislative bodies will sometimes pass laws
interfering with other private rights than those connected with
political liberty. Individuals are too apt to apply to the legis-
.ntive power to interfere with private cases or private proper-
ty; and such applications sometimes meet with favor and sup-
port, There would be no security, if these interferences were
not subject to some subsequent constitutional revision, where all
parties could be heard, and justice be administered according to
the standing laws.

‘These considerations are among those which, in my opinion,
render an independent judiciary equally essential to the preser-
vation of private rights and public liberty. I lament the neces-
sity of deciding this question at the present moment; and
should hope, if euch immediate decision were not demanded,
that some modification of thie report might prove acceptable to
the committee, since, in my judgment, some provision beyond
what exists in the present constitution is necessary.

SPEECHES IN CONGRESS.

cy BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.

particularly designed to insure the payment of the notes of the bank i
specie, at all times, on demand,

However the House may dispose of the motion before it, 1
do not regret that it bas been made, One object intended by it,
‘at least, ia accomplished. It presents a choice, and it shows
tha’ the opposition which exists to the bill in its present state is
not an undistinguishing hostility to whatever may be proposed
as a national bank, but a hostility to an institution of such a
useless and dangerous nature as it is believed the existing pro-
visions of the bill would establizh.

Af the bill should be recommitted, and amended according to
the instructions which I have moved, its principles would be
materially changed. The capital of the proposed bank will be
reduced from fifty to thirty millions, and will be composed of =pe-
cie and stocks in nearly the same proportions as the capital of
the former Bank of the United States. The obligation to lend
thirty millions of dollars to government, an alate which
cannot be fulfilled without committing an act of bankruptey,
will be struck out. The power to suspend the payment of ite
notes and bills will be abolished, and the prompt and faithful
execution of its contracts secured, us far as, from the natare of
things, it can be secured. The restriction on the sale of its
stocks will be removed, and as it is a monopoly, provision will
be made that, if it should not commence its operations in a rea-
sonable time, the grant shall be forfeited. Thus amended, the
bill would establish an institution not unlike the last Bank of
the United States in any particular which is deemed material,
excepting only the legalized amount of eapital.

‘To a bank of this nature I should at any time be willing to
give my support, not as a measure of temporary policy or as an
expedient for relief from the present poverty of the treasury, but
as an institution of permanent interest and importance, useful
to the government and country at all times, and most useful in
times of commercial prosperity.

T am sure, Sir, that the advantages which would at present
result from any bank are greatly overrated. To look to a bank,
as a source capable, not only of affording a circulating medium
to the country, but also of supplying the ways and means of
carrying on the war, especially at a time when the country ix

33 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.
according to the terms upon which the late loans have been

negotiated.

‘The capital of the bank, then, will be five millions of specie
and forty-five millions of government stocks. In other words,
the bank will possess five millions of dollars and the govern-
ment will owe it forty-five millions. The bank is restrained
from selling this debt of government during the war, and govern+
‘meant is cxeused from paying until it shall see fit. The bank is
also to be under obligation to loan to government thirty millions
of dollars on demand, to be repaid, not when the convenience
or necessity of the bank may require, but when debts due to the
bank from government are paid; that is, when it shall be the
good pleasure of government. ‘This sum of thirty millions is to
supply the necessities of government, and to supersede the ocear
sion of other loans. This loan will doubtless be made on the
first day of the existence of the bank, because the public wante
ean admit of no delay. Its condition, then, will be, that it has
five millions of specie, if it has been able to obtain so much,
and a debt of seventy-five millions, no part of which it can either
sell or call in, due to it from government.

‘The loan of thirty millions to government can only be made
by an immediate issue of bills to that amount. If these bills
should return, the bank will not beable to pay them. This is cer
tain; and to remedy this inconvenience, power is given to the
directors, by the act, to suspend, at their own discretion, the: pays
ment of their notes until the President of the United States shall
otherwise order, ‘The President will give no such order, because
the necessities of government will compel it to draw on the
bank till the bank becomes as necessitous as itself. Indeed,
whatever orders may be given or withheld, it will be utterly im-
possible for the bank to pay its notes. No such thing is expect=
ed from it. The first note it issues will be dishonored on its re
turn, and yet it will continue to pour out its paper so long ns
government can apply it in any degree to its purposes.

What sort of an institution, Sir, is this? It looks less like a
bank than a department of government. It will be properly the
pupertmoney departnent. Its capital is government debts; the
amount of its issues will depend on government necessities;
government, in effect, absolves itself from its own debts to the
aank, and, by way of compensation, absolvea the bank from ite

40 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.

can be described. The bank will not operate either by mimele
or magic. Whoever expects any good from it ought to be able
to tell us in what way that good is to be prodaced. As yet, we
have had nothing but general ideas and vague and loose expres+
sions. An indefinite and indistinct notion is entertained, no-
body here seems to know on what ground, that this bank is to
reanimate public credit, fill the treasury, and remove all the evils
that have arisen from the depreciation of the paper of the exist.
ing banks.

Some gentlemen, who do not profess themselves to be in all
respects: pleazed with the provisions of the bill, seem to content
themselves with an idea that nothing better can be obtained,
and that it is necessary to do something. A strong impression
that something must be done is the origin of many bad meas+
ures. It is easy, Sir, to do something, but the object is to do
something useful, It is better to do nothing than to do mis-
chief. It is much better, in my opinion, to make no bank, than
to pags the bill as it now is.

The interests to be affected by this measure, the finances, the
public credit, and the circulating medium of the country, are too
important to be hazarded in echemes like these. If we wish to
restore the public credit and to reéstablish the finances, we have
the beaten road before us. All true analogy, all experience, and
all just knowledge of ourselves and our condition, point one way.
A wise and systematic economy, and a settled and substantial
revenue, are the means to be relied on; not excessive issues of
bank-notes, a forced circulation, and all the miserable contrivan-
ces to which political folly can resort, with the idle expectation
of giving to mere paper the quality of money. These are all
the inventions of a short-sighted policy, vexed and goaded by
the necessities of the moment, and thinking less of a permanent
remedy than of shifis and expedients to avoid the present dis-
tress. They have been a thousand times adopted, and a thou-
sand times exploded as delusive and ruinous, as destructive of
all solid revenue, and incompatible with the security of private
property,

It is, Sir, sufficiently obvious, that, to produce any benefit,
this bank must be so constructed as that its notes shall have
eredit with the public. The first inquiry, therefore, should be,
vhethe: the bills of a bank of this kind will not be immediately

’
2 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES,

pend the payment of its notes. Its paper immediately fell. tom
discount of near twenty per cent. Yet such was the public
opinion of the solidity of its funds, that its stock then sold for
one hundred and ten per cent. although no more than sixty per
cent. upon the subseription had been paid in. The same fate,
as is well known, attended the banks of Scotland, when they
adopted the practice of inserting in their notes a clause, giving
fe asieres eiaiaccl tess Caasouthe on demand, or six
months after demand, with interest. Paper of this sort was not
convertible into specie, at the pleasure of the holder; and no
eonvietion of the ability of the bank which issued it could pre~
serve it from depreciation.

‘The suspension of specie payments by the Bank of England,
in 1797, and the consequences which followed, afford fo argu.
ment to overthrow this general experience, If Bank af Eng-
land notes were not immediately depreciated on that occasion,
depreciation, nevertheless, did ensue. Very favorable causes
existed to prevent their sudden depression. It was an old and
rich institution. It was known to be under the most discreet
and independent management. Government had no contro)
over it, to foree it to make loans against its interest or its will,
On the contrary, it compelled the government to pay, though
with much inconvenience to itself, a very considerable sum
which was due to it, The country enjoyed, at that time, an
extensive commerce, and a revenue of three hundred millions of
dollars was collected and distributed through the bank. Under
all these advantages, however, the difference of price between
bank-notes and coin became at one time so great, as to threaten
the most dangerous consequences. Suppose the condition of
England to have been reversed. Snppose that, instead of a
prosperous and increasing commerce, she had suffered the rain
of her trade, and that the product of her manufactures had lain
upon her hands, a8 the product of our agriculture now perishes
in ours. Does any one imagine that her circulating paper could
have existed and maintained any credit, in such a change of
her condition? What ought to surprise us is, not that her bank
paper was depreciated, but that it was not depreciated sooner
and lower than in fact it was. The reason can only be found
in that extraordinary combination of favorable circumstances,
which never existed before, and is hardly to be expected again.
Much less 1s it, to be discovered in our condition at present.

a

have made assurance doubly sure. In addition tu exeessive
issues of paper, and the failure to make payments, both which

mere

hardly, therefore, be better at any time than the credit of the
government. If the stocks be depreciated, so of course must
every thing be which rests on the stocks. It would require extra-
ordinary ingenuity to show how « bunk, which is founded on
the public debt, is to have any better reputation than the debt
itself, It must be some very novel invention which makes the
superstructure keep its place after the foundation has fallen.
‘The argument seems to stand thus. The public funds, it is ad-
mitted, have little credit; the bank will have no credit which dt
does not borrow of the funds; but the bank will be in full eredit.

If, Sir, we were in a temper to learn wisdom from experience,
the history of most of the banks on the continent of Europe
might teach us the futility of all these contrivances. Thove in-
stitutions, like this before us, were established for purposes of
finance, not purposes of commerce. ‘The same fortune has hap
pened to them all, Their credit has sunk. Their respective
governments go to them for money when they can get it mo-
where else; and the banks can relieve their wants only by new
issues of their own paper. As this is not redeemed, the inva~
triable consequence of depreciation follows; and this has some+
times led to the miserable and destructive expedient of depreein-
tion of the coin itself, Such are the banks of Petersburg, Co-
penhagen, Vienna, and other cities of Europe; and while the
paper of these government banks has been thua depressed, that
of other banks existing in their neighborhood, unconnected with
government, and conducting their business on the basis of come
mercial credit, has retained a value equivalent to that of coin.

Excessive issues of paper, and a close connection with govern

ately fell to a depreciation of four for one, ‘The consequence
was, that the government lost its revenue, and with

means of supplying its armies and defending its empire.
this government now ready, Sir, to put its resources all at haz~
ard, by pursuing a similar course? Is it ready to sacrifice its
whole substantial revenue and permanent supplies to an ill-con-

the operation of such a bank as this bill would establish must
be to increase the difficulties and distress which the existing
banks now experience, and to render it nearly impossible for
ther to resume the payment of their notes, This is what every
man would naturally expect. Paper alrendy depreciated will
necessarily be sink still lower, when another flood of depreei-
ated paper is forced into circulation.

Very recently this government refused to extend the charter
o the Bank of the United States, upon the ground that it was
unconstitutional for Congress to create banks, Many of the
State banks owe their existence to this decision. It was an in-
vitation to the States to incorporate as much banking eupital ax
would answer all the purposes of the country. Notwithstand-
ing what we may now see and hear, it would then have been
deemed a gross imputation on the consistency of government,
if any man bad expressed an expectation, that in five years all
these constitutional scraples would be forgotten, all the dangers
to political liberty from moneyed institutions disregarded, and a
bank proposed apon the most extraordinary principles, with an

THE LEGAL CURRENCY

A mut reported by Mr, Calhoun for the restoration of the currency
was rejected in the House of Representatives on the 25th of April, 1816.
On the 26th, Mr. Webster introduced three resolutions ‘having the sume
object in view; and in support of them made the following speech.
The first two, being declaratory of principles only, were withdrawn
at the request of several gentlemen, who were in favor of the third
resolution, which contained Mr. Webster's plan for restoring the cur

awney.

it provided that the Secretary of the Tyensury should adopt such
measures as he might deem necessary, to cause, as soon as might be,
all sums of money due to the United States “to be collected and paid
fn the legal currency of the United States, or treasury-notes, or notea
of the Bank of the United States, a1 by law provided and declared,
or in notes of banks which are payable and paid on demand, in the
said legal currency of the United Stas”; and it directed that, afer
the 20th of February next ensuing, nothing else should be received in
payment of the public dues.

‘This resolution was received with great favor by the House, and
passed through all tho stages of legislation on the same day (the 26th
of April) by a majority of more than two thirda, It was approved by
President Madison on the 30th, and was completely successful in restore
ing a sound currency,

Mr. Spraxer,—TI have felt it to be my duty to call the
attention of the House once more to the subject of the collec
tion of the revenue, and to present the resolutions which are

* A Spooch dolivered in the House of Representatives of the United States,
wn tho oth of April, 1816, on the Collection of the Revenue in the Legal Cur
nancy of the Country.

———

50 THE LEGAL CURRENG .
of nt, and from them it had been drawn as cash, and
a ealvan ona peti

“During the war this state of things changed, Many of the
banke had been induced to make loans to a very great amount
to the government. These loans were made by an issue of their
own bills. ‘This proceeding threw into cirenintion an immense
quantity of bank Ula in no degree corresponding with the
mercantile business of the country, and resting, for its payment
and redewption, on nothing but the government stocks, which
were held by the banks. The consequence immediately fol-
lowed, which it would be imputing a great degree of blindness
both to the government and to the banks to suggest that they
had not foreseen. The exerss of paper which was found every-
where created alarm, Demands began te be made on the
banks, and they all stopped pay:nent. No contrivance to get
money without inconvenience to the people ever had a shorter
course of experiment, or a more unequivocal termination. The
depreciation of bank-notes was the necessary consequence of a
neglect or refusal to pay them, on the part of those who issued
them, It took place immediately, and has continued, with occa-
sional fluctuations in the depression, to the present moment.
What still farther increases the evil is, that this bank paper,
being the issue of very many institutions, situated in different
paris of the country, and possessing different degrees of credit,
the depreciation has not been, and is not now, uniform through-
out the United States, It is not the same at Baltimore as at
Philadelphia, nor the same at Philadelphia a at New York.
In New England, the banks have not stopped payment in
specie, and of course their paper has not been depressed at
all. But the notes of banks which have ceased to pay specie
have, nevertheless, been, and still are, received for duties and
taxes, in the places where such banks exist. The consequence
of all this is, that the people of the United States pay their
duties and taxes in currencies of different values in different
places, In other words, taxes and duties are higher in some
places than they are in others, by as much as the value of
gold ond silver is greater than the value of the several deserip-
tions of bank paper which are received by government. This
differeace in relation to the paper of the District where we now
ure, is twenty-five per cent, Taxes and duties, therefore, col

52 THE LEGAL CURRENCY.

of order, method, or certainty in the public receipts or disburse-
iments, This mass of depressed paper, thrown out at first in
loans to accommodate government, has done little else than
embarrass and distress government. Tt can hardly be said to
circulate, but it lies in the channel of circulation, and chokes it
up by ite bulk and its sluggishness. In a great portion of the
country the dues are not paid, or are badly paid; and in an
equal portion of the country the public creditors are not paid, or
are paid badly.

Tt is quite clear, that by the statute all duties and taxes are
required to be paid in the legal moncy of the United States,
or in treasury-notes, agrecably to recent provisions. It is just
‘as clear, that the law has been disregarded, and that the notes
of banks of a hundred different descriptions, and almost as
many different values, have been received, and still are received,
where the statute requires legal money or treasury-notes to be

In these circumstances, I cannot persuade myself that Con-
greas will adjourn, without attempting something by way of
remedy. In my opinion, no greater evil has threatened us.
Nothing can more endanger, either the existence and preserva-
tion of the public revenue, or the security of private property,
than the consequences which are to be apprehended from the
present course of things, if they be not arrested by a timely and
an effectual interference. Let gentlemen consider what will
probably happen, if Congress should rise without the adoption
‘of any measnre on the subject.

Virginia, having passed a law for compelling the banks in
that State to limit the circulation of their paper, and resume
specie payments by the autumn, will, doubtless, repeal it, ‘The
States farther to the south will probably fall into « similar relax~
ation, for it is hardly to be expected that they will have firmness
and perseverance enough to persist in their present most pradent
and commendable course, without the countenance of the gen-
eral government. If, in addition to these events, an abandon-
ment of the wholesome system which has thus far prevailed in
the Northern States, or any relaxation of that system, should take
place, the government is in danger of falling into a condition,
from which it will hardly be able to extricate itself for twenty
years, if indeed it shall ever be able to extricate itself; and if

TS

what hope is there that any efficient measure will be adopted
hereafter?

‘The conduct of the treasury department in receiving the notes
vf the banks, after they had suspended payment, might, or might
not, have been exeuscd by the necessity of the case, That iz
not now the subject of inquiry. 1 wish such inquiry had been
instituted. It ought to have been, It is of dangerous conse-
quence to permit plain omissions to execute the law to pass off,
‘under any circumstances, without inquiry. It would probably be
easier to prove that the treasury must have continued to receive
auch note, or that all payments to government would have
been suspended, than it would be to justify the previous nego-
tiations of great lonns at the banks, which was a voluntary trans-
action, induced by no particular necessity, and which is, never
theless, beyond doubt, the principal cause of their present con-
dition. Bot J have expressed my belief on more than one
occasion, and I repeat the opinion, that it was the duty, and in
the power, of the Secretary of the ‘Treasury, on the return of
peace, to return to the legal and proper mode of collecting the
revenue. The paper of the banks rose on that occasion al-
most to an equality with specie; that was the favorable mo-
ment. ‘The banks in which the public money was deposited
ought to have been induced to lead the way, by the sale of their
government stocks, and other measures calculated to bring about,
moderately and gradually, but regularly and certainly, the resto-
tation of the former and only safe state of things. Tt can hardly
be doubted, that the influence of the treasury could have affected
all this. If not, it could have withdrawn the deposits and coun-
tenance of government from institutious which, against all rule
and all propriety, were holding great sums in government stocks,
and making enormous profits from the circulation of their own
dishonored paper. That which was most wanted was the des-
ignation of a time for the corresponding operation of banks in
different places. This could have been made by the head of the
treasury, better than by any body or every body else, Bat the
occasion was suffered to pass by unimproved, aud the credit of
the bunks soon fell again, when it was found they used none
of the means which the opportunity afforded them for enabling
them to fulfil their engagements.

As to any power of compulsion to be exercised over the State

56 ‘THE LEGAL CURRENCY.

circumstances these were received, is not now sufficiently ascer-
tained.

But before these resolutions are rejected, on the ground that
they may shicld the treasury department from responsibility, it
onght to be clearly shown that they are capable of such a con-
struction. ‘The mere passing of any resolution cannot have that
effect. A declaration of what ought to be done does not neces-
sarily imply any sanction of what has been done. It may some-
times imply the contrary, ‘These resolutions cannot be made to
imply any more than this, — that the financial affairs of the coun-

are in such a condition that the revenue cannot be instantly
collected in legal currency. This they do imply, and this Tsup-
pose almost all admit to be true. An instantaneous execution
of the law, without warning or notice, could in my opinion pro-
duce nothing, in a portion of the country, but an entire suspen-
sion of payments.

But to whose fault it is owing that the affairs of the country
are reduced to this condition, they do not declare. They do not
prevent, or in any degree embarrass, future inquiry on that sub-
ject) They speak to the fact that the finances are deranged.
They eay, aleo, that reformation, though it must be gradual,
ought to be immediately begun, and to be carried to perfection
in the shortest time practicable. ‘They cannot by any fair con-
struction be made to express the approbation of Congress on the
past conduct of any high officer of government; and if the time
shall ever come when this House shall deem investigation neces-
sary, it must be a case of very unpromising aspect, and of most
fearful issue, which shall afford no other hope of escape than by
setting up these resolutions by way of bar to an inquiry.

Nor is it any objection to this measure that inquiry has not
first been had. Two duties may be supposed to have rested on
the House: the one, to inquire into the origin of the evil, if it
needed inquiry; and the other, to find and apply the remedy.
Because one of these duties has not hitherto been discharged, ix
no reason why the other should be longer neglected. While we
are deciding which to do first, the time of the session is going
by us, and neither may be done, In the mean time, public mis-
chiefs of unknown mag itude and incalculable duration threaten
the country. I see no equivalent, no consolation, no mitigation,
for these evils in the future responsibility of depar'ments, Let

SSS

58 THE LEGAL CURRENCY.

believes that the treasury department will oppose this tide, aided
si il ey tong ing ad rat interest, bus more faith
in that than has ales 10 my lot. Ibis the duty of
this House to interfere with its own authority. Having taxed
the people with no light hand, it is now its duty to take care
that the people do not sustain these burdens in vain. The taxes
are not borne without feeling. They will not be borne without
if, by mismanagement in collection, their atility to
t should be lost, and they should get into the treasury

at last only in discredited and useless paper.

A bank of thirty-five millions has been created for the pro-
feased purpose of correcting the evils of our circulation, and
facilitating the receipts and expenditures of government, [am
not so sanguine in the hope of great benefit from this measure
as others are. But the treasury is also authorized to issue
twenty-five millions of treasury-notes, eighteen or twenty mil-
lions of which remain yet to be issued, and which are also
allowed by law to be received for dutics nnd taxes, In addition
to these is the coin which is in the country, and which is sure
to come forth into circulation whenever there is a demand for it,
‘These means, if wisely and skilfully administered, are sufficient
fo prevent any particular pressure, or great inconvenience, in
returning to the legal mode of collecting the revenue. It is trac,
it may be casicr for the people in the States in which the depre-
cinted paper exists to pay their taxes in such paper than in the
legal currency of treasury-notes, because they can get it cheaper.
But this is only saying that it is easier to pay a small tax than
to pay a large one, or that money costs more than that which is
less valuable than money, a proposition not to be disputed.
Bat a medium of payment convenient for the people and safe
for the government will be furnished, and may everywhere be
obtained for a reasonable price. This is all thut can justly be
expected of Congress. Having provided this, they ought to
require all parts of the country to conform to the sare measure
of justice. If taxes be not necessary, they should not be Inid.
Uf laid, they ought to be collected without preference or par-
tiality.

But while some gentlemen oppose the resolutions because
tney fix a day too near, others think they fix a day too distant.
In my own judgment, it is not so material what the time is aa

THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE.*

Tue rise and progress of the revolution in Greece attracted great
astention in the United States. Many obvious causes contributed to thin
effect, and their influence was seconded by the direct appeal made to
the people of America, by the first political body organized in Greece
aftor the breaking out of the revolution, viz. “The Messenian Senate
of Calamata.” A forma address was made by that body to the people
‘of the United States, and forwarded by their committee (of which the
celebrated Koray was chairman), to a friend and correspondent in this
country. ‘This address was translated and widely circulated ; but it was
not to be expected that any great degree of confidence should be at once
generally folt ia « movement undertaken against such formidable odds,

‘The progress of events, however, in 1822 and 1923, was such as to
‘ercate an impression that the revolution in Greece had a substantial
foundation in the state of affairs, in the awakened spirit of that country,
and in the condition of public opinion throughont Christendom. ‘The
interest felt in the struggle ropidly increased in the United States. Lo-
cal committees were formed, animated appeals were made, and funds
collected, with a view to the relief of the victims of the war,

On the assembling of Congress, in December, 1823, Prosident Mon:
roe made the revolution in Greece the subject of a paragraph in his
annual message, and on the Sth of December Mr. Webster moved the
following resolution in the House of Representatives; —

Resolved, That provision ought to be made, by law, for . efmying
tho expense incident to the appointment of an Agent or Commissioner
to Greece, whenever the President shall deem it expedient to make such
‘appoiaument."

"Those, it is believed, are the first official expressions favorable to the
independence of Greece uttered by any of the governments of Christen-
dom, and no doubt contributed powerfully towards the creation of that
feeling throughout the civilized world which eventually led to the battle

* A Speech delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States
oa the 19th of January, 1824,

64 Th REVOLUTION IN GREECE.

subjects of direct legislation. Since, therefore, the President's
message docs not now receive a general answer, it has seemed
to me to be proper that, in some mode, agreeable to onr own
uanal form of proceeding, we should express our sentiments
upon the important and interesting topics on which it trents.

If the sentiments of the message in respect to Greece be
proper, it is equally proper that this House should
those sentiments. The present resolution is designed to have
that extent, and no more. If it pare, it will leave any future

ing where it now is, in the discretion of the executive gov-
emment. It is but an expression, under those forms in which
the House is accustomed to act, of the satisfaction of the House
with the general sentiments expressed in regard to this subject
in the meseage, and of its readiness to defray the expense inci-
dent to any inquiry for the purpose of further information, or
any other agency which the President, in his discretion, shall see
fit, in whatever manner and at whatever time, to institute. The
whole matter is still left in his judgment, and this resolution can
in no way restrain its unlimited exercise,

I might well, Mr. Chairman, avoid the responsibility of this
measure, if it had, in my judgment, any tendency to change the
policy of the country. With the general course of that policy
Tam quite satisfied. The nation is prosperous, peaceful, and
happy; and I should very reluctantly put its peace, prosperity,
or happiness at risk. It appears to me, however, that this reso-
lution is strictly conformable to our general policy, and not only
consistent with our interests, but even demanded by a large and
liberal view of those interests,

It is certainly true that the just policy of this country is, in the
first place, a peaceful policy. No nation ever bad less to expect
from forcible aggrandizement. The mighty agents which are
working out our greatness are time, industry, and the arts. Our
augmentation is by growth, not by acquisition; by internal de-
velopment, not by external accession, Nowschemes can be sug-
gested to us so magnificent as the prospects which a sober con-
templation of our own condition, nnaided by projects, uninfla-
enced by ambition, fairly spreads before us. A country of such
vast extent, with such varieties of soil and climate, with so much
public spirit and private enterprise, with a populution increasing
so much beyond former example, with capacities of improve-

66 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE.

justify such opposition in relation to the United States, as well
‘as in relation to any other state or nation, if time and cireum-
stances should render such opposition expedient.

‘What part it becomes this country to take on = question of
this sort, so far ax it is called upon to take any part, cannot be
doubtful, Our side of this question is settled for us, even with-
out our own volition, Our history, our situation, our character,

decide our position and our course, before we have
even time to ask whether we have an option. Our place is on
the side of free institutions, From the earliest settlement of
these States, their inhabitants were accustomed, in a greater or
less degree, to the enjoyment of the powers of self-government;
and for the last half-century they have sustained systems of gov-
ernment entirely representative, yielding to themselves the great-
est possible prosperity, and not leaving them without distinction
and respect among the nations of the earth. This system we
are not likely to abandon; and while we shall no farther recom
mend its adoption to other nations, in whole or in part, than it
may recommend iteelf by ita vieible influence on our own growth
and prosperity, we are, nevertheless, interested to resist the es
tublishment of doctrines which deny the legality of its founda.
tions. We stand as an equal among nations, claiming the full
benefit of the established international Jaw; and it is our duty
to oppose, from the carliest to the latest moment, any innova-
tions upon that code which shall bring into doubt or question
our own equal and independent rights.

I will now, Mr. Chairman, advert to those pretensions put
forth by the allied sovereigns of Continental Europe, which seem
to me calculated, if unresisted, to bring into disrepute the prin-
ciples of our government, and, indeed, to be wholly incompatible
with any degree of national independence. Ido not introduce
these considerations for the suke of topics. [am not about to
declaim against crowned heads, nor to quarrel with any country
for preferring a form of government different from our own.
The right of choice that we exercise for ourselves, Lam quite
willing to leave also to others. But it appears to me that the
pretensions to which I have alluded are wholly inconsistent with
the independence of nations generally, without regard to the
question whether their governments be absolute, monarchical
and limited, or purely popular and representative. 1 have n

8 ‘HE REVOLUTION IN GREECE.
of thanks for the successful termination of the momentous con

somewhat unaccountable, however, that these good resolutions
should require to be confirmed by treaty. Who doubted that
these august sovereigns would treat each other with justice, and
role their own subjects in merey? And what necessity was
there for a solemn stipulation by treaty, to insure the perform.
ance of that which is no more than the ordinary duty of every

duce an entire change, or any change, In the course of thelr own

parties to observe the rules of religion and justice?

It is not a little remarkable, that a writer of reputation upon
the Public Law, described, many years ngo, not inaccurately,
the character of this alliance. I allude to Puffendorf. “It seems
useless,” says he, “to frame any pacts or leagues, barely for the
defence and support of universal peace; for by euch a league
nothing is superadded to the obligation of natural law, and no
agreement is made for the performance of any thing which the
parties were not previously bound to perform; nor is the origi-
nal obligation rendered firmer or stronger by such an addition.
Men of any tolerable culture and civilization might well be
ashamed of entering into any such compact, the conditions of
which imply only that the parties concerned shall not offend in
any clear point of duty. Besides, we should be guilty of great
irreverence towards God, should we suppose that his injunctions
had not already laid a sufficient obligation upon us to act justly,
unless we ourselves voluntarily consented to the same engage-
ment; as if our obligation to obey his will depended upon our
own pleasure.

“Tf one engage to serve another, he does not set it down ex-
pressly and particularly among the terms and conditions of the
bargain, that he will not betray nor murder him, nor pillage nor
burn his house. For the same reason, that would be a dishonor-
able engagement, in which men should bind themselves to act
properly and decently, and not break the peace.” *

* Law of Nature and Nations, Book I, esp, 2, 4 thy

70 ‘THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE

and in the administration of states ought only to emanate from
the free will and intelligent and well-weighed conviction of
those whom God has rendered responsible for power, All that
deviates from this line necessarily leads to disorder, commations,
and evils far more insufferable than those which they pretend to
temedy.”* Now, Sir, this principle would carry Europe back
again, at once, into the middle of the Dark Ages, It is the old
doctrine of the Divine right of kings, advanced now by new
advocates, and sustained by a formidable array of power. That
the people hold their fondamental privileges as matter of con-
cession or indulgence from the sovereign power, is a sentiment
not easy to be diffused in ies sopey eee tg it is enforced
by the direct operation of military means. It is true, certainly,
that some six centuries ago the early founders of English lib-
erty called the instrament which secured their rights a charter.
It was, indeed, a concession; they had obtained it sword in
hand from the king; and in many other cases, whatever was ob-
tained, favorable to human rights, from the tyranny and despot
iam of the feudal sovereigns, was called by the names of privi-
leges and liberties, as being matter of special favor. Though
‘we retain this language at the present time, the principle itself
belongs to ages that have long passed by us. The civilized
world has done with “the enormous faith, of many made for
one.” Society asserts its own rights, and alleges them to be
original, sacred, and unalienable. It is not satisfied with having
kind masters; it demands a participation in ite own govern-
ment; and in states much advanced in civilization, it urges this
demand with a constancy and an energy that cannot well nor
long be resisted. ‘There are, happily, enough of regulated gov-
ernments in the world, and those among the most distinguished,
to operate as constant cxamples, and to keep alive an unceasing
panting in the bosoms of men for the enjoyment of similar free
institutions. E
‘When the English Revolution of 1688 took place, the Eng
lish people did not content themselves with the example of
Runnymede ; they did not build their hopes upon royal charters;
they did not, like the authors of the Laybach circular, suppose
that all useful changes in constitutions and laws must proceed
from those only whom God has rendered responsible for power.

* Annual Rogistor for 1821, p, 601.

72 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE.
tone both loud and decisive. The avowed object of such decla-
what

ple, or, for aught T know, quintuple allegianee. An offence
against one king is to be an offence against all kings, and the

case, but rovereign pleasure, is to decide whether the example be
good or bad? And what, under the operation of such a rule,
may be thought of our example? Why are we not as fair
objects for the operition of the new principle, as any of those
who may attempt a reform of government on the other side of
the Atlantic?

The ultimate effect of this alliance of sovereigns, for objects
personal to themselves, or respecting only the permanence of
their own power, must be the destruction of all just feeling, and
all natural sympathy, between those who exercise the power of
government and those who are subject to it. ‘The old channels
of mutual regard and confidence are to be dried up, or cut off:
Obedience can now be expected no longer than it is enforced.
Instead of relying on the affections of the governed, sovereigns
are to rely on the affections and friendship of other sovercigne,
There are, in short, no longer to be nations. Princes and people
are no longer to unite for interests common to them both. There
is to be an end of all patriotism, as a distinct national feeling.
Society is to be divided horizontally; all sovereigns above, and
all subjects below; the former coalescing for their own security,
and for the more certain subjection of the undistinguished mul-
titade beneath. This, Sir, is no picture drawn by imagination.

4 3

may not resist the Spanish Inquisition, and the Turkish cimeter,

deran, these monstrous principles? Where, but here, and in one
other place, are they likely to be resisted? ‘They are udvanced
with equal coolness and boldness; and they are supported by
immense power. ‘The timid will shrink and give way, and many
of the brave may be compelled to yield to foree. Human liberty
may yet, perhaps, be obliged to repose its principal hopes on the
intelligence and the vigor of the Saxon race, As far as depends
on us, at least, T trast those hopes will not be disappointed ; and
that, to the extent which may consist with our own settled, pa-
cific policy, our opinions and sentiments may be brought to act
on the right side, and to the right end, on an occasion which is,
in truth, nothing less than a momentous question between an
intelligent age, fall of knowledge, thirsting for improvement,
and quickened by a, thousand impulses, on one side, and the
most arbitrary pretensions, sustained by unprecedented power,
‘on the other.

This asserted right of forcible intervention in the affairs of
other nations is in open violation of the public law of the world
Who has authorized these learned doctors of Troppau to estab
lish new articles in this code? Whence are their diplomas? Is
the whole world expected to acquiesce in principles which en-
tirely subvert the independence of nations? On the basis of
this independence has been reared the beautiful fabric of inter.
national law. On the principle of this independence, Enrope
has seen a family of nations flourishing within its limits, the
small among the large, protected not always by power, but by a
Principle above power, by a sense of propriety and justice. On
this principle, the great commonwealth of civilized states bas
been hitherto upheld. ‘There have been occasional departures
or violations, and always disastrous, as in the case of Poland;
but, in gencral, the harmony of the system has been wonderfully
preserved. In the production and preservation of this sense of

and which, while we would stop to make an observation, and

come us, then, is it not a duty imposed on us, to give our weight
to the side of liberty and justice, to let mankind know that we
are not tired of our own institutions, and to protest against the
asserted power of altering at pleasure the law of the civilized
world?

But whatever we do in this respect, it becomes us to do opon
clear and consistent principles. ‘There is an important topic in
the message to which 1 have yet burdly alluded. I mean the
rumored combination of the European Continental sovereigns
against the newly established free states of South America
‘Whatever position this government may take on that subject, T
trast it will be one which can be defended on known and ac-
knowledged grounds of right. ‘The near approach or the remote
distance of danger may affect policy, but cannot change princi-
ple. ‘The same reason that would authorize us to protest agninst
unwarrantable combinations to interfere between Spain and her
former colonies, would authorize us equally to protest, if the
same combination were directed against the smallest state in
Enrope, although our duty to ourselves, our policy, and wisdom,
might indicate very different courses as fit to be pursued by us
in the two cases, We shall not, I trust, act upon the notion of
dividing the world with the Holy Alliance, and complain of
nothing done by them in their hemisphere if they will not inter

7 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE,

general sense of justice of the civilized world. Tt is nothing,
that the troops of France have passed fromthe Pyrenees to
Cadiz; it is nothing that an unhappy and prostrate nation bas
fallen before ther; it is nothing that arrest, and confiscation,
and execution, eweep away the little remnant of national resist-
ance. ‘There is an enemy that still exists to check the glory of
these triumphs. It follows the conqueror back to the very scene
of his ovations; it calls upon him to take notice that Europe,
though silent, is yet indignant; it shows him that the scepire of ©
his victory is a barren sceptre; that it shall confer neither joy
nor honor, but shall moulder to dry ashes in hie grasp. In
the midst of his exultation, it pierces his ear with the cry of
injured justice; it denounces against him the indignation of
an enlightened and civilized age; it turns to bitterness the
cup of his rejoicing, and wounds him with the stiag which be:
longs to the consciousness of having outraged the opinion of
mankind.

In my opinion, Sir, the Spanish nation is now nearer, not
only in point of time, but in point of circumstance, to the ac
quisition of a regulated government, than at the moment of
the French invasion. Nations must, no doubt, undergo these
‘trials in their progress to the establishment of free institu-
tions. The very trials benefit them, and render them more
capable both of obtaining and of enjoying the object which
they seek.

I shall not detain the cornmittee, Sir, by laying before it any
statistical, geographical, or commercial, account of Greece. I
have no knowledge on these subjects which is not common to
all. Tt is universally admitted, that, within the last thirty or
forty years, the condition of Greece has been greatly improved.
Her marine is at present respectable, containing the best sailors
in the Mediterrancan, better even, in that sen, than our own, ag
more accustomed to the long quarantines and other regulations
which prevail in its ports. ‘The number of her seamen has been
estimated as high as 50,000, but 1 suppose that estimate must
be much too large. She has, probably, 160,000 tons of ship-
ping. It is not easy to ascertain the amount of the Greck
population, The Turkieh government does not trouble itself
with any of the calculations of political economy, and there has
never been such a thing as an accurate census, probably, in any

THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE.

30
pation in European manners, knowledge, and arts, than when
ial eet Sane pte Sot tie ieee The

ious persecution. any
thing yet remains to heighten such a picture, let it be added,

be sure, the government is bad enough; but then it is the gov-
ernment of barbarians over barbarians, and the feeling of oppres-
sion is, of course, not so keen, ‘There the oppressed are perhaps
not better than their oppressors; but in the case of Greece, there
are millions of Christian men, not without knowledge, not with-
out refinement, not without a strong thirst for all the pleasures
of civilized life, trampled into the very earth, century after cen-
tury, by « pillaging, savage, relentless soldiery. Sir, the case is
unique. There exists, and has existed, nothing like it The
world has no such misery to show; there is no case in which
Christian communities can be called upon with such emphasis
of appeal.

But 1 have said enough, Mr. Chairman, indeed I need have
said nothing, to satisfy the House, that it mast be some new
combination of circumstances, or new views of policy in the cab-
inets of Europe, which have caused this interesting struggle not
merely to be regarded with indifference, but to be marked with
opprobriam. ‘The very statement of the case, as a contest be-
tween the Turks and Greeks, sufficiently indicates what must be
the feeling of every individual, and every government, that is
not biased by a particular interest, or a particular feeling, to
wisregard the dictates of justice and humanity,

And now, Sir, what has been the conduet pursued by the Al-

THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 3

lied Powers in regard to this contest? When the revolution
ee eee ite eee Sal anos
bach; and the papers of that assembly
their sentiments. ‘They a arnew rs reeset
Brefertral fecraldcatiova, which ed lean armel inthe: cus
em parts of Europe”; and, although it is possible that this
denunciation was aimed, more particularly, at the disturbances
in the provinces of Wallachia and Moldavia, yet no exception is
made, from its general terms, in favor of those events in Greece
which were properly the commencement of her revolution, and
which could not but be well known at Laybach, before the date
of these declarations. Now it must be remembered, that Rus+
sia was a leading party in this denunciation of the efforts of the
Greeks to achieve their liberation ; and it cannot but be expected
by Russia, that the world should also remember what part she
herself has heretofore acted in the same concern. It is notori-
ous, that within the last half-century she has again and again
‘excited the Greeks to rebellion against the Porte, and that she
has constantly kept alive in them the hope that she would, one
day, by ber own great power, break the yoke of their oppressor
Indeed, the earnest attention with which Russia has regarded
Greece goes much farther back than to the time I have men-
tioned. Ivan the Third, in 1482, having espoused a Grecian
princess, heiress of the last Greek Emperor, discarded St. George
from the Russian arms, and adopted the Greek two-headed
black eagle, which has continued in the Russian arms to the
present day. In virtue of the same marriage, the Russian prin
ces claim the Greek throne as their inheritance.

‘Under Peter the Great, the policy of Russia developed itself
‘more fully. In 1696, he rendered himself master of Azof, and
in 1699, obtained the right to pass the Dardanelles, and to maine
tin, by thiat route, commercial intercourse with the Mediter
-mnean. He had emisearies throughout Greece, and particularly
Pee ee fo eels the eruy. He adopted the Labarum

‘of Constantine, “In hoc signo vinces”; and medals were struck,
‘with the inscription, “Petrus {. Russo-Grecoram Imperator.”
‘Tn whatever new direction the principles of the Holy Alliance
‘may now lead the politics of Russia, or whatever course she
7 Chriatianity now prescribes to her, in regard to the
the time hes been when she professed to be con-

|

82 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE.

tending for that cause, as identified with Christtanity. The
white banner under which the soldiers of Peter the First usually
fought, bore, as its inscription, “In the name of the Prince, and
for our country.” Relying on the nid of the Grecks, in his war
with the Porte, he changed the white flag to red, and displayed
on it the words, “In the name of God, and for Christinnity.”
The unfortunate issue of this war is well known. Though
Anne and Elizabeth, the successors of Peter, did not possess
his active character, they kept up a constant communication
with Greece, and held out hopes of restoring the Greek empire.
Catharine the Second, as is well known, excited « general revolt
in 1769. A Russian fleet appeared in the Mediterranean, and
Russian army was landed in the Morea. The Greeks in the
end were disgusted at being expected to take an oath of alle-
ginnce to Russin, and the Emprens was disgusted because they
refused to take it. In 1774, peace was signed between Russia
and the Porte, and the Greeks of the Morea were left to their
fate. By this trenty the Porte acknowledged the independence
of the khan of the Crimea; a preliminary step to the acquisition
of that country by Russia, Jt is not unworthy of remark, as a
circumstance which distinguished thia from most other diplo-
matic transactions, that it conceded to the cabinet of St. Peters-
burg the right of intervention in the interior affains of Turkey,
in regard to whatever concerned the religion of the Greeks.
‘The croelties and massacres that happened to the Greeks after
the peace between Russia and the Porte, notwithetanding the
general pardon which had been stipulated for them, need not
now be recited, Tnstexd of retracing the deplorable picture, it ix
enough to say, that in this respect the past is justly reflected in
the present. The Empress soon after invaded and conquered the
Crimean, and on one of the gates of Kerson, its capital, caused to
be inscribed, * The road to Byzantium.” ‘The present Emperor,
on his xsion to the throne, manifested an intention to adopt,
the policy of Catharine the Second as his own, and the world
lins not been right in all its suspicions, if a project for the parti-
tion of Turkey did not form a part of the negotiations of Napo-
leon and Alexander at Tilsit,

All this course of policy seems suddenly to be changed. Tur-
key is no longer regarded, it would appear, as an object of parti«
aon or acquisition, and Greek revolts have all at once become

a THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE.

‘We «ee liere, Mr. Chairman, the direct and actual application
of that system which I have attempted to describe. We see it
in the very case of Greece. We learn, authentically and indis-
potably, that the Allied Powers, holding that all changes in leg-
islation and administration ought to proceed from kings alone,
were wholly inexorable to the sufferings of the Greeks, and en-
tirely hostile to their success, Now it ie upon this practical re-
sult of the principle of the Continental powers that I wish this
House to intimate its opinion. The great question is a question
of principle. Greece is only the signal instance of the
tion of that principle. If the principle be right, if we esteem it
conformable to the law of nations, if we have nothing to say
againet it, or if we deem ourselves unfit to express an opinion
on the subject, then, of course, no resolution ought to pass. If,
on the other hand, we see in the declarations of the Allied Pow-
em principles not only utterly hostile to our own free institu-
tions, but hostile also to the independence of all nations, and al-
together opposed to the improvement of the condition of human
nature; if, in the instance before us, we sce a most striking ex-
position and application of those principles, and if we deem
our opinions to be entitled to any weight in the estimation of
mankind,—then I think it is our duty to adopt some such
measure as the proposed resolution,

It is worthy of observation, Sir, that as carly as July, 1821,
Baron Strogonoff, the Russian minister at Constantinople, rep-
resented to the Porte, that, if the undistinguished massacres of
the Greeks, both of such as were in open resistance and of those
who remained patient in their submission were continued, and
should become a settled habit, they would give just cause of
war ayninst the Porte to all Christian states. ‘This was in
1821." It was followed, carly in the next year, by that inde-
scribable enormity, that appalling monument of barbarian cra-
elty, the destruction of Scio; a scene Ishall not attempt to de-
scribe; a scene from which human nature shrinks shuddering
away; a scene having hardly a parallel in the history of fallen
man. This scene, too, was quickly followed by the massacres
in Cypras; and all these things were perfectly known to the
Christian powers assembled at Verona. Yet these powers, ia-

* Annual Register for 1891, p. 251.

THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 85

stead of acting upon the case supposed by Baron Strogonoff
‘and which one would think had been then fully made out,—
instead of being moved by any compassion for the sufferings of
the Greeks, — these powers, these Christian powers, rebuke their

and insult their sufferings by accusing them of “throw.
log @ fireband into the Ottoman empire." Such, Sir, appear to
te to be the principles on which the Continental powers of Eu-
rope have agreed hereafter to act; und this, an eminent instance
of the application of those principles.

‘Tshall not detain the committee, Mr. Chairman, by any at-
tempt to recite the events of the Greek struggle up to the pres-
ent time. Tts origin may be found, doubtless, in that improved
state of knowledge which, for some years, has been gradually
taking place in that country. The emancipation of the Greeks
has been a subject frequently discusved in modern times. They
‘themselves are represented as having a vivid remembrance of the
distinction of their ancestors, not unmixed with an indignant
feeling that civilized and Christian Europe should not ere now
have aided them in breaking their intolerable fetters.

Tn 1816 a society was founded in Vienna for the encourage
ment of Greeian literature. It wae connected with a similar in-
stitution at Athens, and another in Thessaly, called the “Gym-
nasinm of Mount Pelion.” ‘The treasury and general office of
the institution were established at Munich. No political object
‘was avowed by these institutions, probably none contemplated.
Still, however, they had their effect, no doubt, in hastening
that condition of things in which the Greeks felt competent to
the establishment of their independence. Many young men
have been for years annually sent to the universities in the west-
‘ern states of Europe for their education; and, after the general
‘an of Europe, many military men, discharged from

‘other employment, were ready to enter even into so unpromis-
‘ing a service as that of the revolutionary Greeks.

“In 1820, war commenced between the Porte and Ali, the well-
‘known Pacha of Albania. Differences existed also with Persia
‘and with Russia. In this state of things, ut the beginning of
1821, an insurrection broke out in Moldavia, under the direction
‘of Alexander Ypsilanti, n well-cducated soldier, who had been

in the Russian service. From his character, and
‘the number of those who seemed inclined to join him, he was
“VOL. UT, 8

cd THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE.

supposed to be countenanced by the court of St. Petersburg
‘This, he. wever, was a great mistake, which the Emperor, then at
Taybaab; soak an ently: opperanty bo roti The Turkish

provinces of European Turkey, and caused search to be made
of all vessels entering the Black Sea, lest arms or other military
means should be sent in that manner to the insurgents. This
proved inconvenient to the commerce of Russia, and caused
some unsatisfactory correspondence between the two power.
Tt may be worthy of remark, as an exhibition of national char-
acter, that, agitated by these appearances of intestine commo-
tion, the Sultan issued a proclamation, calling on all trae Mus
sulmans to renounce the pleasures of social life, to prepare arms
and horses, und to return to the manner of their ancestors, the
life of the plains. The Turk seems to have thought that he
had, at lust, canght something of the dangerous contagion of
Enropean civilization, und that it was necessary to reform his
habits, by recurring to the original manners of military roving
barbarians.

It was about this time, that is to say, at the commencement
of 1821, that the revolution buret out in various parts of Greece
and the isles. Circumstances, certainly, were not unfavorable
to the moverent, as one portion of the Turkish army was em-
ployed in the war against Ali Pacha in Albania, and another
part ia the provinces north of the Danube, The Greeks soon
possessed themaelves of the open country of the Morea, and
drove their enemy into the fortresses. Of theve, that of Tripo-
litza, with the city, fell into their hands, in the course of the
summer. Having after these first movements obtained time to
breathe, it became, of course, an early object to establish a gov-
ernment. For this purpose delegates of the people assemoled,
under that name which describes the assembly in which we our-
selves sit, that name which freed the Atlantic,” a Congress. A
writer, who undertakes to render to the civilized world that ser-
vice which was once performed by Edmund Burke, [ mean the
compiler of the English Annual Register, asks, by what anthor-
ity this assembly could call itself a Congress. Simply, Sir, by
the same authority by which the people of the United States
have given the sare name to their own legielature, We, at
least, should be naturally inclined to think, not only aa far as

-

‘THE REVOVUTION IN GREECE, 7]

names, but things also, are concerned, that the Greeks couid
have begun their revolution under better auspices; since
they have endeavored to render applicable to themselves the gen-
eral principles of our form of government, as well as its name.
‘This constitution went into operation at the commencement of
the next year. In the mean time, the war with Ali Pacha was
ended, he having surrendered, and being afterwards assassinated,
by an instance of treachery and perfidy, which, if it had happened
elsewhere than under the government of the Turks, would have
deserved notice. The negotiation with Russia, too, took a turn
unfavorable to the Greeks. The great point upon which Russia
insisted, beside the abandonment of the measure of searching
vessels bound to the Black Sea, was, that the Porte should with-
draw its armies from the neighborhood of the Russian frontiers:
and the immediate consequence of this, when effected, was to
add so much more to the disposable force ready to be employed
inst the Greeks, 'Theze events seemed to have left the whole
force of the Ottoman empire, at the commencement of 1822.
in a condition to be employed against the Greek rebellion;
and, accordingly, very many anticipated the immediate destruc:
tion of the cause. The event, however, was ordered otherwise.
Where the greatest effort was made, it was met and defeated.
the Morea with an army which seemed capable of bear-
ing down all resistance, the Turks were nevertheless defeated
and driven back, and pursued beyond the isthmus, within which,
‘as far as it appears, from that time to the present, they have not
been able to set their foot.

Tt was in April of this year that the destruction of Scio took
place. That island, a sort of appanage of the Sultana mother,
‘enjoyed many privileges peculiar to itself, In a population of
130,000 or 140,000, it had no more than 2,000 or 3,000 Turks;
indeed, by some accounts, not near as many. The absence of
these ruffian masters had in some degree allowed opportunity
for the promotion of knowledge, the accumulation of wealth,
‘and the general cultivation of society. Here was the reat of
moder Greek literature; here were libraries, printing-preaees,
and other ‘artabtishments, which indicate some advancement in
refinement and knowledge. Certain of the inhabitants of Sa-
‘mos, it would seem, envious of this comparative happiness of
Seio, landed npon the island in an irregular multitude, for the

i) THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE.

purpose of compelling its inhabitants to make common cause
joined by the peasantry, marched to the city and drove the
‘Turks into the castle. The Turkish fleet, lately reinforced from

pl, happened to be in the neighboring seas, and, learning
ocd alt ieee a force on the island of fifteen thousand men.
‘There was nothing to resist such an army. These troops imme-
diately entered the city and began an indiscriminate massacre.
‘The city was fired; and in four days the fire and sword of the
‘Turk rendered the beautiful Scio a clotted mass of blood and
ashes. ‘The details are too shocking to be recited. Forty thou.
sand women and children, unhappily saved from the general des+
truction, were afterwards sold in the market of Smyrna, and sent
off into distant and hopeless servitude, Even on the wharves of
our own cities, it has been said, have been sold the utensils of
those hearths which now exixt no longer. Of the whole popa-
lation which I have mentioned, not above nine handred persons
were left living upon the island. 1 will only repeat, Sir, that
these tragical scenes were as fully known at the Congress of
Verona, as they are now known to us; and it is not too much
to call on the powers that constituted that congress, in the name
of conscience and in the name of humanity, to tell us if there
be nothing even in these unparalleled excesses of Turkish bare
barity to excite a sentiment of compassion; nothing which they
regard as so objectionable as even the very idea of popular re-
sistance to power.

The events of the year which has just passed by, as far as
they have become known to us, have been even more favorable
to the Greeks than those of the year preceding. I omit all de«
tails, as being as well known to others as to myself, Suffice it
to say, that with no other enemy to contend with, and no diver
sion of his force to other objects, the Porte has not been able to
carry the war into the Morea; and that, by the last accounts, its
armies were acting defensively in Thessaly. I pass over, alao,
the naval engagements of the Greeks, althongh that is a mode
of warfare in which they are culculated to excel, and in which
they have already performed actions of such distinguished skill
and bravery, as would diaw applause upon the best mariners in
the world. The present state of the war would seem to be, that
the Greeks possess the whole of the Morea, with the exception

‘THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. oo]

‘of the three fortresses of Patras, Coron, and Modon; all Candia,
but one fortress; and most of the other islands) They

the citadel of Athens, Missolonghi, and several other places in
‘Livadia. They have been able to act on the offensive, and to
carry the war beyond the isthmus. There is no reason to be-
lieve their marine is weakened; more probably, it is strength-
ened. But, what is most important of all, they have obtained
time and experience, They have awakened a sympathy
throughout Europe and throughout America; and they hare
formed a government which seems suited to the emergency of
their condition,

Bir, they have done much. It would be great injustice to
compure their achievements with our own, We began our
Revolution, already posseased of government, and, compurative-
ly, of civil liberty. Our ancestors had from the first been accus-
tomed in a great measure to govern themselves. They were
familiar with popular elections and legislative assemblies, and
well acquainted with the general principles and practice of free
Ee ormmets. ‘They had little else to do than to throw off the

authority of the parent state. Enough was still left,
(both of law and of organization, to conduct society in its accus-
tomed course, and to unite men together for a common object,
The Greeks, of course, could act with little concert at the begin
‘ning; they were unaccustomed to the exercise of power, without
experience, with limited knowledge, without aid, and swround-
‘ed by nations which, whatever claims the Grecks might seem
to have upon them, have afforded them nothing but disemur
agement and reproach. They have held out, however, for three
‘campaigns; and that, at least, is something. Constantinople
‘and the northern provinces have sent forth thousands of troops;
—they have been defeated. ‘Tripoli, and Algiers, and Egypt,
have contributed their marine contingents;—they have not
kept the ocean. Hordes of Tartars have crossed the Bospho-
rus;—they have died where the Persians’ died. The powerful
‘movarchies in the neighborhood have denounced their cause
‘gud admonished them to abandon it and submit to their fate,
Saeee answered ther, that, although two hundred thou-
fa “their countrymen haye-offered up their lives, there yet
‘yemain lives to offer; and that it ix the determination of all,
yes, of abi,” to persevere until they shall have established their

” ‘ae

vO THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE.

liberty, or until the power of their oppreesors shall have relieved
them from the burden of existence.

It may now be axked, pethaps, whether the expression of our
own sympathy, and that of the country, may do them good? 1
hope it may. It may give them courage and spirit, it may assure
them of public regard, teach them that they are not wholly for-
gotten by the civilized world, and inspire them with constancy
in the pursuit of their great end. At any rate, Sir, it appears to
me that the measure which I have proposed is due to our own
character, and called for by our own duty. When we shall
have discharged that daty, we may leave the rest to the dispo-
sition of Providence,

Ido not see how it can be doubted that this measure is en-
tirely pacific. 1 profess my inability to perceive that it has any
possible tendency to involve our nentral relations. If the reso-
lation pass, it is not of necessity to be immediately acted on.
Tt will not be acted on at all, unless, in the opinion of the Pres-
ident, a proper and safe occasion for acting upon it shall arise.
If we adopt the resolution to-day, our relations with every for-
eign state will be to-morrow precisely what they now are. The
resolution will be sufficient to express our sentiments on the
subjects to which I have adverted. Useful for that purpose, it
can be mischievous for no purpose. [f the topic were properly
introduced into the message, it cannot be improperly introduced
into discussion in this House. If it were proper, which no one
doubts, for the President to express his opinions upon it, it can-
not, I think, be improper for us to express ours. The only cer-
tain effect of this resolution is to, signify, in a form usual in
bodies constituted like this, our approbation of the general sen:
timent of the message. Do we wish to withhold that approba-
tion? ‘The resolution confers on the President no new power,
nor does it enjoin on him the exercise of any new duty; nor
does it hasten him in the discharge of any existing duty.

Teannot imagine that this resolution ean add any thing to
those excitements which it has been supposed, I think very
causelegely, might possibly provoke the Turkish government to
acts of hostility. ‘There is already the message, expressing the
hope of success to the Greeks-and disaster to the Turks, in a
much stronger manner than is to be implied from the terme of *
this resolution. ‘There is the correspondence between the Sec

THE REVOLUIION IN GREECE £]

wniry of State and the Greek Agent in London, already made
(NET phic ee eae and a continuance

the correspondence apparently invited. I might add to this,
| ple surpantpe pees deere bp aaene
forth from all classes of society, and the notorious fact of pecu-
niary contributions made throughout the country for its aid and
advancement. After all this, whoever can sce cause of danger
to our pacific relations from the adoption of this resolution has
a keener vision than I can pretend to. Sir, there is no aug:
mented danger; there is no danger. The question comes at
last to this, whether, ou a subject of this sort, this House holds
an opinion which is worthy to be expressed.

Even suppose, Sir, an agent or commissioner were to be im«
mediately sent,—a measure which I myself believe to be the
proper one, — there is no breach of neutrality, nor any just cause
of offence. Such an agent, of course, would not be accredited;
he would not be a public minister. The object would be inqui-
ty and information; inquiry which we have a right to make, in
formation which we are interested to possess. If a dismember
ment of the Turkish empire be taking place, or has already
taken place; ifa new state be rising, or be already risen, in the

»— who ean doubt, that, without any breach of
‘neutrality, we may inform ourvelves of these events for the gov-
ernment of our own concerns? The Greeks have declared the
‘Turkish coasts in a state of blockade; may we not inform our
selves whether this blockade be nominal or real? and, of course,
whether it shall be regarded or disregarded? The greater our
trade may happen to be with Smyrna, a consideration which
Seems to have alarmed some gentlemen, the greater is the ren-
son, in my opinion, why we should seek to be accurately in-
formed of those events which may affect its safety, Tt seems to
me impossible, therefore, for any reasonable man to imagine
that this resolution can expose us to the resentment of the Sub-
lime Porte.

_ As little reason is there for fearing its consequences wpon the
conduct of the Allied Powers. They may, very naturally, dise
like our sentiments upon the subject of the Greek revolution:
“but what those sentiments are they will much more explicitly
Tearn in the President's messnge than in this resolution, ‘They
“inight, indeed, prefer that we should express no diesent from the

me THE REVOLUTION IN GREECK.

doctrines which they have avowed, and the application which
they have made of those doctrines to the case of Grecce. But I
trast we are not disposed to leave them in any doubt as to our
sentiments upon these important subjects. They have ex-
pressed their opinions, and do not call that expression of opinion
an interference; in which respect they are right, as the expres-
sion of opinion in such cases is not such an interference as
would justify the Greeks in considering the powers at war with
them. For the same reason, any expression which we may
make of different principles and different sympathies is no
interference. No one would call the President's message an
interference; and yet it is much stronger in that respect than
this resolution. If either of them could be construed to be an
interference, no doubt it would be improper, at least it would be
80 according to my view of the subject; for the very thing which
T have attempted to resist in the course of these observations is
the right of foreign interference. But neither the message nor
the resolution has that character. There is not a power in Eu-
rope which can suppose, that, in expressing our opinions on this
occasion, we are governed by any desire of aggrandizing our-
selvee or of injuring others, We do no more than to maintain
those established principles In which we have an interest in
common with other nations, and to resist the introduction of
new principles and new rules, calculated to destroy the relative
independence of states, and particularly hostile to the whole
fabric of our government.

Tclose, then, Sir, with repeating, that the object of this reaolu-
tion is to avail ourselves of the interesting occasion of the
Greek revolution to make our protest against the doctrines of
the Allied Powers, both as they are laid down in principle and
us they are applied in practice. I think it right, too, Sir, not to
be unsensonable in the expression of our regard, and, as far ae
that goes, in a manifestation of our sympathy with a long op-
pressed and now struggling people. I am not of those who
would, in the hour of utmost peril, withhold such encouragement
as might be properly and lawfully given, and, when the crisis
should be past, overwhelm the rescued sufferer with kindness
and caresses. The Greeks address the civilized world with a
pathos not easy to be resisted. They invoke our favor by more
moving considerations than can well belong to the condition of

‘THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 93

any other people. They stretch out their arms to the Christian
communities of the earth, beseeching them, by a generous rec-
ollection of their ancestors, by the consideration of their deso-
lated and ruined cities and villages, by their wives and children
sold into an accursed slavery, by their blood, which they seem
willing to pour out like water, by the common faith, and in the
name, which unites all Christians, that they would extend to
them at least some token of compassionate regard.

THE TARIFF.*

Ay nearly period of the session of Congress of 1823-24 a bill
was twrodueed into the House of Representatives to amend the seve
eral ace laying duties on imports, ‘The object of the bill was a
comprehensive rovision of the existing laws, with a view to the exten-
sion of the protective system. ‘The ill became the subject of a
protmeted debate, in which much of the talent of the House on both
sides was engaged. Mr. Webster took an active part in the discussion,
and spoke upon many of the details of the bill while it remained in the

* committee of the whole house on the state of the Union, Several ob-
jectionable provisions were removed, and various amendments were in-
‘twoduced upon his motion; and it was a matter of regret to him, as seca
in the following speech, that the friends of the bill were not able or will»
ing to bring it into n form in which, as a whole, he could give it his
support. On the 80th and 3ist of March, Mr. Clay, Speaker of the
House, addressed the committee of tho whole, at length and with great
ability, on the genera! principles of the bill; and he was succeeded by
Mr. Webster, on the Ist and 2d of April, in the following speech.

Mr, Curatnatan,—I will avail myself of the present occasion
to make some remarks on certain principles and opinions which
have been recently advanced, and on those considerations which,
in my judgment, ought to govern us in deciding upon the sev-
eral and respective parts of this very important and complex
measure. T can truly say that this is a painfol duty, I deeply
regret the necessity which is likely to be imposed upon me of
giving a general affirmative or negative vote on the whole of

* A Speech delivered on the Ist and @d of April, 1824, in the House of Rey
sesienativo, ot she Bill for ser isiog the mvaxal Lats posing’ Dots ry Glotals
Articles imported into the United States,

THE TARIFF. 95

‘the bil. I cannot but think this mode of proceeding lable to
great objections. It exposex both those who support and those
who oppose the measure to very unjust and injurious misappre-
hensions. ‘There may be good reasons for favoring some of the
provisions of the bill, and equally strong reasons for opposing
others; and these provisions do ‘not stand to each other in the
relation of principal and incident. If that were the case, those
who are in favor of the principal might forego their opinions
‘upon incidental and subordinate provisions. But the bill pro-
poses enactments entirely distinct and different from one an-
other in character and tendency. Some of ite clauses are in-
tended merely for revenue; and of those which regard the pro-
tection of home manufactures, one part stands upon very differ
ent grounds from those of other paris. So that probubly every
gentleman who may ultimately support the bill will vote for
much which his judgment does not approve; and thoae who op-
pose it will oppose something which they would very gladly

intrusted with the interests of a distriet highly commer-
cial, and deeply interested in manufactures also, I wish to state
my opinions on the present measure, not as on a whole, for it
has no entire and homogeneous character, but as on a collection
of different enactments, some of which meet my approbation
and some of which do not.

And allow me, Sir, in the first place, to state my regret, if in-
deed L ought not to express a warmer sentiment, at the names
‘or designations which Mr. Spenker* bas scen fit to adopt for
the purpose of describing the advocates and the opposers of the
present bill, It is a question, he says, between the friends of an
& American poliey” and those of a “foreign policy.” ‘This, Sir,
is un assumption which I take the liberty most directly to deny.

certainly intended nothing invidious or derogatory
to any part of the House by this mode of denominating lriends
and enemies. But there is power in names, and this manner
of distinguishing those who favor and those who oppose partic-
‘ular measures may lead to inferences to which no member of the
Hlouse can submit. It may imply that there is a more exclusive
and peculiar regard to American interests in one class of opin-

* Mr. Clay

96 THE TARIFF.

ions than in another. Such an implication is to be resisted and
repelled. Every member has a right to the presumption, that he
pursues what he believes to be the interest of his country with
aa zincere a zeal as any other member. I claim this in my own
ease; and while I shall not, for any purpose of description or
convenient armmgement, use terms which may imply any diste-
spect to other men's opinions, much less any imputation upon
other men’s motives, it is my duty to take care that the use of
‘such terma by others be not, agninst the will of those who adopt
them, made to produce a false impression. '

Indeed, Sir, it is a little astonishing, if it seemed convenient
to Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of distinction, to make use of
the terms “American policy" and “foreign policy,” that he
should not have applied them in a manner precisely the reverse
of that in which he has in fact used them. If names are
thonght necessary, it would be well enough, one would think,
that the name should be in some measure descriptive of the
thing; and since Mr, Spenker denominates the policy which he
recommends “a new policy in this country”; since he speaks
of the present measure as a new era in our legislation; since
he professes to invite us to depart from our accustomed course,
to instruct ourselves by the wisdom of others, and to adopt the
policy of the most distinguished foreign states, — one is little
curious to know with what propriety of speech this imitation of
other nations is denominated an “ American policy,” while, on
the contrary, a preference for our own established system, as it
now actaally exists and always has existed, is called a “foreign
policy.” ‘This favorite American policy is what America hus
never tried; and this odious foreign policy is what, as we are
told, foreign states have never pursued, Sir, that is the truest
American policy which shall most usefully employ American
capital and American labor, and best sustain the whole popula-
tion. With me it is a fundamental axiom, it ix interwoven with
all my opinions, that the grent interests of the country are united
and inseparable; that agriculture, commerce, und manofactures
will prosper together or languish together; and that all legisla-
tion is dangerous which proposes to benefit one of these without
looking to consequences which may fall on the others.

Passing from this, Sir, 1 am bound to eay that Mr. Speaker
began his able and impressive apeech at the proper point of ine

THE TARIFF. a

I mean the present state and condition of the country,
Tam 40 unfortunate, or rather although Iam so happy,

as to differ from him very widely in regard to that condition. I
dissent entirely from the juetice of that picture of distress which
he has drawn. 1 have not seen the reality, and know not where
it exists. Within my observation, there is no cause for s0
gloomy and terrifying a representation. In respect to the New
England States, with the condition of which I am of course
best acquainted, the present appears to me a period of very
prosperity, Not, indeed, a time for sudden acquisition
profite, not a day of extraordinary activity and suc-
Oh ea There is no doubt a considerable deprea-
prices, and, in some degree, a stagnation of business.
case presented by Mr. Speaker was not one of depres
of distress; of universal, pervading, intense distress,
to no class and to no place. We are represented as on
very verge and brink of national ruin. So far from acquies-
ae ra | belles there bax beer no perid In
which the genera! prosperity was better secured, or rested on a

i

fae

Ui
z

BE

been rewarded, I do not say with a larger, but with a more cer+
tain success? Profits, indeed, are low; in some pursuits of life,
which it is not proposed to benefit, but to burden, by this bill,
‘very low, But still I am unacquainted with any proofs of exe
tmordinary distress, What, indeed, are the general indications
‘of the state of the country? ‘There is no famine nor pestilence
in the land, nor war, nor desolation. There is no writhing un-
der the borden of taxation. The means of subsistence are
abundant; and at the very moment when the miserable condie
ee, is asserted, vdmitted that the wages of
are bigh it in comparison ith those of any other country.
A country, then, enjoying a profound peace, perfect civil liberty,
“with the means of subsistence cheap and abundant, with the re-
rd of labor sure, and its wages higher than anywhere else,
st be represented as in gloom, melancholy, and distress, but
‘effort of extraordinary powers of tragedy.
if, in judging of ee question, we were to regard oniy
im.

os THE TARIFF.

those proofs to which we have been referred, we shall probably
come toa conclusion somewhat different from that which has
been drawn. Our exports, for example, although certainly lesa
than in some years, were not, last year, so much below an av-
erage formed upon the exports of a series of years, and putting
those exports at a fixed value, as might be supposed. The value
of the exports of agricultaral products, of animals, of the prod+
ucts of the forest and of the sea, together with gunpowder,
spirits, and sundry unenumerated articles, amounted in the sey-
eral years to the following sums, viz: —

2 U1 ae MiP, (00,

1004. 0. 6 ws +e BR SISRIG

1807, «. + » « « « 88,465,864
Coming up now to our own times, and taking the exports of
the years 1821, 1822, and 1823, of the same articles and prod-
uets, at the same prices, they stand thus :—

InJ@, . «© 2 + ee 45,643,175
18%, 6. ww we + «05,868,491

Mr. Speaker has tuken the very extraordinary year of 1803,
and, adding to the exportation of that year what he thinks
ought to have been a just augmentation, in proportion to the
increase of our population, he swells the result to a magnitude,
which, when compared with our actual exports, would exhibit a
great deficiency. But is there any justice in this mode of cal-
culation? [In the first. place, as before observed, the year 1803
was a year of extraordinary exportation, By reference to the
accounts, that of the article of flour, for example, there was an
export that year of thirteen hundred thousand barrels; but the
very next year it fell to eight bundred thousand, and the next
year to seven hundred thousand. In the next place, there never
was auy reason to expect that the inerense of our exports of ag«
ricultural products would keep pace with the increase of our
population. ‘That would be against all experience. It is in-
deed, most desirable, that there should be an augmented demand
for the products of agriculture; but, nevertheless, the official
returns of our exports do not show that absolute want of all fore
eign market which has been s0 strongly stated.

But there are other means by which to judge of the general

100 THE TARIFF.

ment of public charities, the contributions to objects of general
benevolence, whether foreign or domestic, the munificence of
individuals towards whatever promises to benefit the communi-
ty, are all 30 many proofs of national prosperity. And, finally,
there i+ no defaleation of revenue, no presaure of taxation.

The general result, therefore, of a fair exantination of the pres-
ent condition of things, seems to me to be, that there is a con-
siderable depression of prices, and curtailment of profit; and in
some parts of ie it must be admitted, there ie a great
degree of pecuniary embarrassment, arising from the difficulty
of paying debts which were contracted when prices were high.
With these qualifications, the general state of the country may
be snid to be prosperous; and these are not sufficient to give to
the whole face of affairs any appearance of general distress,

Supposing the evil, then, to be a depression of prices, and a
partial pecuniary pressure, the next inqniry is into the causes of
that evil; and it appears to me that there are several; and in
this respect, I think, too much has been imputed by Mr. Speak-
er to the single cause of the diminution of exports, Conneeted,
as we are, with all the commercial nations of the world, and
having observed great changes to take place elsewhere, we
should consider whether the causes of those changes have not
reached us, and whether we are not suffering by the operation
of them, in common with others. Undoubtedly, there has been
a great fall in the price of all commodities throughout the com-
mercial world, in consequence of the restoration of a state of
peace. When the Allies entered France in 1814, prices rose as
tonishingly fast, and very high. Colonial produce, for instance,
in the ports of this country, as well as elsewhere, sprang up sud-
denly from the lowest to the highest extreme. A new and vast
demand was created for the commodities of trade. ‘These were
the natural consequences of the great political changes which
then took place in Europe.

We are to consider, too, that our own war created new de+
mand, and that a government expenditure of twenty-five or
thirty million dollars a year had the usual effect of enhancing
prices. We are obliged to add, that the paper issues of our
banks carried the same effect still farther. A depreciated enr
rency existed in a great part of the country; depreciated to such
an extent, that, at one time, exchange between the centre and the

THE TANIFP. 101

North was as high as twenty per cent, The Bank of the United
States was instituted to correct this evil; but, for causes which
it is not necessary now to enumerate, it did not for some years
bring back the currency of the country to a sound state. This
depreciation of the circulating currency was so much, of course,
added to the nominal prices of commodities, and these*prices,
thus unnaturally high, seemed, to those who looked only at the
appearance, to indicate great prosperity. But such prosperity ia
more specious than real. It would have been better, probably,
as the shock would have been less, if prices had fallen sooner.
At length, however, they fell; and as there is little donbt that
certain events in Europe had an influence in determining the
time at which this fall took place, I will advert shortly to some
of the principal of those events.

Tn May, 1819, the Britieh House of Commons decided, by a
unanimous vote, that the resumption of cash payments by the
Bank of England should not be deferred beyond the ensuing
February. The restriction had been continued from time to
time, and from yenr to year, Parliament always professing to
look to the restoration of a specie currency whenever it ehould
be found practicable. Having been, in July, 1818, continued to
Saly, 1819, it was understood that, in the interim, the important
question of the time at which cash payments should be resumed
should be finally settled. In the latter part of the year 1818, the
gireulation of the bank bad been greatly reduced, and a severe
seareity of moncy was felt in the London market. Such was the
state of things in England. On the Continent, other important
events took place. ‘The French Indemnity Loan had been nego-
tiated in the summer of 1818, and the proportion of it belonging
to Aasiria, Russia, and Prussia had been sold. This created an
fanusual demand for gold and silver in those countries, It has
been stated, that the amount of the precious metals transmitted
to Austria and Russia in that year was at least twenty millions

‘Other large sums were sent to Prossia and to Denmark.
Th ‘of this sudden drain of specie, felt first at Paris, was

aa ‘Amsterdam and Hamburg, and all other com-
places in the North of Europe.
‘The paper system of England had certainly communicated an

artificial valne to property, It had encouraged speculation, and
even the shock therefore came, and this

102 THE TARIFF.

violent pressure for money acted at the same moment on the
Continent and in England, inflated and unnatural prices could
be kept up no longer. A reduction took place, which has been
estimated to have been at least equal to a fall of thirty, if not
forty per cent. The depression was universal; and the change
was felt in the United States severely, thongh not equally so
in every part, There are those, I am aware, who maintain
that the events to which I have alluded did not cause the great
fall of prices, but that that fall was natural and inevitable, from
the previously existing state of things, the abundance of com-
modities, and the want of demand. But that would only
prove that the effect was produced in another way, rather than
by another cause, Tf these great and sudden calls for money
did not reduce prices, but prices fell, as of themselves, to their
natural state, still the result is the same; for we perceive that,
after these new culls for money, prices could not be kept longer
at their unnatural height.

About the time of these foreign events, our own bank system
underwent a change; and all these causes, in my view of the
subject, concurred to produce the great shock which took place
in our commercial cities, and in many parts of the country.
The year 1819 was a year of numerous failures, and very con-
siderable distress, and would have furnished far better grounds
than exist at present for that gloomy representation of our con-
dition which has been presented. Mr. Speaker has alluded to
the strong inclination which exists, or has existed, in various
parts of the country, to issue paper money, as a proof of great
existing difficulties. I regard it rather as a very productive cause
of those difficulties ; and the committee will not fail to observe,
that there is, at this moment, much the loudest complaint of
distress precisely where there has been the greatest altempt to
relieve it by systems of paper credit. And, on the other hand,
content, prosperity, and happiness are most observable in thoac
parts of the country where there has been the least endeavor to
administer relief by law. In troth, nothing is so baneful, so
utterly roinous to all true industry, as interfering with the legal
value of money, or attempting to raise artificial standards to
supply its place. Such remedies suit: well the spirit of extrava~
gant speculation, but they sap the very foundation of all honest
acquisition. By weakening the security of property, they take

‘THE TARIFF. 10s

away all motive for exertion. Their eflect is to transfer prop:
erty, Whenever a debt is allowed to be paid by any thing less
valuable than the legal currency in respect to which it was con-
tracted, the difference between the value of the paper given in
payment and the legal currency is precisely so much property
taken from one man and given to another, by legislative enact
ment
When we talk, therefore, of protecting industry, let us remem:
ber that the first measure for that end is to secure it in its earn-
inge; to assure it that it shall receive its own. Before we invent
new modes of raising prices, let us take care that existing prices
are not rendered wholly unavailable, by making them capable
of being paid in depreciated paper. I regard, Sir, this issue of
irredeemable paper as the most prominent and deplorable cause
of whatever pressure still exists in the country; and, further, I
would put the question to the members of this committee,
whether it is not from that part of the people who have tried
this paper systern, and tried it to their cost, that this bill receives
the most earnest support? And I cannot forbear to ask, further,
whether this support does not proceed rather from a general feel-
ing of uneasiness under the present condition of things, than
from the clear perception of any benefit which the measure itself
can confer? Is not all expectation of advantage centred in a
sort of vague hope, that change may produce relief? Debt cers
tainly presses hardest where prices have been longest kept up
by artificial means. They find the shock lightest who take it
soonest; and I fully believe that, if those parts of the country
Which now suffer most, had not augmented the foree of the blow
by deferring it, they would have now been in a much better con-
dition than they are. We may assure ourselves, once for all,
‘Sir, that there can be no such thing as payment of debts by
legislation. We may abolish debts indeed; we may transfer
by visionary and violent laws. But we deceive both
and our constituents, if we flatter cither ourselves or
‘them with the hope that there is any relief against whatever
pressure exists, but in economy and industry. ‘The depression
of prices and the stagnation of business have been in truth the
“Weeessary tesult of circumstances, No government could pre-
Yent then, and no government can altogether relieve the people
“from their effect. We have enjoyed a day of extraordinary pros

104 THE TARIFF.

perity; we had been neutral while the world was at war, and
had found a great demand for our products, our navigation, and
our labor. We had no right to expect that that state of things
would continue always. SV Ge reba ob pees Reba,
tions would struggle for themselves, and enter into competition
with us in the great objects of pursuit.

Now, Sir, what is the remedy for existing evile? What is the
course of policy suited to our actual condition? Certainly it is
not our wisdom to adopt any system that may be offered to us,
without examination, and in the blind hope that whatever
changes our condition may improve it. It is better that w=
should

4 bear thaw ilik we have,
‘Than fly to othors that wo know not of?”

We are bound to eee that there is a fitness and an aptitude in
whatever measures may be recommended to relieve the evils
that afllict us; and belore we adopt a system that profes to
make great alterations, it is our duty to look carefully to each
leading interest of the community, and sce how it may proba-
bly be affected by our proposed legislation.

And, in the first place, what ie the condition of our com-
merce? Here we must clearly perceive, that it is not enjoying
that rich harvest which fell to its fortune during the continuance
of the Buropean wars, It has been greatly depressed, and lim-
ated to small profits. Still, it is elastic and active, and secms
capable of recovering itself in some measure from its depression.
The chipping interest, alvo, hae suffered severely, still more
severely, probably, than commerce. If any thing should strike
us with astonishment, it is that the navigation of the United
States should be able to sustain itself. Without any governe
ment protection whatever, it goes abroad to challenge compe-
tition with the whole world; and, in spite of all obstacles, it has
yet been able to maintain eight hundred thousand tona in the
employment of foreign trade. How, Sir, do the ship-owners
and navigators accomplish this? How ix it that they are able
to meet, and in some measure overcome, universal competition?
It is not, Sir, by protection and bounties; bat by unwearied ex-
ertion, by extreme economy, by anshaken perseverance, by that
manly and resolute spirit which relies on itself to protect itself.
‘These causes alone enable American ships still to keep their

THE TARIFF. 105

element, and show the flag of their country in distant seas.
The rates of insurance may teach us how thoroughly our ships
are built, and how skilfully and safely they are navigated, Risks
are taken, as I Jearn, from the United States to Liverpool, at
‘one per cent.; and from the United States to Canton and back,
as low as three percent. But when we look to the low rate of

und when we consider, also, thut the articles entering
into the composition of a ship, with the exception of wood, are
dearer here than in other countries, we cannot but be utterly

that the shipping interest has been able to sustain
iteelf at all [need not eay that the navigation of the country
ig essential to its honor and its defence. Yet, instead of pro-
posing benefits for it in this hour of its depression, we threaten
by this measure to lay upon it new and heavy burdens. In the
discussion, the other day, of that provision of the bill which
proposes to tax tallow for the benefit of the oil-merchanis and
whalemen, we had the pleasure of hearing eloquent eulogiums
upon that portion of our shipping employed in the whale-fishery,
and strong statements of its importance to the public interest.
But the same bill proposes a severe tax upon that interest, for
the benefit of the iron-manufacturer and the hemp-grower, So
that the tallow-chandlers and soapboilers are sacrificed to the oll
‘merchants, in order that these again may contribute to the man-
ufacturers of iron and the growers of hemp.

Tf such be the state of our commerce and navigation, what is
the condition of our home manufactures? How are they amidst
the general ion? Do they need further protection? and
if any, how much? On ail these pointe, we have had much
general statement, but little precise information. In the very
‘elaborate speech of Mr. Speaker, we are not supplied with satis.
factory grounds of judging with respect to these various partic
lars. Who can telly from uny thing yet before the committee,
‘whether the proposed duty be too high or too low on any one
article? Gentlemen tell us, that they are in favor of domestic
industry; coam I, ‘They would give it protection; «0 would L
then all domestic industry is not confined to manufactures.
employments of agriculture, commerce, and navigation are

‘branches of the same domestic industry; they all farmsh

{ for American capital and American labor. And
c question is, whether new duties shall be laid, for the

106 THE TARIFF.

purpose of giving farther encouragement to pariicular maou-
eee are remnom e men e Ae himself, both whether
new encouragement be necessary, and whether it
feeb pine ition kpc tbe aac Industry.
It is desirable to know, also, somewhat more distinetly, how
the proposed means will produce the intended effect. One great
object proposed, for iste ore is the increase of the home market
for the consumption of agricultural products, This certainly is
much to be desired; but what provisions of the bill are expected
wholly or principally to produce this, Is not stated: 1 would
not deny that some increase of the home market may follow,
from the adoption of this bill, but all its provisions have not an
equal tendency to produce this effect. ‘Those manufactures
which employ most labor, create, of course, most demand for
articles of consumption ; and those create least in the production
of wiuch capital and skill enter as the chief ingredients of cost.
T cannot, Sir, take this bill merely because a commitiee has
recommended it. I cannot espouse a side, and fight undersa
flag. I wholly repel the idea that we must take this law, or
pass no law on the subject. What should hinder us from exer.
cising our own judgments upon these provisions, singly and
severally? ‘Who has the power to place us, or why should we
place ourselves, in a condition where we cannot give to every
measure, that is distinct and separate in itself, a separate and
distinct consideration? Sir, I presume no member of the com-
mittee will withhold his assent from what he thinks right, until
others will yield their assent to what they think wrong. There
are many things in this bill acceptable, probably, to the general
sense of the House. Why should not these provisions be passed
into a law, and others left to be decided upon their own merits,
asa majority of the House shall sce fit? To some of these
provisions, I am myself decidedly favorable; to others I have
great objections; and I should have been very glad of an oppor=
tanity of giving my own vote distinctly on propositions which
are, in their own nature, essentially and substantially distinct
from one another.
But, Sir, before expressing my own opinion upon the several
provisions of this bill, I will advert for a moment to some other
general topics, We have heard mach of the policy of England,

and her example has been repeatedly urged upon us, as proving,

THE TARIFF. 107

not only the expediency of encouragement and protection, but
of exclusion and direct prohibition also. I took occasion the
other day to remark, that more liberal notiona were becoming
prevalent on this subject; that the policy of restraints and pro-
hibitions was getting out of repute, as the trae natare of com-
‘merce beeame better understood ; and that, among public men,
those most distinguished were most decided in their reprobation
of the broad principle of exclusion and prohibition. Upun the
trath of this representation, as matter of fact, ] supposed there
could not be two opinions among those who had observed the
progress of political sentiment in other countries, and were ac-
quainted with its present state. In this respect, however, it
would seem that I was greatly mistaken, We have heard it

and again declared, that the English government still ad-

advance other doctrines, yet the practical men, the legislators,
the government of the country, are too wise to follow them,
Tt has even been most sagaciously hinted, that the promulga-
tion of liberal opinions on these subjects is intended only to de-
Jude other governments, to cajole them into the folly of liberal
ideas, while England retaine to herself all the benefits of the ad-
mirable old system of prohibition. We have heard from Mr.
a warm commendation of the complex mechanism of

system. The British empire, it is said, is, in the first place.
to be protected against the rest of the world; then the British
Tales against the colonies; next, the isles respectively against
each other, England herself, as the heart of the empire, being
protected most of all, and against all.

‘Troly, Sir, it appears to me that Mr. Speaker's imagination
has seen system, and order, and beauty, in that which is much
more justly considered as the result of ignorance, partiality, ot
yiolence. This part of English legislation has resulted, partly
from considering Ircland as a conquered country, patty from
the want of a complete union, even with Scotland, and partly
from the narrow views of colonial regulation, which in early and
‘wiinformed periods influenced the European states,

Limagine, would strike the public men of England
‘more singularly, than to find gentlemen of real information and
mach weight in the councils of this country expreseing senti-

i

i:
zt
£3
2
ef
iC
He
Pas
Fae
z:

2
H
if

alteration, would not be evidenee that their opinion is dif
from what I have represented it; because the laws hav-
existed long, and great interests having been built up on
the faith of them, they cannot now be repealed without great
and overwhelming inconvenience, Because a thing has been
wrongly done, it does not therefore follow that it can now be
undone; and this ie the reason, as I understand it, for which
exclusion, prohibition, and monopoly are suffered to remain in
any degree in the English system; and for the same reason, it
will be wise in us to take our measures, on all subjects of this
kind, with great caution. We may not be able, but at the haze
ard of much injury to individuals, hereafter to retrace our steps.
And yet, whatever is extravagant or unreasonable is not likely
to endure, There may come a moment of strong reaction; and
if no moderation be shown in laying on duties, there may be
as little scruple in taking them off.

It may be here observed, that there is a broad and marked
distinction between entire prohibition and reasonable enconr-
agement, It is one thing, by daties or taxes on foreign articlos,
to awaken a home competition in the production of the same ar-
ticles; it is another thing to remove all competition by a total
exelusion of the foreigu article; and it is quite another thing
still, by total prohibition, to raise up at home manafactures not
suited to the climate, the nature of the country, or the state of
the population, ‘These are substantial distinctions, and although
it may not be easy in every case fo determine which of them
applics to a given article, yet the distinctions themselves exist,
and in most cases will be sufficiently clear to indicate the trae
course of policy; and, unless I have greatly mistaken the pre-
vailing sentiment in the councils of England, it grows every day
more and more favorable to the diminution of restrictions, and
to the wisdom of leaving much (Ido not say every thing, for
that would not be true) to the enterprise and the discretion of
individuals. I should certainly not have taken up the time of

age

THE TARIFF. 109

the committee to state at any length the opinions of other gov+
ernments, or of the public men of other countries, pon a sub-
ject like this; but an occasional remark made by me the other
day, having been s0 directly controverted, especially by Mr.
Speaker, in his observations yesterday, | must take occasion to
refer to same proofs of what I have stated.

‘What, then, is the state of English opinion? Every body
knows that, after the termination of the late European war,
there came a time of great pressure in England. Since her ex
ample has been quoted, let it be asked in what mode her
ernment sought relief. Did it aim to maintain artifieral and
‘unnatural prices? Did it maintain a swollen and extravagant
paper cireulation? Did it earry further the laws of prohibition
and exclusion? Did it draw closer the cords of colonial re«
straint? No, Sir, but precisely the reverse. Instead of relying
on legislative contrivances and artificial devices, it trusted to the
enterprise and industry ‘of the people, whieh it sedulonsly sought
to excite, not by imposing restraint, but by removing it, wher
ever its removal was practicable, In May, 1820, the attention of
the gorerament having been much turned to the state of foreign
trade, a distinguished member* of the Honse of Peers brought
forward 1 Parliamentary motion upon that subject, followed
by an ample discussion and a full statement of his own opin-
fons. Jn the course of his remarks, he observed, “that there
ought to be no prohibitory duties, as such; for that it was evi
dent, that, where a manufacture could not be carried on, oi @

raised, but under the protection of a prohibitory dnty,
that manufacture, or that produce, could not be brought to mar
Ket but at a loss, In his opinion, the name of strict prohibition
‘might, therefore, in commerce, be got rid of altogether; but he
did not sce the «ame objection to protecting duties, which, while
they admitted of the introduction of commodities from abroad
similar to those which we ourselves manufactured, placed them
‘60 much on a level as to allow a competition between them.”
“No axiom,” he added, “was more trae than this: that it was
‘by growing what the territory of a country could grow most
cheaply, and by receiving from other countries what it could not
produce except at too great an expense, that the greatest degre

* Lord Lanwowae,
Ole ie 10

no THE TARIFY.
of bappincss was to be communicated to the greatest extent of
ion.”

In assenting to the motion, the first minister* of the crown
expressed his own opinion of the great advantage resulting from
unrestricted freedom of trade. * Of the soundness of that gen
eral principle,” he observed, “I can entertain no doubt. I can
entertain no doubt of what would have been the great advan-
tages to the civilized world, if the system of unrestricted trade
had been acted upon by every nation from the earliest period of
its commercial intercourse with its neighbors. If to those ad-
vantages then: could have been any exceptions, I am persuaded
that they would have been but few; and I am also persuaded
that the cases to which they would have referred would not
have been, in themselves, connected with the trade and com-
merce of England. But we are now in a situation in which, 1
will not say that a reference to the principle of unrestricted
trade can be of no use, becanse such a reference may correct
erroncous reasoning, but in which it is impossible for us, or for
any country in the world but the United States of America, to
act unreservedly on that principle, The commercial regulations
of the European world have been long established, and cannot
suddenly be departed from.” Having supposed a proposition to
be made to England by a foreign state for free commerce and
intercourse, and an unrestricted exchange of agricultural products
and of manufactures, he proceeds to observe: “ [t would be im-
possible to accede to such a proposition. We have risen to our
present greatness under a different system. Some suppose that
‘we have risen in consequence of that system; others, of whom I
am one, believe that we have risen in spite of that system. But,
whichever of these hypotheses be true, certain it is that we have
risen under a very different eyatem than that of free and anre~
stricted trade. It is utterly impossible, with our debt and taxa.
tion, even if they were bat half their existing amount, that we
van suddenly ndopt the system of free trade.”

Lord Ellenborough, in the same debate, said, “that he attrib
nted the general distress then existing in Europe to the regula-
tions that had taken place since the destruction of the French
pover. Most of the states on the Continent had surrounded

* Land Livwepool

mill

THE TARIFF. lit

themselves as with walls of brass, to inhibit intercourse with
other states. Intercourse was prohibited, even in districts of the
same state, as was the case in Austria and Sardinia, ‘Thus,
though the taxes on the people had been lightened, the severity
of their condition had been increased. He believed that the
discontent which pervaded most parts of Europe, and especially
‘Germany, was more owing to commercial restrictions than to
any theoretical doctrines on government; and that a free com-
munication among them would do more to restore tranquillity,
than any other step that could be adopted. He objected to all
attempts to frustrate the benevolent intentions of Providence,
which had given to various countries various wants, in order
to bring them together, He objected to it as anti-social; he
objected to it, as making commerce the means of barbariz-
ing, instead of enlightening, nations. The state of the trade
with France was most disgraceful to both countries; the two
civilized nations of the world, placed at a distance of
= spake from each other, had contrived, by their
artificial regulations, to reduce their commerce with each other
to a mere nullity." Every member speaking on this occasion
agreed in the general sentiments favorable to unrestricted inter-
course, which had thus been advanced ; one of them remarking,
fat the conclusion of the debate, that “the prineiples of free
trade, which he was happy to see so fully recognized, were of
the utmost consequence; for, though, in the present circum-
stances of the country, a free trade was unattainable, yet their
task hereafter was to approximate to it. Considering the preju-
dices and interests which were opposed to the recognition of
that principle, it was no small indication of the firmness and
liberality of government to have so fully conceded it."
‘Sit, we have seen, in the course of this discussion, that several
“acti have expressed their high admiration of the si/& man-
land. Its commendation was begun, | think,
by the ne member from Vermont, who sits near me, who
thinks that that alone gives conclusive evidence of the benefits
produced by attention to manufactures, inasmuch as it is a great
“source of wealth to the nation, and has amply repaid all the
‘cost of its protection. Mr. Speaker's approbation of this part of
‘the English example was still warmer. Now, Sir, it does 80
happen, that both these gentlemen differ very widely on this

nz ‘THE TARIFF.

polnt from the opinions entertained in England, by persons of
the first rank, both as to knowledge and power. In the debate
to which I have already referred, the proposer of the motion

the expediency of providing for the admission of the silks
of France into England. “ He was aware,” he sald, “that there
was n poor and indnsfrions body of manufacturers, whose inter:
ests must suffer by such an arrangement; and therefore he felt
that it would be the duty of Parliament to provide for the pres+
‘ent generation by a large Parliamentary grant. It wns con-
forinable to every principle of sound justice to do #0, when the
interrsts of a particular class were sacrificed to the good of the
whoir Th answer to these observations, Lord Liverpool sald
that, with reference to several branches of manufactures, time,
and the change of circumstances, had rendered the system of
protecting duties merely nominal; and that, in his opinion, if
all the protecting laws which regarded both the woollen and
cotton manufactures were to be repealed, no injurious effects
would thereby be occasioned. “ But,” be observes, “with re-
spert to silk, that manufacture in this kingdom is so completely
artificial, that any attempt to introduce the principles of free
unde with reference to it might put an end to it altogether, I
allow that the silk manufacture is not natural to this country.
Twish we had never had a sitk manufactory. 1 allow that it is
natuml to France; I allow that it might have been better, had
each country adhered exclusively to that manufacture in which
eavh is superior; and had the silks of France been exchanged
tr Britieh cottons, But I must look at things as they are;
and when I consider the extent of capital, and the immense pop-
lation, consisting, I believe, of about fifty thousand persons, en
gaged in our silk manofacture, I can only say, that one of the
few points in which T totally disagree with the proposer of the
ration is the expediency, under existing cireumstances, of hold-
ing out any idea, that it would be possible to relingu:eh the sill
manufacture, and to provide for those who live by it, by Parlia-
mentary enactment. Whatever objections there may be to the
contindance of the protecting system, T repent, that it is impose
sible altogether to relinquish it. Imay regret that the system
was ever commenced; but as [ cannot recall that act, 1 must
submit to the inconvenience by which it is attended, rather than
expose the country to evils of greater magnitude” Let it be re-

=
THE TARIFF. 13

membered, Sir, that these are not the sentiments of a theorist,
‘nor the fancies of speculation; but the operative opinions of the
first minister of England, acknowledged to be one of the ablest
and moet practical stateemen of his country.

Gentlemen could have hardly been more unfortunate than in
the selection of the silk mannfueture in England as un example
of the beneficial effects of thut system which they would recom-
mend, It is, in the language which I have quoted, completely
It has beon sustained by I know not how many laws,
breaking in upon the plainest principles of general expediency.
At the last session of Parliament, the manufacturers petitioned
for the repeal of three or four of these statutes, complaining of
‘the vexatious restrictions which they impose on the wages of
Jabor; setting forth, that a great variety of orders has from time
to time been issued by magistrates under the authority of these
lawe, interfering in an oppressive manner with the minatest de-
tails of the manufacture : such as limiting the number of threads
to an inch, restricting the widths of many sorts of work, and
determining the quantity of labor not to be exceeded without
‘ext wages; that by the operation of these laws, the rate of
‘wages, instead of being left to the recognized principles of regu-
fation, has been arbitrarily fixed by persons whose ignorance
renders them incompetent to a just decision; that masters are
‘compelled by law to pay an equal price for all work, whether
well or ill performed; and that they are wholly prevented from
‘asing improved machinery, it being ordered, that work, in the
‘weaving of which machinery is employed, shall be paid precisely
it the same rate as if done by hand; that these acts have
frequently given rise to the most vexations regulations, the un
Amveutional breach of which has subjected manufacturers to ruins
our penalties; and that the introduction of all machinery being
prevented, by which labor might be cheapened, and the manu-
facturers being compelled to pay at a fixed price, under all
‘¢ireumstances, they are unable to afford employment to their
‘workmen, in times of stagnation of trade, and ure compelled
tostop their looms. And finally, they complain, that, notwith-
standing these grievances under which they labor, while carrying
on their manufacture in London, the Jaw still prohibits them,
“while they continue to reside there, from employing any portion
of their capital in the same business in any cther part of the

10°

4 THE TARIFF.

kingdom, where it might be more beneficially conducted. Nuw,
Sir, absurd ns these Inws must appear to be to every man, the
Attempt to repeal them did not, as far as I recollect, altogether
succeed. The weavers were too numerous, their interests too
great, or their prejudices too strong; and this notable instance
of protection and monopoly still exists, to be lamented in Eng-
Jand with as much sincerity as it seers to be admired here.
Tn order further to show the prevailing sentiment of the Eng-
lish government, I would refer to a report of a select committer
, of the House of Commons, at the head of which was the Vice-
President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Wallace), in July, 1820.
“The time,” say that committee, “when monopolies could be
successfully supported, or would be patiently endured, either in
respect to subjects against subjects, or particular countries
against the reet of the world, seems to have passed away. Com-
merece, to continue undisturbed and secure, must be, as it was
intended to be, a source of reciprocal amity between nations,
and an interchange of productions to promote the industry, the
wealth, and the happiness of mankind.” In moving for the re-
appointment of the committee in Febraury, 1823, the same
gentleman said: * We must also get rid of that feeling of ap-
propriation which exhibited itself in a disposition to produce
every thing necessary for our own consumption, and to render
ourselves independent of the world. No notion could be more
absurd or mischievous; it led, even in peace, to an animosity and
rancor greater than existed in time of war. Undoubtedly there
would be great prejudices to combat, both in this country and
elsewhere, in the attempt to remove the difficulties which are
most obnoxious. It would be impossible to forget the attention
which was in some respects due to the present system of protec-
tions, although that attention ought certainly not to be carried
beyond the absolute necessity of the case." And in a second
roport of the committee, drawn by the same gentleman, in that
part of it which proposes a diminution of duties on timber from
the North of Europe, and the policy of giving » legislative prefe
erence to the importation of such timber in the log, and a din-
couragement of the importation of deals, it is stated that the
committee reject this policy, because, among other reasons, “it
ie founded on a principle of exclusion, which they are most
averse to see brought into operation, in any new instance, with-

—

THE TARIFF. 15

‘ont the warrant of some evident and great political expediency.”

And on many subsequent occasions the same gentleman has

taken occasion to observe, that he differed from those who

thought that manufactures could not flourish without restrictions

‘on trade; that old prejudices of that sort were dying away, nnd

that more libera! and just sentiments were taking their place.

‘These sentiments appear to have been followed by importart
legal provisions, caleulated to remove restrictions and prohibi-
tions where they were most severely felt; that is to say, in sev-
eral branches of navigation and trade. They have relaxed their

‘colonia! system, they have opened the ports of their islands, and

baye done away the restriction which limited the trade of the

colony to the mother country. Colonial products can now be
earried directly from the islands to any part of Europe; and it
way not be improbable, considering our own high duties on
spirits, that that article may be exchanged hereafter by the Eng-
lish West Indin colonies directly for the timber and deals of the

Baltic. It may be added that Mr. Lowe, whom the gentleman

has cited, says, that nobody supposes that the three great staples

of English manufactures, cotton, woollen, and hardware, are
benefited by any existing protecting duties; and that one object

‘of all these protecting laws is wsually overlooked, and that is,

that they have been intended to reconcile the various interests to

taxation; the corn law, for cxample, being designed as some
equivalent to the agricultural interest for the burden of tithes
and of poor-rates,

Tn fine, Sir, I think it is clear, that, if we now embrace the
system of prohibitions and restrictions, we shall show an affec-
tion for what others have discarded, and be attempting to orna-
fent ourselves with cast-off apparel.

_ Sir, I should not have gone into this prolix detail of opinions
from any consideration of their special importance on the pres-
ent ocexsion; but having happened to state that such was the
factual opinion of the government of England at the present
‘time. and the siccurucy of this representation having been 30

denied, I have chosen to put the matter beyond
‘doubt or cavil, although at the expense of these tedious cita-
‘tions 1 shall have occasion hereafter to refer more particus

, Tarly to sundry recent British enactments, by way of showing

‘the diligence and spirit with which that goveraraent strives to

‘tb THE TARIFF.

sustain its navigating interest, by opening brabineal eared

to the enterprise of individaal adventurers. I
Toto lbadel i ihes cratios vt eanaraan avioaa
fit to control our own policy. In the general principle, T nequi-
esce, Protection, when carried to the point which is now ree-
ommended, that is, to entire prohibition, seems to me destrac-
tive of all commorcial interoourse between nations. We are
urged to adopt the system upon general principles; and what
would be the consequence of the universal application of such
‘a general principle, but that nations would abstain entirely from
all intercourse with one another? I do not admit the general
principle; on the contrary, I think freedom of trade to be the
general principle, and restriction the exception. And it is for
‘every state, taking into view its own eee
Propriety, in any case, of making an exception, constantly pre-
ferring, as I think all wise governments will, not to depart with=
out urgent reason from the general rule,

‘There is another point in the existing policy of England to
which I would most earnestly invite the attention of the com-
‘mittee; I mean the warehouse system, or what we usually call
the system of drawback. Very great prejudices appear to me
to exist with us on that subject. We seem averse to the extens
sion of the principle. ‘The English government, on the con-
trary, appear to have carried it to the extreme of liberality.
‘They have arrived, however, at their present opinions and pres
ent practice by slow degrees. The transit system was com-
menced about the year 1803, but the first law was partial and
limited. It admitted the importation of raw materials for ex-
portation, but it excluded almost every sort of manufactured
goods. This was done for the same reason that we propose to
prevent the transit of Canadian wheat through the United
States, the fear of aiding the competition of the foreign article
with our own in foreign markets. Better reflection or more ex-
perience has induced them to abandon that mode of reasoning,
and to consider all such means of influencing foreign markets as
hngatory; since, in the present active and enlightened state of
the world, nations will supply themselves from the beat sourees,
and the true policy of all producers, whether of raw materials or
of manufactured articles, is, not vainly to endeavor to keep
other verdors out of the market, but to conquer them in it by

a general export trade to all quarters of
the ylobe. Articles of all kinds, with the single exception of
tea, may be brought into England, from any part of the world,
in foreign as well as British ships, there warehoused, and again
exported, at the pleasure of the owner, without the payment of
any duty or government charge whatever,

While Lam upon this subject, I would take notice also of the
Tecent proposition in the English Parliament to abolish the tax
8 imported wool; and it is observable that those who support
this proposition give the same reasons that have been offered bere,
within the last week, againat the duty which we propose on the
same article. They say that their manufacturers require a cheap
and coarse wool, for the supply of the Mediterranean and Levant
trade, and that, without a more free admission of the wool of the
Continent, that trade will all fall into the hands of the Germans
and Italians, who will carry it on through Leghorn and ‘Trieste.
While there is this duty on foreign wool to protect the wool-
growers of England, there is, on the other hand, a prohibition
on the exportation of the native article in aid of the manufactur
ers. The opinion seems to be gaining strength, that the true
policy is to abolish both,

“Laws have long existed in England preventing the emigra-
tion of artisans and the exportation of machinery; but the policy
‘of these, also, has become doubted, and an inquiry has been in-
stituted in Parliament into the expediency of repealing them.
As to the emigration of artisans, say those who disapprove the
Jaws, if that were desirable, no law could effect it; und as to the
exportation of machinery, let us*make it and export it as we
would any other commodity. If France is determined to spia
‘and weave her own cotton, let us, if we may, atill have the ben-
‘elit of furnishing the machinery.

“Thave stated these things, Sir, to show what seems to be the
‘general tone of thinking and reasoning on these subjects in that
country, the example of which has been so mach pressed upom
‘as, Whether the present policy of England be right or wrong,
wise or unwise, it cannot, as it seems clearly to me, be quoted

us THE TARIFF.

a8 an authority for carrying further the restrictive and exclusive
system, either in regard to manufactures or trade. To reéstab-
lish 2 sound currency, to meet at once the shock, tremendous as
at wns, of the fall of prices, to enlarge her capacity for foreign
trade, to open wide the field of individual enterprise and compe-
tition, and to say plainly and distinctly that the country must
‘elieve itself from the embarraasments which it felt, by economy,
frugality, and renewed efforts of enterprise, — these appear to be
the general outline of the policy which England has pursued.

Mr. Chairman, | will now proceed to say a few words upon a
topic, but for the introduction of which into this debate I should
not have given the committee on this occasion the trouble of
hearing me. Some days ago, I believe it was when we were set-
tling the controversy between the oil-merchants and the tallow-
chandlers, the balance of trade made its appearance in debate, and
I must confess, Sir, that I spoke of it, or rather spoke to it, some-
what freely and irreverently. I believe I used the hard names
which have been imputed to me, and I did it simply for the pur-
pose of laying the spectre, and driving it back to its tomb. Cer-
tainly, Sir, when T ealled the old notion on this subject non+
sense, I did not suppose that I should offend any one, unless the
dead should happen to hear me. All the living generation, I
took it for granted, would think the term very properly applied.
Tn this, however, I was mistaken, The dead and the living rise
up together to call me to account, and I must defend myself as
well as Tam able.

Let us inquire, then, Sir, what is meant by an unfavorable
balance of trade, and what the argument is, drawn from that
source. By an unfavorable balance of trade, I understand, is
meant that state of things in which importation exceeds expor-
tation, To apply it to our own case, if the value of goods im~
ported exceed the value of those exported, then the bulance of
trade is said to be against us, inasmuch as we have run in debt
to the amount of this difference. ‘Therefore it is said, that, if a
nation continue long in a commerce like this, it must be ren-
dered absolutely bankrupt, It is in the condition of a man that
buys more than he sells; and how can such a traffic be main-
tained without rain? Now, Sir, the whole fallacy of this argu-
ment consists in supposing, that, whenever the value of imports

CHE TARIFF. ne

axceeds that of exports, a debt is necessarily created to the ex-
tent of the difference, whereas, ordinarily, the import is no more
than the result of the export, augmented in value by the labor
of transportation. The excess of imports over exports, in trath,
usually shows the gains, not the losses, of trade; or, in a coun-
try that not only buys and sells goods, but employs ships in car-
tying goods aleo, it shows the profits of commerce, and the earn=
ings of navigation. Nothing is more certain than that, in the
usual course of things, and taking a series of years together, the
value of our imports is the aggregate of our exports and our
freights. If the value of commodities imported in a given ine
stance did not exceed the value of the outward cargo, with which
they were purchased, then it would be clear to every man’s com-
mon sense, that the voyage bad not been profitable. If such com-
modities fell far short in value of the cost of the outward cargo,
then the voyage would be a very losing one; and yet it would
present exactly that state of things, which, according to the no-
tion of a balance of trade, can alone indicate 1 prosperous com-
meree. On the other hand, if the return cargo were found to be
worth much more than the outward cargo, while the merchant,
having paid for the goods exported, and all the expenses of the
voyage, finds a handsome sum yet in his hands, which he calls
profits, the balance of trade is still against him, and, whatever he
may think of it, he is in a very bad way. Although one indi-
vidual or all individuals gain, the nation loses; while all its cit-
izens grow rich, the country grows poor. This is the doctrine
af the balance of trade,

Allow me, Sir, to give an instance tending to show how un-
accountably individuals deceive themeelves, and imagine them~
welves to be somewhat rapidly mending their condition, while
they ought to be persuaded that, by that infallible standard, the
balance of trade, they are on the high road to ruin. Some years
ago, in better times than the present, a ship left onc of the tuwns
of New England with 70,000 specie dollars, She procceded to
Mocha, on the Red Sea, and there laid out these dollars in cof-
fee, drngs, spices, and other articles procured in that market.
‘With this new cargo she proceeded to Europe; two thirds of
it-were sold in Holland for $130,000, which the ship brought
back, and placed in the same bank from the vaults of which she
ad taken her original outfit. The other third was sent to the

~~

degree that it benefited the other; then, indeed, there would be
some foundation for the balance of trade. But Providence has
disposed our lot much more kindly. We inhabit a various earth.
We have reciprocal wants, and reciprocal means for gratifying
one another's wants. This is the true origin of commerce, which
is nothing more than an exchange of equivalents, and, ftom the
rade barter of its primitive state, to the refined and complex
condition in which we see it, its principle is uniformly the same,
its only object being, in every stage, to produce that exchange of
commodities between individuals and between nations which
shall conduce to the advantage and to the happiness of both.
Commeree between nations has the same essential character
as commerce between individunls, or between parts of the same
nation. Cannot two individuals make an interchange of com-
modities which shall prove beneficial to both, or in which the
balance of trade shall be in favor of both? If not, the tailor and
the shoemaker, the farmer and the smith, have hitherto very
much misunderstood their own interests, And with regard to
the internal trade of a country, in which the same rule wouk!
apply a8 between natic.s,do we ever speak of such an inter-
coum as prejudicial to one side because it is useful to the oth-
er? Do we ever hear that, because the intercourse between

THE TARIFF. wt

New York and Albany is advantageous to one of those places,
it must therefore be ruinous to the other?

May I be allowed, Sir, to read a passage on this subject from
the observations of a gentleman, in my opinion one of the most
clear and sensible writers and speakers of the age upon subjects
of this sort?" “There is no political question on which the
prevalence of false principles is so general, as in what relates to
the nature of commerce and to the pretended balance of trade;
and there are few which bave led to a greater number of prac
tical mistakes, attended with consequences extensively prejudi-
cial to the happiness of mankind. In this country, our Purlia-
mentary proceedings, our public documents, and the works of
several able and popular writers, have combined to
the impression, that we are indebted for much of our riches to
what is called the balanee of trade.” “Our tme policy would
sarely be to profess, as the object and guide of our commercial
‘system, that which every man who has studied the subject must
know to be the true principle of commerce, the interchange of

and equivalent benefit. We may rest assured that it
is not in the nature of commerce to entich one party at the ex-
pense of the other. This is a purpose at whieh, if it were pro
ticable, we ought not to aim; and which, if we aimed at, we
could not accomplish.” These remarks, I believe, Sir, were writ:
ten some ten or twelve years ago. They are in perfect accord-
ance with the opinions advanced in more elaborate treatises,
and pow that the world has returned to a state of peace, and
ecommerce has resumed its natural channels, and different na-
tions are enjoying, or secking to enjoy, their respective portions
‘of it, all see the justness of these ideas; all see, that, in this day
of knowledge and of peace, there can be no commerce between
nations but that which shall benefit all who are parties to it.

Wit were necessary, Mr. Chairman, I might ask the attention of
the committee to refer toa document before us, on this subject of
‘the balance of trade. It will be seen by reference to the accounts,
that, in the course of the last year, our total export to Holland
‘exeeeded two millions anda half; our total import from the same
‘eountry was but seve. hundred thousand dollars. Now, ean any
man be wild enough to make any inference from this us to the

ss * Mr. Huskisson, President of the English Board of Trade,
VOL, HE i

122 THE TARIFF.

gain or loss of our trade with Holland for that year? Our trade
with Russia for the same year produced a balance the other way ,
our import being two millions, and our export but half 9 million.
But this hus no more tendency to show the Russian trade a los-
ing trade, than the other statement has to show that the Dutch
trade has been a gainful one. Neither of them, by itself, proves
any thing.

out of this notion of a balance of trade, there
is another idea, which has been much dwelt upon in the
course of this debate; that is, that we ought not to buy of ma-
tions who do not buy of us; for example, that the Russian trade
isa trade disadvantageous to the country, and ought to be dis-
couraged, because, in the ports of Russin,we buy more than we
sell. Now allow me to observe, in the first place, Sir, that we
have no account showing how much we do sell in the ports of
Russia. Our official returns show us only what is the amount
of our direct trade with her ports. But then we all know that
the proceeds of another portion of our exports go to the same
market, though indirectly. We send our own products, for ex-
ample, to Cuba, or to Brazil; we there exchange them for the
sugar and the coffee of thase countries, and these articles we
cary to St. Petersburg, and there sell them Aguin; our exe
ports to Holland and Hamburg are connected directly or indi-
rectly with our imports from Russia, What difference does it
make, in sense or reason, whether a cargo of iron be bought at
St. Petersburg, by the exchange of a cargo of tobacco, or wheth-
er the tobacco has been sold on the way, in # better market, in
a port of Holland, the money remitted to England, and the iron
paid for by a bill on London? There might indeed have been
an augmented freight, there might have been some saving of
cornmissions, if tobacco had been in brisk demand in the Rus-
sinn market. But still there is nothing to show thut the whole
voyage may not have been highly profitable. ‘That depends
upon the original cost of the article here, the amount of freight
and insnrance to Holland, the price obtained there, the rate of
exchange between Holland and England, the expense, then, of
proceeding to St. Petersburg, the price of ‘wn there, the rate of
exchange between that place and England, the amount of freight
and insurance at home, and, finally, the value of the iron when
brought to our own market. These are the calculations which

‘THE TARIFF. 123

determine the fortune of the adventure; and nothing can be
judged of it, one way or the other, by the relat.ve state of our
imports or exports with Holland, England, or Ruseia.

T would not be understood to deny, that it may often be our
interest to cultivate a trade with countries that require most of
such commodities us we can furnish, and which are capable
also of directly supplying our own wants. This is the original
and the simplest form of all commerce, and is no doubt highly
beneficial. Some countries are so situated, that commerce, in
this original form, or sornething near it, may be all that they
ean, without considerable inconvenience, carry on. Our trade,
for example, with Madeira and the Western Islands has been
useful to the country, as furnishing a demand for some portion
of our agricultural products, which probably could not have
been bought had we not received their products in return,
Countrica situated still farther from the great marts and high-
ways of the commercial world may afford still stronger instan-
ces of the necessity and utility of conducting commerce on the
original principle of barter, without much assistance from the
‘operations of credit and exchange. All I would be understood
to say ia, that it by no means follows that we can carry on noth-
ing but a losing trade with a country from which we receive
more of her products than she receives of ours, Since | was
supposed, the other day, in speaking upon this subject, to ad-
vance opinions which not only this country ought to reject,
‘but which also other countries, and those the most distinguished
for skill and success in commercial intercourse, do reject, I will
task leave to refer again to the discussion which J first men-
tioned in the English Parliament, relative to the foreign trade
‘of that country. “ With regard,” says the mover™ of the propo-
sition, “to the argument employed against renewing our inter-
tourse with the North of Europe, namely, that those who sup-
plied us with timber from that quarter would not receive British
manufactures in return, it appeared to him futile and unground-
ed. If they did not send direct for our manufactures at home,

they would send for them to Leipsic and other fairs of Germa-
ay Wen not the Russian and Polish merchants purchasers
toa great amount? But he would never admit the prin

© The Marquess of Lansdowne,

ity THE TAKIFF.

tiple, that a trade was not profitable because we were obliged
to carry it on with the precious metals, or that we ought to re-
nounce it, because our manufactures were not received by the
nation in return for ite produce, Whatever we reeeived
mast be paid for in the produce of our land and labor, directly
Steiroaltouely, and ‘ho waa’ glad to ave the noble Burl’x*
marked concurrence in this
Referring ourselves again, Sir, to the analogies of common
life, no one would say that a farmer or a mechanic should buy
only where he can do so by the exchange of his own produce, or
of his own manufacture. Such exchange may be often conven-
ient; and, on the other hand, the cash purchase may be often
more convenient, It is the same in the intercourse of pations,
Indeed, Mr, Speaker has placed thie argument on very clear
grounds, It was said, in the carly part of the debate, that, if we
cease to import English cotton fabrics, England will no long-
er continue to purchase our cotton, To this Mr. Speaker nex
plied, with great force and justice, that, as she must have cotton
in large quantities, she will buy the article where she ean find it
best and cheapest; and that it would be quite ridiculous in her,
‘ing as she still would be, for her own vast consump-
tion and the consumption of millions in other countries, to reject
our uplands because we had learned to manufacture a part of
them for ourselves. Would it not be equally ridiculous in wa, if
the commodities of Russia were both cheaper and better suited
to our wants than could be found elsewhere, to abstain from
ecommerce with ber, because she will not receive in return other
commodities which we have to sell, but which she has no oeca-
sion to bay?

Intimately connected, Sir, with this topic, is another which
has been brought into the debate; I mean the evil so much com-
plained of, the exportation of specie, We bear gentlemen im-
puting the loss of market at home to a want of money, and this
want of money to the exportation of the precious metals. We
acar the India and China trade denounced, as a commerce con-
ducted on our side, in a great measure, with gold and silver,
‘These opinions, Sir, are clearly void of all just foundation, and

* Lord Liverpool.

THE TARIFF. , 15

we cannot too soon get rid of them. There are no shallower
reasoners than these political and commercial writers who would
tepresent it to be the only true and gainfal end of commerce, to
accumulate the precious metals, These are articles of use, and
articles of merchandise, with this additional cireumstance be-
‘to them, that they are made, by the general consent

of nations, the standard by which the value of all other mer
chandise is to be estimated. In regard to weights and meas
‘ures, something drawn from external nature is made a com-
mon standard, for the purposes of general convenience; and
‘this ure, performed by the precious metals,
in addition to those uses to which, as metals, they are capa-
ble of being applied. There may be of these too much or
too little in 1 country at a particular time, as there may be
‘of any other articles, When the market is overstocked with
ais it often is, their exportation becornes as proper and as
‘neefal as that of other commodities, under similar ciroumstan-
ees, We need no more repine, when the dollars which have
‘been bronght here from South America are despatched to other
than when coffee and sugar take the same direce

tion, We often deceive ourselves, by attributing to a scar
tity of moncy that which is the result of other canses. In the
oe this debate, the honorable member from Pennsylvania*
d the country as full of every thing but money.

me Ttake to be a mistake. ‘The agricultural products, #0
‘ebundant in Pennsylvania, will not, he saysysell for money; but
‘they will sell for money as quick as for any other article which
happens to be in demand. ‘They will sell for money, for exam-
ple, as easily as for coffee or for tea, at the prices which properly
‘to those articles. The mistake lies in imputing that to
want of money which arises from want of demand. Men do
not bny wheat because they have money, but because they
want wheat To decide whether money be plenty or not, that
is, whether there be a large portion of capital unemployed or
‘not, when the currency of a country is metallic, we must look,
but also to the rate of
Interest. A low rate of interest, a facility of obtaining money
‘on loans, 2 disposition to invest in permanent stocks, all of

* Mr Tod
ni?

126 ‘THE TARIFF.

which are proofs that money is plenty, may nevertheless often
denote a state not of the highest prosperity. They may, and
often do, show a want of employment for capital; and the ac-

of circulation, or rather of sustaining a safe paper circulation,
And whenever there i# a prospect of a profitable investment
abroad, all the gold and silver, except what these purposes re-
quire, will be exported. For the same reason, if a demand exist
abroad for sugar and coffee, whatever amount of those articles
might exist in the country, beyond the wants of its own con-
sumption, would be sent abroad to meet that demand.

Besides, Sir, how should it ever occur to any body, that we
should continue to export gold and silver, if we did See
to import them also? If a vessel take our own
Havana, or elsewhere, exchange ther for dollars, proceed to > Che
na, exchange them for silks and teas, bring these last to the ports
of the Mediterranean, sell them there for dollars, and retarn to the
United States; this would be a voyage resulting in the importa-
tion of the precious metals. But if she had returned from Cuba,
and the dollars obtained there had been shipped direct from the
United States to China, the China goods sold in Holland, and
the proceeds brought home in the hemp and iron of Russia, this
would be a voyage in which they were exported. Yet every
body sees that both might be equally beneficial to the individ-
ual and to the public. I believe, Sir, that, in point of fact, we
have enjoyed great benefit in our trade with India and China,
from the liberty of going from place to place all over the world,
without being obliged in the mean time to return home, a liberty
not heretofore enjoyed by the private traders of England, in
regard to India and China. Suppose the American ship to be
at Bnuzil, for example; she could proceed with her dollars direct
to India, and, in return, could distribute her cargo in all the

arious parts of Europe or America; while an English ship, if
private trader, being at Brazil, must first return to England,
‘%«| then could only proceed in the direct line from England to
india, This advantage our countrymen have not been back
ward to improve; and in the debate to which I have already #0
often referred, it was stated, not without some complaint of the
inconvenience of exclusion, and the natural sluggishness of mo-

‘THE TARIFF. fed
nopoly, that American ships were at that moment fitting out in
the Thames, to supply France, Holland, and other countries on
the Continent, with tea; while the East India Company would
not do this of themselves, nor allow any of their fellow-country
men to do it for them,

» There is yet another eubject, Mr. Chairman, upon which I
would wish to say something, if I might presume upon the con-
tinued patience of the committee. We hear sometimes in the
Honse, and continually out of it, of the rate of exchange, as
being one proof that we are on the downward road to ruin.
Mr. Speaker himeelf has adverted to that topic, and I am afraid
that his anthority may give credit to opinions clearly unfounded,
and which lead to very false and erroneous conclusions. Sir,
Tet us see what the facts are. Exchange on England has re-
cently risen one or one and a half per cent. partly owing, per-
haps, to the introduction of this bill into Congress. Before this
recent rise, and for the last six months, | understand its average
may have been about seven and a half per cent. advance. Now,
supposing this to be the reaf, and not merely, as it is, the nomi-
nal, par of exchange between us and England, what would it
prove? Nothing, except that funds were wanted by American
citizens in England for commercial operations, to be carried on
either in England or elsewhere. It would not necessarily show
that we were indebted to England; for, if we had oceasion to
pay debts in Russia or Holhand, fi in England would natu-
‘rally enough be required for such a purpose. Even if it did
prove that a balance was due England at the moment, it would
have no tendency to explain to us whether our commerce with

had been profitable or unprofitable.

But it ix not troe, in point of fact, that the read price of ex.
change is seven and a half per cent. advance, nor, indeed, that
there is at the present moment any advance at all. That is to
‘say, it is not true that merchants will give such an advance, or
any advance, for money in England, beyond what they would give
for the same amount, in the same currency, here. It will stri
every one who reflects upon it, that, if there were a real differ.
ence of seven and a half per cent, money would be immediately

to England; because tae expense of transportation
would be far less than that difference, Or commodities of trade

exchange should exist, its effects would be immediately seen in
new shipments of our own commodities to Europe, because this
state of things would create new motives. A cargo af tobacco,
» for example, might well at Amsterdam for the sume price as be-
fore; but if its proceeds, when remitted to London, were ad-
vanced, as they would be in such case, ten per cent. by the state
of exchange, this would be so mach added to the price, and
wuuld operate therefore as a motive for the exportation; and in
this way national balances are, and always will be, adjnated.
‘To form any accurate idea of the true state of exchange be-
tween two countries, we must look at their currencies, and
compare the quantities of gold and silver which they may re-
spectively represent. This nsually explains the state of the ex+
changes; and this will satisfactorily account for the apparent
advance now existing on bills drawn on England. The English
standard of value is gold; with us that office is performed by
gold, and by silver also, at a fixed relation to each other. But
our estimate of silver is rather higher, in proportion to gold, than
most nations give it; it is higher, especially, than in England, at
the present moment. The consequence is, that silver, which re-
maine a legal currency with us, stays here, while the gold has
gone abroad ; verifying the universal trath, that, if (0 currencies
be allowed to exist, of different values, that which is cheapest will
fill up the whole cirenlation. For as much gold ax will suffice
to poy here a debt of a given amount, we can buy in England
more silver than would be necessary to pay the same debt here;
and from thia difference in the value of silver arises wholly or in
@ great measure the present apparent difference in ex:
Spanish dollars sell now in England for four shillings und nine
pence sterling per ounce, equal to one dollar and six cents. By
our standard the same onnce is worth one dollar and sixteen
cents, being a difference of about nine per cent. ‘The tre par
of exchange, therefore, is nine per cent. If n merchant here pay
‘one hundred Spanish dollars for a bill on England, at nominal
par, in sterling money, that is for a bill of £22 10s, the pro
ceeds of this bill, when paid in England in the legal currency,

| ———— ee

will there purchase, at the present price of silver, one hundred
and nine Spanish dollare. Therefore, if the nominal advanee
on English bills do not exceed nine per cent., the real exchange
is not against this country; in other words, it does not show
that there is any pressing or particular occasion for the remit.
tance of fands to England,

As little can be inferred from the occasional transfer of United
States stock to England. Considering the interest: paid on our
stocks, the entire stability of our credit, and the accumulation of
capital in England, it is not at all wonderful that investments
should occasionally be made in our funds. As a sort of coun-
tervailing fact, it may be stated that English stocks are now
actually held in this country, though probably not to any con-
siderable amount.

Twill now proceed, Sir, to state some objections of a more
general nature, to the course of Mr. Speaker's observations.

He seems to me to argue the question as if all domestic in-
dustry were confined to the production of manufactured articles;
tas if the employment of our own capital and our own labor, in
the occupations of commerce and navigation, were not aa em-
apmetioally domestic industry as any other occupation, Some

ilernen, in the course of the debate, have spoken of the

pais paid for every foreign manufactured article as so much
given for the encouragement of foreign labor, to the prejudice of
ourown. But is not every such article the product of our own
labor as traly as if we had manufactured it ourselves? Our
Jabor has earned it, and paid the price for it, It is 0 much
added to the stock of national wealth. If the commodity were
dollars, nobody would doubt the truth of this remark; and it is
precisely as correct in its application to any other commodity as
tosilver. One man makes a yard of cloth at home; another
‘raises agricultural products and buys a yard of imported cloth.
Both these are equally the earnings of domestic industry, and
‘the only questions that arise in the case are two: the first is,
‘which is the best mode, under all the circumstances, of obtain-
ing the article; the second is, how far this first question is
proper to be decided by government, and how far it is proper to
be left to individual discretion. There is no foundation for the
| “distinetion which attributes to certain employments the peculiar

130 THE TARIFF.

appellation of American industry; and it is, in my judgment, ex
tremely unwise to attempt such discriminations. —

We are asked, What nations have ever attained emincut
prosperity without encouraging mannfactures? 1 may ask,
‘What nation ever reached the like prosperity without promot-
ing foreign trade? J regard these interests as closely con-
nected, and am of opinion that it should be our aim to cause
them to flourish together. 1 know it would be very easy to
promote manufactures, at least for a time, bat probably for a
short time only, if we might act In disregard of other interests,
We could cause a eudden transfer of capital, and a violent
change in the pursuits of men. We could exceedingly benefit
some classes by these menns. But what, then, becomes of the
interests of others? ‘The power of collecting revenue by daties
on imports, and the habit of the government of collecting almost
its whole revenue in that mode, will enable us, without exeeed-
ing the bounds of moderation, to give great advantages to those
classes of manufactures which we may think most useful to pro=
mote at home. What I object to is the immoderate ase of the
power, —exclusions and prohibitions; all of which, as I think,
not only interrupt the pursuits of individuals, with great injury
to themselves and little or no benefit to the country, but also
often divert our own labor, or, as it may very properly be called,
our own domestic industry, from those occupations in which it
is well employed and well paid, to others in which it will be
worse employed and worse paid. For my part, | see very little
relief to those who are likely to be deprived of their employ-
ments, or who find the prices of the commodities which they
need, raised, in any of the alternatives which Mr. Speaker has
presented, It is nothing to say that they may, if they choose,
continue to buy the foreign article; the answer is, the price is
augmented: nor that they may nse the domestic article; the
price of that also is increased. Nor can they supply themselves
by the substitution of their own fabric. How can the agricul.
turist make his own iron? How can the ship-owner grow his
own hemp?

But I have a yet stronger objection to the course of Mr.
Speaker's reasoning; which is, that he leaves out of the cage all
that has been already done for the protection of mannfactares,
and argues the question as if those interests were now for the

THE TARIFF.

13h

‘nrat Lime to receive aid from duties on ova

prescott Acton shes De Seber sbi Fa into the

eect az premion oes Seerbere, ancient if we will

give our manufacturers no protection. Sir, look to the history

pflens Jaws; lock in/4he preset state of, our, ave: Consider
Sa ‘

on thosp of other countries, We hear of the fatal policy of the
tariff of 1816; and yet the law of 1816 was paswed avowedly for
the benefit of manufacturers, and, with very few exceptions, im-
‘on imported articles very great additions of tax; in some
instances, indeed, amounting to a prohibition.
on this subject, it becomes us at least to understand the
real are the question, Let as not suppose that we are
the protection of manufactures, by duties on importa
What we are asked to do is, to render those duties much higher,
and therefore, instead of dealing in general commendations of
the benefits of protection, the friends of the bill, I think, are
hound to make out a fair case for euch of the manufactures
which they propose to benefit. ‘Ihe government has already
done much for their protection, and it ought to be presumed to
aye done enough, unless it be shown, by the facts and consider

HE

ations applicable to each, that there isa necessity for doing more.
On the general question, Sir, allow me to ask if the doctrine
ay prohibition, as a general dovirine, be not. preposterous. Sup:
call nations to act upon it; they would be prosperous, then,

to the argument, precisely in the proportion in which

“they abolished intercourse with one another. The less of mus
tual coramerce the better, upon this hypothesis. Protection and
“ticouragement may be, and doubtless are, sometimes, -wise and

182 THE TARIFF.

beneficial, if kept within proper limits; but when carried to an
extravagant height, or the point of prohibition, the absurd char
acter of the system manifests itself! Mr. Speaker has referred to
the late Emperor Napoleon, as having attempted to natuzalize
the mannfacture of cotton in France. He did not cite a more
extravagant part of the projects of that rulvr, that is, his attempt
to naturalize the growth of that plant itself, in France; whereas,
we have understood that considerable distriets in the South of
France, and in Italy, of rich and productive lands, were at one
time withdrawn from profitable uses, and devoted to raising, at
great expense, a little bad cotton. Nor have we been referred to
the attempts, under the same system, to make sugar and coflee
from common culinary vegetables; attempts which served to
fill the print-shops of Europe, and to show us how easy is the
transition from what some think sublime to that which all ad-
mit to be ridiculous The folly of some of these projects has
not been surpassed, nor hardly equalled, unless it be by the phi-
losopher in one of the satires of Swift, who so long labored to
extract sunbeams ftom cucumbers.

The poverty and unhappiness of Spain have been attributed
to the want of protection to her own industry. If by this it
be meant that the poverty of Spain is owing to bad government
and bad laws, the remark is, ina great mensure, just. But these
very laws are bad because they are restrictive, partial, and pro-
hibitory. If prohibition were protection, Spain would seem to
have had enough of it. Nothing can exceed the barbarous ri-
gidity of her colonial system, or the folly of her early commercial
regulations. Unenlightened and bigoted legislation, the multi-
tude of holidays, miserable roads, monopolies on the part of gov-
emment, restrictive Inws, that ought long since to have been ab-
rogated, are gencrally, and I believe traly, reckoned the principal
cauaes of the bad state of the productive industry of Spain. Any
partial improvement in her condition, or increase of her prosper
ity, has been, in all cases, the result of relaxation, and the aboli-
tion of what wae intended for favor and protection.

In ehort, Sir, the general sense of thie age sete, with a atrong
current, in favor of freedom of commercial intercourse, and un+
restrained individual action. Men yield up their notions of
monopoly and restriction, as they yield up other prejudices,
slowly and reluctantly; but they cannot withstand the general
tide of opinion,

THE TARIFF. 133

Let me now ask, Sir, what relief this bill proposes to some
of those great and essential interests of the country, the condi-
tion of which has been referred to as proof of national distress;
und which condition, although Ido not think it makes out a
cage of distress, yet does indicate

And first, Sir, as to our foreign trade. Mr. Speaker has stated
that there has been # considerable falling off in the
employed in that trade, This is true, lamentably trac, In my
‘opinion, it is one of those occurrences which ought to arrest our
immediate, our deep, our most carnest attention. What docs
this bill propose for its relief? It proposes nothing but new
burdens, It proposes to diminish its employment, and it pro-
poses, at the same time, to augment its expense, by subjecting
it to heavier taxation. Sir, there is no interest, in regard to
which a stronger case for protection can be made out, than the

if interest. Whether we look at its present condition,
which is admitted to be depressed, the number of persons con-
nected with it, and dependent upon it for their daily bread, or
its imporiance to the country in a political point of view, it
has claims upon our attention which cannot be surpassed. But
what do we propose to do for it? I repeat, Sir, simply to bur-
den and to tax it By a statement which I have already aub-
mitted to the committee, it appears that the shipping interest
pays, annually, more than half a million of dollars in duties on
articles used in the construction of ships. We propose to add
nearly, or quite, fifty per cent. to this amount, at the very mo-
ment that we appeal to the languishing state of this interest
as a proof of national distress. Let it be remembered that our
shipping employed in foreign commerce has, at this momezt,
not the shadow of government protection, It goes abroad upon
the wide sea to make its own way, and earn its own bread, in
‘a professed competition with the whole world. Its resources are
ite own frogality, its own skill, itz own enterprise. It hopes to
succeed, if it shall succeed at all, not by extraordinary aid of
but by patience, vigilance, and toil. ‘This right arm
‘of the nation's safety strengthens its own muscle by its own
‘efforts, and by unwearicd exertion in its own defence becomes
‘trong for the defence of the country.
‘one acquainted with this interest ean deny that its situa-
at this moment, is extremely critical, We have left it
vou mi. 12

134 ‘THE TARIFF.

hitherto to maintain itself or perish; to swim if it can, und to
sink if it must. But at this moment of its apparent struggle,
can we as men, can we as patriots, add another stone to the
weight that threatens to carry it down? Sir, there is a limit to
human power, and to human effort. I know the commercial
marine of this country can do almost every thing, and bear
almost every thing. Yet some things are impossible to be donc,
and some burdens may be impossible to be borne; and ns it
was the last ounce that broke the back of the camel, #0 the last
tax, althongh it were even a small one, may be decisive as to the
power of our marine to sustain the conflict in which it is now
engaged with all the commercial nations on the globe.

Again, Mr. Chairman, the failures and the bankruptcies which
have taken’ place in oar large cities have been mentioned as
proving the little success attending commerce, and its general
decline. But thrs bill has no bulm for those wounds. It is very
remarkable, that when the losses and disasters of certain manu-
facturers, those of iron, for instance, are mentioned, it is done for
the purpose of invoking aid for the distressed. Not so with the
lozzee and disasters of commerce; these last are narrated, and
not unfrequently much exaggerated, to prove the ruinous nature
of the employment, and to show that it ought to be abandoned,
and the capital engaged in it tarned to other objects,

Tt has been often said, Sir, that our manufacturers have to
contend, not only against the natural advantages of those who
produce similar articles in foreign countries, but also against the
action of foreign governments, who have great political interest
in aiding their own manufactures to suppress Ours. But have
not these governments as great an interest to cripple our marine,
by preventing the growth of our commerce and navigation?
What is it that makes us the object of the highest respect, or
the most suspicious jealousy, to foreign states? What is it
that most enables us to take high relative rank among the na-
tions? I need not say that this results, more than from any
thing else, from that quantity of military power which we can
canse to be water-borne, and from that extent of commerce
which we are able to maintain throughout the world.

Mr Chairman, I am conscious of having detained the com-
mittee mach too long with these observations. My apology for

THE TARIFF 135

aow proceeding to some remarks upon the purticular clauses of,
the bill is, that, representing # district at once commercial and
highly , and being called upon to vote upon a bill
containing ions so numerous and so various, I am natu-
rally desirous to state as well what I approve, as what I would
‘The first seetion proposes an augmented duty upon woollen
manufactures. "This if it were unqualified, woud no doubt be
desirable to thove who are engaged in that business, I have
myself presented a petition from the woollen manufacturers of
Massachusetts, pas gehen an augmented ad valorem duty upon
imported woollen cloths; und I am prepared to Soon: to aba
to a reasonable extent. But then this bill proposes,
also, a very high duty upon imported wool; and, as faras I cau
learn, a majority of the monufacturcrs arc at least extremely
doubtful whether, taking these two provisions together, the state
of the law is not better for them now than it would be if this
bill should pass. It is said, this tax on raw wool will benefit
the agriculturist; but I know it to be the opinion of some of
the best informed of that class, that it will do them more burt
than good, They fear it will check the manufactarer, and con-
sequently check his demand for their article. ‘The argument is,
that a certain quantity of coarse wool, cheaper than we can
possibly furnish, is necessary to enable the manufacturer to carry
on the general business, and that if this cannot be had, the con-
sequence will be, not a greater, but a Ices, manufacture of our
own wool. 1 am aware that very intelligent pereons difler upon
this point; but if we may safely infer from that difference of
opinion, that the proposed benefit is av least donbtfal, it would
be pradent perhaps to ubstain from the experiment, Certain
it is, that the same reasoning has been employed, as I have
before stated, on the same subject, when a renewed application
‘was made to the English Parliament to repeal the duty on im-
parted wool, I believe scarcely two months ago; those who sup-
ported the application pressing urgently the necessity of an unre-
‘stricted use of the cheap, imported raw material, with a view to
with coarse cloths the markets of warm climates, such
as those of Egypt and Turkey, and especially a vast newly cre-
ated demand in the South American states.
_ As to the manofactures of cotton, it is agreed, I believe, that

i

136 THE TARIFF.

they are generally successful. It is understood that the present
existing duty operates pretty much as a prohibition over those
descriptions of fabrics to which it applies. The proposed altera-
tion would probably enable the American manufacturer to com-
mence competition with higher-priced fabrice; and so, perhaps,
would an augmentation less than is here proposed. I consider
the cotton manufactures not only to have reached, but to have
passed, the point of competition. 1 regard their success as cer-
tain, and their growth as rapid as the most impatient could well
expect. If, however, a provision of the nature of that recom-
mended here were thought necessary, to commence new opera~
tions in the same line of manofacture, I should cheerfully agree
to it, if it were not at the cost of sacrificing other great interests
of the country. [need hardly say, that whatever promotes the
cotton and woollen manufactures promotes most important in-
tereats of my constituents, ‘They have a great stake in the suc-
cess of those establishments, and, as far as thoee manufactures
are concerned, would be as much benefited by the provisions of
this bill as any part of the community. It is obvious, too, 1
should think, that, for some considerable time, manufactures of
this sort, to whatever magnitude they may rise, will be princi-
pally established in those parts of the country where population
is most dense, capital most abundant, and where the most suc-
cessful beginnings have already been made.

But if these be thought to be advantages, they are greatly
counterbalanced by other advantages enjoyed by other portions
of the country. I cannot but regard the situation of the West
as highly favorable to human happiness, It offers, in the abun-
dance of its new and fertile lands, such assurances of permanent
property and respectability to the industrious, it enables them to
Jay such sure foundations for a competent provision for their
families, it makes such a nation of freeholders, that it need not
envy the happiest and most prosperous of the manufacturing
communities. We may talk as we will of well-fed and well-
clothed day-laborers or journeymen; they are not, after all, to be
compared, either for happiness or respectability, with him who
sleeps under his own roof and cultivates his own fee-simple ine
heritance.

With respect to the proposed duty on glass, I would observe,
that, upon the beat means of judging which I pogreas, J am of

THE TARIFF. 7

vpivion that the chairman of the committee is right in stating
‘that there is in effect a bounty upon the exportation of the Brit-
ish article. 1 think it entirely proper, therefore, to raise our own
duty by such an amount as shall be equivalent to that bounty.

And here, Mr. Chairman, before proceeding to those parts of
the bill to which I most strenuously object, I will be #0 pre-
sumptuous as to take up a challenge which Mr. Speaker has
thrown down. He has asked us, in a tone of interrogatory in-
dicative of the feeling of anticipated triumph, to mention any
country in which manufactures have flourished without the ald
of prohibitory laws. He has demanded if it be not policy, pro-
tection, ay, and probibition, that have carried other states to the
height of their prosperity, and whether any one bas succeeded
with euch tame and inert legislation as ours. Sir, I am ready
to answer this inquiry.

‘There is a country, not undistinguished among the nations, in
whieh the progress of manufactures has been far more rapid
than in any other, and yet unaided by prohibitions or unnatural
restrictions. That country, the happiest which the sun shines
on, is our own.

‘The woollen manufactures of England have existed from the
early ages of the monarchy. Provisions designed to aid and
foster them are in the black-letter statutes of the Edwards and
the Henrys. Oars, on the contrary, are but of yesterday; and
yet, with no more than the protection of existing laws, they are
already at the point of close and promising competition. Sir,
‘nothing is more unphilosophical than to refer us, on these sub-
jects, to the policy udopted by other nations in a very different
state of society, or to infer that what was judged expedient by
them, in their carly history, must also be expedient for us, in this
early part of our own. ‘This would be reckoning our age chron-
logically, and estimating our advance by our number of years;
when, in truth, we should regard only the state of society, the
Knowledge, the skill, the capital, and the enterprise which belong
to our times. We have been transferred from the stock of Eu
fope, in a comparatively enlightened age, and our civilization
and improvement date as far back as her own. Her original
nistory is also our original history; and if, since the moment of

she has gone ahead of ux in some respects, it may
be said, without violating truth, that we bave kept up in others
we

BS THE TARIFF.

in others head ourselves. We are to legislate,
Sch 9a ved btn rset wore ale ofondag eine

mencement of the last reign. Oure can hardly be said to have
commenced with any earnestness, until the application of the
power-loom, in 1814, not more than ten years ago. Now, Sir, I
hardly need again speak of its progress, its present extent, or its
assurance of future enlargement. In some sorts of fabrics we
are already exporters, and the products of our factories are, at this
moment, in the South American markets. We see, then, what
can be done without prohibition or extraordinary protection, be-
cause we see what Aas been done; and | venture to

that, in a few years, it will be thought wonderful that, these
branches of manufactures, at least, should have been thought to
require additional aid from government.

Mr. Chairman, the best apology for laws of prohibition and
laws of monopoly will be found in that state of society, not only
unenlightened bat sluggish, in which they are most generally
established. Private industry, in those days, required strong
provocatives, which goveruments were sccking te administer by
these means, Something was wanted to actuate and stimulate
men, and the prospects of such profits as would, in our times,
exeite unbounded competition, would hardly move the sloth of
former ages. Tn some instances, no doubt, these laws produced
un effect, which, in that period, would not have taken place
without them. But our age is of a wholly different character,
and its legislation takes another tum. Society is fall of excite
ment; competition comes in place of monopoly; and intelli-
gence and industry ask only for fair play and an open field,
Profits, indeed, in such a state of things, will be small, but they
will be extensively diffused; prices will be low, and the great
body of the people prosperous and happy. It is worthy of re-
mark, that, from the operation of these causes, commercial
wealth, while it is increased beyond calculation in its general
aggregate, is, at the same time, broken and diminished in ite

‘THE TARIFF, 139

subdivisions. Commercial prosperity should be judged of, there-
fore, rather from the extent of trade, than from the magnitude of
its apparent profits, It has been remurked, that Spain, certain-
ly one of the poorest nations, made very great profits on the
amount of her trade; but with little other benefit than the en-
riching of a few individuals and companies. Profits to the
English merchants engaged in the Levant and Turkey trade
were formerly very great, and there were richer merchants in
England some centuries ago, considering the comparative value
.of money, than at the present highly commercial period. When
the diminution of profite arises from the extent of competition,
it indicates rather a salutary than an injurious change.”

‘The true course then, Sir, for us to pursue, is, in my opinion,
to consider what our situation is; what our means are; and
how they can be best applied. What amount of population
have we in comparison with our extent of soil, what amount of
capital, and labor at what price? As to skill, knowledge, and
enterprise, we may safely take it for granted that in these par
tienlars we are on an equality with others, Keeping these con.
siderations in view, allow me to examine two or three of those
provisions of the bill to which I feel the strongest objections.

‘Yo begin with the article of iron, Our whole annual con-
sumption of this article is supposed by the chairman of the com-
mittee to be forty-eight or fifty thousand tons, Let us suppose
the latter. The amount of our own manufacture he estimates,
T think, at seventeen thousand tons. The present duty on the
imported article is § 15 per ton, and as this duty causes, of
conrse, an equivalent augmentation of the price of the home
manufacture, the whole increase of price is equal to § 750,000
annually. This sum we pay ona raw material, and on an ab-
solute necessary of life. The bill proposes to raise the duty from
$15 to § 22.50 per ton, which would be equal to $ 1,125,000 on
the whole annual consumption. So that, suppose the point of

+ “The it equable diffiision of moderate wealth eannot be better ilies
‘trated, than by remarking that in this ago meiny palaces and superb mansions
Have ‘been: pulled down, or converted to uther purposes, while none have. been
isemel ce ike scale. The numberless taronial castles and mansions, in all

parts of Bugland, tow in ruins, may al! be adduced as examples of the deorease
led wealth, On the other lmnd, the multiplication of commodiour

for the upper and middle chisses of society, and the increased comforts
ahibite ph 2 piers of individual bppineas, unkown in any ober age?
Sr G. Blane's Letter to Lord Spencer, in 1800.

440 THE TARIFF.

prohibition which is nimed ut by some gentlemen to be attained,
the consamers of the article would pay this last-mentioned som
every year to the producers of it, over and above the price at
which they could supply themsclves with the same article from
other sourees. There would be no mitigation of this burden,
exeept from the prospect, whatever that might be, that iron
would fall in value, by domestic competition, after the importa.
tion should be prohibited. It will be easy, I think, to show that
it cannot fall; and supposing for the present that it shall not, the
result will be, that we shall pay annually the sum of § 1,125,000,
constantly augmented, too, by increased consumption of the ar
ticle, fo support a business that cannot support itself.

It is of no consequence to the argument, that this sum is ex-
pended at home; so it would be if we taxed the people to sup-
port any other useless and expensive establishment, to build
another Capitol, for example, or incur an expense
of any sort. The question still is, Are the money, time, and
labor well laid ont in these cases? ‘The present price of iron at
Stockholm, [am assured by importers, is $63 per ton on board,
$48 in the yard before loading, and probably not far from $40
at the mines. Freight, insurance, &., may be fairly estimated
at $15, to which add our present duty of § 15 more, and these
two last sums, together with the cost on board at Stockholm,
give $83 as the cost of Swedes iron in our market. In fact, it
is said to have been sold last year at $81.50 to $82 per ton,
We perceive, by this statement, that the cost of the iron is
doubled in reaching us from the mine in which it is produced.
In other words, our present duty, with the expense of transporta-
tion, gives an advantage to the American over the foreign man-
ufacturer of one handred per cent. Why, then, cannot the iron
be manufactured at home? Our ore is said to be as good, and
some of it better, It ie under our feet, and the chairman of the
committee tells us that it might be wrought by persons who
otherwis? will not be employed. Why, then, is it not wrought ?
Nothing could be more sure of constant sale, It is not an arti-
dle of changeable fashion, but of absolute, permanent necessity,
aud such, therefore, as would always mect a steady demand.
Sir, | think it would be well for the chainann of the committee
to revise his premises, for Lam persuaded that there is an ingre-
dient properly belonging to the calculation which he has mis

‘THE TARIFF. M41

stated or omitted. Swedes iron in England pays a daty, 1
think, of about $27 per ton; yet it is imported in considérable
quantities, notwithstanding the vast capital, the excellent coal,
aud, more important than all perhaps, the highly improved state
of inland navigation in England; although I am aware that the
English use of Swedes iron may be thought to be owing in
some degree to its superior quality.

Sir, the tne explanation of this appears to me to lie in the
different prices of labor; nnd here 1 apprehend is the grand
mistake in the argument of the chairman of the committee. He
says it would cost the nation, as a nation, nothing, to make our
ore Into iron. Now, I think it would cost us precisely that
which we can worst afford; that is, great abor. Although bar-
iron is very properly considered a raw material in respect to its
various future uses, yet, as bar-iron, the principal ingredient in
its cost is labor. Of manual labor, no nation has more than a
certain quantity, nor can it be increased at will. As to some
operations, indeed, its place may be supplied by machinery; but
there are other services which machinery cannot perform for it,
and which it must perform for itself, A most important ques-
tion for every nation, as well as for every individual, to propose
to itself, is, how it can best apply that quantity of labor which
itis able to perform. Labor ix the great producer of wealth ;
it moves all other causes, If it call machinery to its aid, it is
still employed, not only in using the machinery, but in making
it, Now, with respect to the quantity of labor, as we all know,
different nations are differently circumstanced. Some need,
more than any thing, work for hands, others require hands for
work > and if we ourselves are not absolutely in the latter class,
wwe ure still most fortunately very near it. I cannot find that we
have those idle bands, of which the chairman of the committee
speaks. The price of labor is a conclusive and unanawerable
refutation of that idea; it is known to be higher with us than in
any other civilized state, and this is the greatest of all proofs of
general happiness, Labor in this country is independent and

md. Tt has not to ask the patronage of eapital but capital
‘solicits the aid of labor. This is the general truth in regard to
the condition of our whole population, although in the large
‘cities there are doubtless many exceptions. ‘The mero capacity
ty labor in common agricultural employments, gives to our

ie ‘THE TARIFF.

men the assurance of independence. We have been
, Sir, by the chairman of the committee, in a tone of some
pathos, whether we will allow to the serfs of Russia and Swe-
den the benefit of making iron for us. Let me inform the gen-
tleman, Sir, that those same serfs do not earn more than seven
cents day, und that they work in these mines for that eompen-
sation because they are serfs. And let me ask the gentleman
further, whether we have any Inbor in this country that cannot
be better cmployed than in a business which does not yield the
laborer more than seven centaa day? This, it appears to me,
is the trne question for our consideration. ‘There l« no reason
for saying that we will work iron beeanse we have Qyuntains
tht contain the ore. We might for the same reason dig among
our rocks for the scattered grains of gold and silver which might
be found there. The true inquiry is, Can we prodace the article
in a useful state at the same cost, or nearly at the same cost, or
aPany reasonable approximation towards the same cost, at which
‘we can import it?

Some general estimates of the price and profits of labor, in
those countries from which we import our iron, might be formed
by comparing the reputed products of different mines, and their
orices, with the number of hands employed, The mines of
Danemora are said to yield about 4,000 tons, and to employ in
the mines twelve hundred workmen. Suppose this to be worth
$50 per ton; any one will find by computation, that the whole
product would not pay, in this country, for one quarter part of
the necessary labor. The whole export of Sweden was esti-
mated, a few years ugo, at 400,000 ship pounds, or about 54,000
tons. Comparing this product with the number of workmen
usually supposed to be employed in the mines which produce
iron for exportation, the result will not greatly differ from the
foregoing. These estimates are general, and might not conduet
us to a precise result; but we know, from intelligent travellers.
and eyewitnesses, that the price of Inbor in the Swedish mines
does not exceed seven cents a day.

* The price of labor in Russia may be pretty well collected from Tooko"s
© View of the Russian Empine"* °*'Tho workmen in the mines and the foun
Yories ure, indeod, all called master-peoplo; but they diatinguist themselees ito
inasters, undersmustees, apprentices, delvers, servants, carriers, washers, atid

separators. Iu proportion to their ability sheir wages are rewulated, which
‘seed from Giteen vo upwards of thirty soubles per annum. "Tho provisions which

THE TARIFF 143

‘The true reason, Sir, why it is not our policy to compel our

citizens to manufacture our own iron, is, that they are far better

Tt is an unproductive business, and they are not

poor enough to be obliged to follow it. If we had more of pov-

erty, mor: of misery, and something of servitude, if we had an

ignorant, idle, starving population, we might set ap for iron
makers against the world.

The committee will take notice, Mr, Chairman, that, under
our present duty, together with the expense of transportation,
our manufacturers are able to supply their owa immediate
neighborhood ; and this proves the magnitude of that substan-
tial encouragement which these two causes concur to give.
‘There is litte or no foreign irou, I presume, used in the county
of Lancaster, ‘This is owing to the heavy expense of land car-
riage; and, as we recede farther from the coast, the manufactar-
ers are still more completely secured, as to their own immediate
‘market, against the competition of the imported article. But
what they ask is to be allowed to supply the sea-coast, at such
@ price as shall be formed by adding to the cost at the mines the
‘expense of land carringe to the sea; and this appears to me
most unreasonable. ‘The eflect of it would be to compel the
‘consumer to pay the cost of two land transportations; for, in
the first place, the price of iron at the inland furnaces will al-
ways be found to be at, or not much below, the price of the

article in the seaport, and the cost of transportation to
the neighborhood of the furnace; and to enable the honte prod-
‘net fo hold a competition with the imported in the senport, the
‘eost of another transportation downward, from the furnace to
the coast, must be added, Until our means of inland commerne
be improved, and the charges of transportation by that means
lessened, it appears to me wholly impracticable, with such duties
as any one would think of proposing, to meet the wishes of the
‘manufacturers of thia article. Suppose we were to add the

they reovive from the magszines are deducted from this pay. ‘Tho value of the
rouble at thar time (1709) was about twenty-four pence sterling, or forty-five

cents of our money.
eS edict of 1799," it is added, “a laborer with a honse shall receive,

“daily, in summer, twenty, and in winter, twelve copecks; a laborer without a

hore, in summer, ten, in winter, eight copecks.”"

fae is the hundreth part of a rvable, or about half a ceut of our money.

“The prive of labor may have riven, in some degree, since that period, but probar

bly not much,

44 ‘THE TARIFF.

duty proposed by this bill, although it would benefit the capital
invested in works near the sea and the navigable rivers, yet the
benefit would not extend far in the interior. Where, then, are
we to stop, or what limit is proposed to us?

The freight of iron has been afforded from Sweden to the
United States as low as eight dollars per ton. ‘This is not more
than the price of fifty miles of land carriage. Stockholm, there-
fore, for the purpose of this argument, may be considered as
within fifty miles of Philadelphia. Now, it is at once a just and
n strong view of this case, to consider, that there are, within fifty
miles of our market, vast multitudes of persons who are willing
to labor in the production of this article for us, at the rate of
seven cents per day, while we have no labor which will not com-
mand, upon the average, at least five or eix times that amount.
‘The question is, then, shall we buy this article of these manu-
facturers, and suffer our own labor to earn its greater reward, or
shall we employ our own labor in » similar manufacture, and
make up to it, by a tax on consumers, the loss which it must
necessarily eustain.

I proceed, Sir, to the article of hemp. Of this we imported
last year, in round numbers, 6,000 tons, paying a duty of $304
ton, or § 180,000 on the whole amount; and this article, it is to
be remembered, is consomed almost entirely in the uses of nay-
igation. The whole burden may be said to fall on one interest.
It is said we can produce this article if we will raise the daties.
But why is it not produced now? or why, at least, have we not
seen some specimens? for the present is a very high duty, when
expenses of importation are added. Hemp was purchased at
St, Petersburg, last year, at $101.67 per ton, Charges attend-
ing shipment, &e, $14.25, Freight may be stated at $30 per
ton, and our existing duty $30 more. These three last sums,
being the charges of transportation, amount to a protection of
near seventy-five per cent. in favor of the home manufacturer,
if there be any such. And we ought to consider, also, that
the price of hemp at St. Petersburg is increased by all the ex-
pense of transportation from the place of growth to that ports
so that probably the whole cost of transportation, from the place
of growth to our market, including our duty, is equal to the first
cost of the article; or, in other words, is a protection in favor
of our own product of one hundred per cent.

—

* THE TARIFF. M45

And since it is stated that we have great quantities of fine
and for the production of hemp, of which I have no doubt, the
question recurs, Why is it not produced? 1 speak of the water
rotted hemp, for it is admitted that that which is dew-rotted ir
not sufficiently good for the requisite purposes. I cannot say
whether the canse be in climate, in the procee# of rotting, or
what else, but the fact is certain, that there is no American
water-rotted hemp in the market. We are acting, therefore,
upon un hypothesis. Is it not reasonuble that those who say that
they can produce the article shall at least prove the truth of that
allegation, before new taxes are laid on those who usc the for-
eign commodity? Suppose this bill passes; the price of hemp
is immediately raised § 14.80 per ton, and this burden falls im-
mediately on the ship-builder; and no part of it, for the present,
will go for the benefit of the American grower, because he has
‘none of the article that can be used, nor ia it expected that much
of it will be produced for a considerable time. Still the tax takes
effect upon the imported article; and the ship-owners, to enable
the Kentucky farmer to receive an additional $14 on his ton of
hemp, whenever he may be able to raise and manufacture it,
pay, in the mean time, an equal sum per ton into the treasury on
all the imported hemp which they are still obliged to usc; and
this is called “protection!” Is this just or fair? A particular
interest is here burdened, not only for the benefit of another

interest, but burdened also beyond that, for the benefit
of the treasury. It is said to be important for the country that
this article should be raised in it; then let the country bear the
expense, and pay the bounty. If it be for the good of the
whole, let the sacrifice be made by the whole, and not by a part.
If it be thought useful and necessary, from political considera-
tions, to encourage the growth and manufacture af hemp, gov
ernment has abundant means of doing it, It might give a
direct bounty, and such a measure would, at least, distribute the
burden equally; or, as government itself is a great consumer of
this article, it might stipulate to confine its own purchases to
the home product, so soon as it should be shown to be of the
proper quality. I see no objection to this proceeding, if it be
thought to be an object to encourage the production. It might
‘easily, and perhaps properly, be provided by law, that the navy
whould be supplied with American hemp, the quality being

VOR. Uh 18

14b THE TARIFF. |

good, at any price not exceeding, by more than a given amount,
the current price of foreign hemp in our market. Every thing
conspires to render some such course preferable to the one now
proposed. The encouragement in that way would be ample,
and, if the experiment should succeed, the whole object would
be guined; and if it should fail, no considerable lows or evil
‘would be felt by any one.

I stated, some days ago, and I wish to renew the statement,
what was the amount of the proposed augmentation of the
duties on iron and hemp, in the cost of a vessel. ‘Take the case
of « common ship of three hundred tons, not coppered, nor cop-
per-fastened. It would stand thus, by the present duties :—

14} tons of iron, for ball guia one anes, at $15

per ton, « * > « $217.50
10 tons of hemp, at $30, . . . 300.00
40 bolts Russia duck, at $2, - ‘, - + 80.00
20 bolts Ravens duck, at $1.25, . 25.00
On articles of ship-chandlery, cabin fornitare, hard:
$662.50
‘The bill proposes to add, —
$7.40 per ton on iron, which willbe . . + § 107.20
$14.80 per ton on hemp, equal to * 148.00
And on duck, by the late amendment of the bill, eay
25 percent, « g e i » 25.00
$280.30

But to the duties on iron and hemp should be added those
paid on copper, whenever that article is used. By the state-
ment which I furnished the other day, it appeared that the duties
received by government on articles used in the construction of
a vessel of three hundred and fifty-nine tons, with copper fasten-
ings, amounted to $1,056, With the augmentations of this
bill, they would be equal to $1,400.

Now I cannot but flatter myself, Mr. Chairman, thut, before
the committee will consent to this new burden upon the ship-
ping interest, it will very deliberately weigh the probable conse-
quences. I would again urgently solicit its atfention to the con-

=
THE TARIFF. M7

dition of that interest, We are told that government haa pro
tected it, by discriminating duties, and by an exclusive right to
the coasting trade. But it would retain the coasting trade, by
its own natural efforts, in like manner, and with more certainty,
than it now retains any portion of foreign trade, The discrimi-
nating dutics are now abolished, and while they existed, they
were nothing more than countervailing measures; not so muclr
designed to give our navigation an advantage over that of other
nations, as to put it upon an equality; and we have, accordingly,
abolished ours, when they have been willing to abolish theirs.
‘Look to the rate of freights. Were they ever lower, or even s0
low? Task gentlemen who know, whether the harbor of Charles-
ton, and the river of Savannah, be not crowded with ships seek-
ing employment, and finding none? I would ask the gentle.
men from New Orleans, if their magnificent Mississippi does
not exhibit, for furlongs, a forest of masts? ‘The condition, Sir,
of the shipping interest is not that of those who are insisting on
high profite, or struggling for monopoly ; but it is the condition
of men content with the smallest earnings, and anxious for their
bread. The freight of cotton has formerly been three pence ster.
fing, from Charleston to Liverpool, in time of peace. It ix now
Iknow not what, or how many fractions of a penny; I think,
however, it is stated at five eighths, ‘The producers, then, of
this great staple, are able, by means of this navigation, to send
ft, for a cent. a pound, from their own doors to the best market
in the world.

Mr. Chairman, I will now only remind the committee that,
while we are proposing to add new burdens to the shipping in-
ferest, a very different line of policy is followed by our great
commercial and maritime rival. It seems to be announced as
the sentiment of the government of England, and undoubtedly
it is its real sentiment, that the first of all manufactures is the
munufacture of ships. A constant and wakeful attention is paid
to this interest, and very important regulations, favorable to it,
have been adopted within the last year, some of which I will
beg leave to refer to, with the hope of exciting the notice, not
only of the committee, but of all others who may feel, as I do, a
deep interest in this subject. In the first place, a general
amendment has taken place in the register acts, introducing
“many new provisions, and, among others. the following: —

148 THE TARIFF.

A direct mortgage of the interest of a ship is allowed, with-
out subjecting the mortgagee to the responsibility of an owner

‘The proportion of interest held by each owner is exhibited in
the register, thereby facilitating both sales and mortgages, and
giving new value to shipping among the moneyed classes,

Shares, in the ships of copartnerships, may be registered as
joint property, and subject to the same rales as other partnership
effects,

Ships may be registered in the name of trustees, for the ben-
efit of joint-stock

And many other regulations are adopted, with the same
general view of rendering the mode of holding the property as
convenient and as favorable as

By another act, British registered vessels, of every
are allowed to enter into the general and the coasting trade in
the India seas, and may now trade to and from India, with any
part of the world, except China.

By a third, all limitations and restrictions, as to latitude and
longitude, are removed from ships engaged in the Southern
whale-fishery. These regulations, I presume, have not been
made without first obtaining the consent of the Eust India
Company; so trae is it found, that real encouragement of enter-
prise oftener consists, in our days, in restraining or buying off
monopolies and prohibitions, than in imposing or extending
ther,

‘The trade with Ireland is turned into a free coasting trade;
light duties have been reduced, and various other beneficial ar-
rangements made, and still others proposed. 1 might add, that,
in favor of general commence, and as showing their confidence
in the principles of liberal intercourse, the British government
has perfected the warchouse system, and authorized a recipro-
city of duties with foreign states, at the discretion of the Privy
Council.

‘This, Sir, is the attention which our great rival is paying to
these important subjects, and we may assure ourselves that, if
we do not cherish a proper sense of our own interests, she will
not only beat us, but will deserve to beat us,

Sir, I will detain you no longer. There are some parte of
this bill which I bighly approve; there are others in which I
should acquiesce ; but those to which I have now stated my

THE TARIFF. 149

objections appear to me so destitute of all justice, so burden-
some and so dangerous to that interest which has steadily en-
riched, gallantly defended, and proudly distinguished us, that
nothing can prevail upon me to give it my support."

* Since the delivery of this speech, an arrival has brought London papers
juer (Mr. Ra jin-

cial ‘statement.
remarks made in the preceding speech, as to the prevailing sentiment, in the
English government, on the general subject of prohibitory laws, and'on the
ilk manufacture and the wool tax particularly.

THE JUDICIARY.

Ar the first session of the Nineteenth Congress a bill was introduced
into the House of Representatives, by Mr. Webster, from the Committee
on the Judiciary, which proposed that the Supreme Court of the United
States should thenceforth consist of « chief justice and nine associate
justices, and provided for the appointment of three additional arsocinte
justices of said court, and that the seventh Judicial Circuit Court of the
United Stares should consist of the districts of Ohio, Indiana, and Ilincis ;
the eighth circuit, of the districts of Kentucky and Missouri; the ninth
circult, of the districts of Tennessee and Alubama; and the tenth cir
cuit, of the districts of Louisiana and Mississippi.

It repealed #0 much of any set or acta of Congress as vested in the
District Courts of the United States in the districts of Indiana, Hlinois, —
Missouri, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana, the powers and jurisdic-
tion of Circuit Courts, and provided that the ~ should be thenceforth
Circuit Courts for said districts, 10 be composed of the justice of the
Supreme Coart assigned or allotted to the circuit to which auch districts
might respectively belong, and of the district judge of such distriots.

On this bill Mr. Webster spoke as follows: —

‘Tur bill which is under the consideration of the committee
is so simple in its provisions, and so nnembarrassed with detail,
that. little or nothing in the way of explanation merely is prob-
ably expected from the committee, But the general importance
of the subject, and the matcrial change which the proposed
measure embraces, demands some exposition of the reasons
which have Jed the Committee on the Judiciary 10 submit it to
the consideration of the House.

The occasion naturally presents {wo inquiries. first, whether
any evils exist in the administration of justice in thy courts of

* Romarka made in the House of Representatives of the United States, o0 the
4th of January, 189. of the Bill to amend the Judiciary System,

THE JUDICIARY. ii

the United States; and secondly, whether, if there be such evils,
the proposed bill is a proper and suitable remedy. On both
these points it is my duty to express the sentiments which the
Committee on the Judiciary entertain. Perhaps, however, Mr.
Chairman, before entering into a discussion of these two ques
tions, 1 may be allowed to state something of the history of thix
department of the government, and to advert to the several laws
which have been, from time to time, enacted respecting its or

‘The judicial power, which, by the Constitution, was to be ex-
ercised by the present government, necessarily engaged the at
tention of the first Congress. The subject fell into the hands of
very able men, and it may well excite astonishment that the
system which they prepared and recommended, and which was
adopted in the hurried session of the summer of 1789, has thus
far been found to fulfil, so well and for so Jong a time, the great
purposes which it was designed to accomplish. The general
success of the general system, so far, may well inspire some de-
gree of caution in the minds of those who are called on to alter
or arent it.

By the original act of September, 1789, there was to be a
Supreme Conrt, according to the Constitution, which was to
consist of six judges, and to hold two eeesions a year at the
seat of government. The United States, or such of them as
had then adopted the Constitution, were to be divided into cir
cuits and districts, and there was to be a District Court in each
district, holden by a district judge. The districts were divided
into three circuits, the Eastern, the Middle, and the Southern;
and there was to be a Circuit Court in each district, to be com-
posed of two of the justices of the Supreme Court, and the
district judge for the district. This Cirenit Court was to hold
two sessions a year in each district, and | need not inform the
committee, that the great mass of business, excepting only that
of admiralty and muritime jurisdiction, belonged to the Circuit
‘Court as a court of original jurisdiction. It entertained appeals,
or writs of error, also, from the decisions of the District Courts,
in all cases,

_ By this arrangement, then, the justices of the Supreme Cuurt
‘Were reqnired to hold two sessions of that court annually, at
the seat of government, to hear appeals and causes removed by

152 ‘THE JUDICIARY.

writs of error; and it was required of them also, that two of
them should attend in each district twice a year, to hold, with
the district judge, a Cireuit Court.

Tt was found that these duties were so burdensome, that they
could not be performed. In November, 1792, the judges ad-
dressed the President on the subject, (who laid their communi-

before Congress.) setting forth their inability to perform
services imposed on them by law, without exertions and sac-
rifices too great to be expected from any men. It was, doubt+
Jess, this communication which produced the law of March, 1793,
by which it was provided that one judge of the Supreme Court,
with the district judge, should constitute the Circuit Court,
And, inasmuch as the courts would now consist of two judges,
provision was made, perhaps sufficiently awkward and ineon-
venient, for the case of difference of opinion. It will be observed,
Mr. Chairman, that by these laws, thus far, particular justices
‘are not assigned to particular circuits, Any two judges of the
Supreme Court, under the first law, and any one, under that of
1793, with the district jadge, constituted a Cirenit Court, A
change, or alternation, of the judges was contemplated by the
law. It was accordingly provided by the act of 1793, that, in
case of division of opinion, as the court consisted of but two
judges, the question should be continued to the next session,
and, if a different judge then appeared, and his opinion coin-
cided with that of his predecessor, judgment should go accord-
ingly.

And here, Mr. Chairman, I wish to observe, that, in my opin-
ion, the original plan of holding the Circuit Courts by different
judges, from time to time, was ill-judged and founded on a
false analogy. It seem to have been borrowed from the Eng-
lish Courts of Assize and Nisi Prius; but the difference in the
powers and jurisdiction of the judges in the two rases rendered
what was proper for one not a fit model for the other. The
English judges at Nist Prius, so far as civil causes are con-
cerned, have nothing to do but try questions of fact by the aid
of a jury, on issues or pleadings already settled in the court
from which the record proceeds. ‘They give no final judgments;
nor do they make interlocutory orders respecting the proceeding
and progress of the cause. They take a verdict of the jury on
the issnes already joined between the parties, and give no other

THE JUDICIARY, 153

directions in matters of law, than such a3 become necessary in
the course of this trial by jury. Every ease fea Danes
ordinarily finished. Reding ai sist soe eaaten for the judge's
successor. If it be tried, the record is taken back with the ver-
dict to Westminster Hall; if it be not tried, the whole case
remains for a subsequent occasion, It is, perhaps, surprising,
that the very able men who framed the first judicial act did not
see the great difference between this manner of proceeding at
the English Assizes, and the necessary course of proceeding in
our Circuit Courts, with the powers and jurisdictions conferred ~
‘on those courts. These are courts of final jurisdiction; they not
only take verdicts, but give judgments. Here suits are brought,
proceeded with through all their stages, tried, and finally deter
mined. And as, in the progress of suits, especially those of
equity jurisdiction, it necessarily happens that there are different
stages, and successive orders become necessary from term to
term, it happened, of course, that the judge was often changed
before the cause was decided; he who heard the end had not
heard the beginning. When to this is added, that these judges
were bred in different schools, and, as to matters of practice, es-
pecially, accustomed to different usages, it will be easy to per
eeive that no small difficulties were to be encountered in the
ordinary despatch of business. So, in cases reserved for advise-
ment and further consideration, the judge reserving the question
was not the judge to decide it. He who heard the argument
was not to make the decision. Without pursuing this part of
the ease farther, it is quite obvious that such a system could not
answer the ends of justice. ‘The courts, indeed, were called Cir-
euit Courts, which seemed to imply an itinerant character; but,
in troth, they resembled much more, in their power and jurisdic
tion, the English courts sitting in bench, than the Assizes, to
which they appear to have been likened.

The act of 1793, by requiring the attendance of only one, in-
stead of two, of the judges of the Supreme Court on the cir-
euits, of courve diminished by one half the circuit labors of those

We then come to the law of February, 1801. By this act,
the judges of the Supreme Court were relieved from all circuit
duties. Provision was made that their number should be re
iluced, on the first vacancy, from six to five. They were still to

—

ibd THE JUDICIARY.

hout two sessions annually of the Supreme Court, and elreurt
judges were appointed to hold the Circuit Court in each district.
The provisions of this law are generally known, and it is not
necessary to recite them purticularly. It is enough to say, that,
in five of the six circuits, the Clreuit Court was to consist of
three judges, specially appointed to constitute such court; and
in the sixth, of one judge, specially appointed, and the district
judge of the district.

‘We all know, Sir, that this law lasted but a twelvemonth. It
was repealed in folo by the act of the Sth of March, 1802; and a
new orgunization of the Circuit Courts was provided for by the
act of the 29th of April of that year. It must be admitted, I
think, Sir, that this act made considerable improvements upon
the system, as it existed before the act of Febrnary, 1801, It took
away the itinerary character of the Circuit Courts, by assigning
particular justices to particalar cireuita, ‘This, in my opinion,
‘was a great improvement. It conformed the conatitution of the
court to the nature of the powers which it exercised. The same
judges now heard the cause through all the stages of its
and the court: became, what its duties properly made it, a court
of record, with permanent judges, exercising « various jurisdic-
tion, trying causes at its bar by jury, in cases proper for the in-
tervention of a jury, and rendering final judgments. This act
also provided another mode of proceeding with cases in which
the two judges composing the Cirenit Court should differ in
opinion. Tt prescribed, that such difference should be stated,
certified to the Supreme Court, and that that court should de
cide the question, and certify its decision to the Circuit Court.

In this state of things, the judicial eystem remained, without
material change, until the year 1807, when « law was passed
for the appointment of an additional judge of the Supreme
Court, and a circuit allotted to him in the Western States.

Tt may be here observed, that, from the commencement, the
syste has not been uniform. From the first, there was an
anomaly in it. By the original act of September, 1789, a Din-
trict Court was established for Kentucky (then part of Virginia)
and for Maine (then part of Massachusetts), and, in addition to
the powers of District Courts, there was conferred on these all
the jurisdiction which elsewhere belongs to Circuit Courts, and,
in other cases, as new States were added to the Union, District

has
into two districts, There are, at present, several Stater

EE
:
i
:
i
:
E
i
i

the system has been at any time entirely uniform.

Se much, Mr. Chairman, for the history of our legislation on
the judicial department.

Tam not aware, Mr. Chairman, that there is any public com
plaint of the operation of the present system, so far as it applies
to the Atlantic States. So far as I know, justice has been ad
ministered efficiently, promptly, and satisfactorily, in all those
cirenits. The judges, perhaps, have a good deal of employment:
but they have been able to go through their arduous duties in
euch manner as to leave no cause of complaint, as far as lam
informed, For my own part, Lam not sanguine enough to ex-
pect, a8 far a8 those circuits are concerned, that any improve-
ment can be made. In my opinion, none is needed. Bat it is
notso in the Western States. Here exists a great. deficiency.
‘The country has outgrown the system. This is no man’s fault,
nor does it impute want of usual foresight to any one. It would
have acemed chimerical in the framers of the law of 1789, if they
had professed to strike out a plan which should have been ade.
quate to the exigencies of the country, as it actually exists in 1826,
From a period as far buck as the close of the late war, the peo
ple of the West have applied to Congress on the subject of the
courts. No session of Congress has passed without an attempt,
in one or the other house, to produce some change; and al-
though various projects have been presented, the inherent diffi-
culties of the subject. have preve any efficient action of the

ture. I will state shortly, Sir, and as nearly as I remem
ber, what has been at different times proposed.

In the first place, it has been proposed to recur to the eystem.
of Circuit Court, upon the principle, although not exactly after
the model, of the act of February, 1801. A bill of this charac.
ter passed the Senate in 1819, dividing the country into nine
circuits, and providing for the appointment of one cireuit judge
to euch circuit, who with the district judge of the district should

156 THE JUDICIARY.

constitute the Circuit Court. It also provided, ihat the Sa+
preme Court, as vacancies should occur, should be reduced to
five members. This bill, I believe, was not acted upon in this
House. Again, it has been proposed to conetitute Circuit Courta
by the union of the district judges in the efreuit. It has been
propoved, also, to extend the existing system somewhut in con-
formity to the object of the present bill, by adding to the num-
ber of the judges in the Supreme Court. Anda differcot ar-
rangement still has been suggested, which contemplates the
appointment of cirenit judges for some districts, and the con-
tinued performance of cireult duties by the supreme judges in
others, with such legal provision as shall not attach the judges
of the Supreme Court, in the performance of their circuit duties,
unequally to any part of the country, but allow them to be dis-
‘tributed equally and fairly over the whole. ‘This system, though
somewhat complex, and perhaps liable to be misunderstood, is,
[ confess, what appears to me best of all suited to our condition.
[It would not make the Supreme Court too numerous; and it
would still require from its members the performance of circuit
duties ; it would allow a proper distribution of these members
to every part of the country; and, finally, it would furnish an
adequate provision for the despatch of business in the Circuit
Courts, Upon this plan, a bill was presented to the House of
Representatives at the first session of the last Congress, but it
did not meet with general favor; and the fate of a similar prop-
osition elsewhere, at a subsequent period, discourages any tevi-
val of it.

I now come, Sir, to consider whether any, and what, evils ex-
ist; and then, whether the present bill be a suitable remedy.
And in the first place, it is said, perhaps with some justice, that
the business of the Supreme Court itself is not gone through
with suflicient promptitade; that it is accumulating; that great
delays are experienced, and grenter delays feared. As to this, 1
would observe, that the annual session of the court cannot last
above six or seven weeks, because it commences in February,
and the elreuit duties of the judges require them to leave this
place the latter part of March. But I know no reason why the
judges should not assemble earlier. I believe it would not ma-
terially interfere with their circuit duties, to commence the sex=
sion kere in the early part of January; and if that were the case,

‘THE JUDICIARY. 157

T have little doubt that, in two yeare, they would cloar the
docket, A bill to make this change passed this House two
years ago; I regret to say, it was not acted upon in the Senate,

to ing to the original practice of having two sessions
of the Supreme Court within the year, I incline to think it
wholly inexpedient. ‘The inconvenience arising from the din-
tance of suitors and counsel from the seat of government forms
& decisive objection to that proposition.

The great evil, however, Sir, at present experienced, and that
which calls most loudly and imperatively for a remedy, is the
state of business in the Circuit Courts in the Western States,
‘The seventh circuit consists of Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.
All the other Western States have District Courts, with the
powers of Cireuit Courts. Tam clearly of opinion, that some fur-
ther provision is required of us for the administration of justice
in these States. The existing means are not equal to the end.
‘The judicial organization is not competent to exercise the juris-
diction which the laws confer upon it. There is a want of men,
and a want of time. In this respect, it appears to me that our
constitutional duty is very plain. ‘The Constitution confers cere
tain judicial powers on the government of the United States;
we undertake to provide for the exercise of these powers; but
‘the provision is inadequate, and the powers are not exercised.
By the Constitution, the judicial power of this government ex-
tends, as well as to other things, to causes between citizens of
different States. We open courts professedly to exercise that
jurisdiction; but they are not competent to it; it is not exer
vised with reasonable promptitude; the suitor is delayed, and
the end of the constitutional provision, in some measure, defeat-
ed. Now, it appears to me very plain, that we should either
refuse to confer this jurisdiction on the courts, or that we should
so constitute them that it may be efficiently exercised.

T hold, Sir, the certificate of the clerk for the District and Cir-
enit Court of the District of Kentucky, that there are now pend-
ing in those courts nine hundred and fifty causes. As this is
not a maritime district, most of these causes, doubtless, are in
the Cirenit Conrt. ‘This accumulation bas not arisen from any
want of diligence in the judges themselves, for the same paper
states, that two thousand causes have been disposed of within
the last three years, ‘The Memorial of the Bar of Nashville in-

vo. Ml. i

—

158 ‘THE JUDICIARY.

forms us that one hundred and sixty cases are pending in the
Cirevit Court for the Wester District of Tennessee; a num-
bor, perhaps, not much leas, is on the docket of the court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee; and 1 am authorized to state
that two hundred or two hundred and fifty may be taken as the
number of suits pending in the Circuit Court of Ohio, These
three States, Sir, constitute one circuit; they extend over a wide
region; the places for holding the courts are at vast distances
from one another ; and it is not within the power of man, that the
ju to this cenit should get through the duties of his
station. With the state of the courts in the other Western and
Southwestern States, Jam not so particularly acquainted. Gen-
tlemen from those States will make it known to the committee.
I know enough, however, to be satisfied that the whole case calla
for attention. It grows no better by delay, and, whatever diffi-
culties embarrass it, we may as well meet them at once, and agree
upon such remedy as shall, upon the whole, seem most expedient.

And this, Sir, brings me to the most difficult part of our in-
quiry ; that is to say, whether sach a measure as this bill pro-
poses be the proper remedy. I beg to say, Sir, that I feel this
difficulty as deeply ae it can be felt by any member of the com-
mittee ; and while I express my own opinions, such as they are,
I shall be most happy to derive light from the greater experi-
ence, or the better intelligence, of any gentleman, To me it
appears, that we are brought to the alternative of deciding be-
tween eomething like what this bill proposes, and the Circuit
Court system, as provided in the bill of the Senate in L819
As a practical question, I think it has come to this point: Shall
we extend the present system, by increasing the number of the
judges, or shall we recur to the system of Circuit Courts? 1 in-
voke the attention of the committee to this question, because,
thinking the one or the other inevitable, I wich for the mature
judgment of the House on both.

In favor of the Circuit Court system, it may be said, that it is
uniform, and may be made to apply to nll the States equally;
40 that if new States come into the Union, Cirenit, Courts may
be provided for them without derangement to the general organ-
ization, This, doubtless, is a consideration entitled to much
weight, It is aid, also, that by separating the judges of the
Supreme Court from the circuits, we shall leave them ample

THE JUDICIARY. 159

time for the dizcharge of the high duties of their appellate juris-
diction, This, no doubt, is true; but then, whether it be desira-
hie, upon the whole, to withdraw the judges of the Supreme
Court from the circuits, and to confine their labors entirely to
the sessions at Washington, is a question which has most deeply
occupied my reflections, and in regard to which I am [ree to
confess some change has been wrought in my opinions. With
entire respect for the better judgment of others, and doubting,
therefore, when I find myself differing from those who are wiser
and more experienced, I am still constrained to say, that my
judgment is against withdrawing the judges of the Supreme
Court from the circuits, if it ean be avoided. The reasons
which influence this sentiment are general, and perhaps may be
thought too indefinite and uncertain to serve axa guide in meas
ures of public importance; they nevertheless appear to me to
have weight, and I will state them with frankness, in the hope
that, if they are without reasonable foundation, they will be
shown to be so, when certainly I ehall chcerfally relinquish them.
Tn the first place, it appears to me that such an intercourse as
the judges of the Supreme Court are enabled to have with the
profession, and with the people, in their respective circuits, is
itself an object of no inconsiderable importance. It naturally
inepires respect and confidence, and it produces a reciprocal
communication of information through all the branches of the
judicial nt. ‘Thisleads to a harmony of opinion and
of action. The Supreme Court, by itself, is in some measure
insulated; it*has not frequent occasions of contact with the
community. ‘The bar that attends it is neither numerous nor
regular in its attendance. ‘The gentlemen who appear before it,
fn the character of counsel, come for the occasion, and depart
with the occasion. ‘The profession is occupied mainly in the
objects which engage it in its own domestic forams; it belongs
to the States, and their tribunals furnish its constant and prin-
cipal theatre. If the judges of the Supreme Court, therefore,
are wholly withdrawn from the circuits, it appears to me there
is danger of leaving them without the means of useful inter
course with other judicial characters, with the profession of
which they are members, and with the public. But, without
these geneml reflections, 1 would say, in the second

place, that I think it useful that judges should see in practice

a

160 THE JUDICIARY.

the operation and effect of their own decisions, This will pre-
vent thedry from running too far, or refining too much. We
find, in legislation, that general provisions of law, however cau-
tiously expressed, ephemacd, (allan require limitation and modification.
Something of the same sort takes place in judicature. How-
ever beautiful may be the theory of general principles, such
ja the infinite variety of human affairs, that those most practised
in them and conversant with them see at every turn a necessity
of imposing restraints and qualifications on such principles.
The daily septation Of" hair Givn doctaabe sill necessarily in«
spire courts with caution; and, by a knowledge of what takes
place upon the circuits and occurs in constant practice, they will
be able to decide finally, without the imputation of having over-
looked, or not understood, any of the important elements and
ingredients of a just decision.

But farther, Sir, I must take the liberty of saying, that, in re-
gard to the judicial office, constancy of employment ie of iteelf,
in my judgment, a good, and a great good. I appeal to the con-
viction of the whole profession, if, as a general rule, they do not
find that those judges who decide most causes decide them best.
Exercise strengthens and sharpens the faculties in this more
than in almost any other employment, I would have the judi+
celal office filled by him who is wholly a judge, always a judge,
amd nothing but a judge. With proper seasons, of course, for
recreation and repose, his serious thoughts should all be turnea
to his official duties; he should be omnis in hoc. 1 think, Sir,
there is hardly a greater mistake than has prevailed occasionally
in some of the States, of creating many judges, arsigning thom
duties which occupy but a small part of their time, and then
making this the ground for allowing them a small compensation.
‘The judicial power is incompatible with any other pursuit in
life ; and all the faculties of every man who takes it ought to be
constantly exercised, and exercised to one end. Now, Sir, it is
natural, that, in reasoning on this subject, I should take my
facts from what passes within my own means of observation.
If IT am mistaken in my premises, the conclusion, of course,
ought to be rejected. But I suppose it will be safe to say, that
a session of eight weeks in the year will probably be sufficient
for the decision of causes in the Supreme Court; and, reasoning
from what exists in one of the most considerable circuits in the

THE JUDICIARY. 161

Atlantic States, I suppose that eight, ten, or at most twelve
weeks, may be the average of the time requisite to be apent by
# cireuit judge in his court in those cirenita If this be so, then,
if the courts be separited, we have supreme judges occupied
two months out of twelve, and circuit judges occupied threr
months out of twelve. In my opinion, this is not a aystem
either to make or to keep good judges. The Sapreme Court
exercises a great variety of jurisdiction. It reverses decisions at
common lw, in equity, and in admiralty; and with the theory
and the practice of all these systems it is indispensnble that the
judges should be accurately and intimately acquainted. It is
for the committee to judge how far the withdrawing them from
the circuits, and confining them to the exercise of an appellate
jurizdiction, may increase or diminish this information. But,
again, Sir, we have a great variety of local laws existing in this
country, which are the standard of decision where they prevail.
The laws of New England, Maryland, Louisiana, and Ken+
tucky are almost so many different codes. These Inws are to be
construed and administered, in many cases, in the courts of the
United States. Is there any doubt that a judge coming on the
bench of the Supreme Court with a familiar acquaintance with
these laws, derived from daily practice and decisions, must be
more able both to form his own judgment correctly, and to assist
that of bis brethren, than n stranger who only looks at the the-
4 ory? This is a point too plain to be argued. Of the weight
of the suggestion the committee will judge. It appeara to me, I
confess, that a court remotely situated, a stranger to these local
laws in their application and practice, with whatever diligence
or with whatever ability, must be liable to full into great mistakes,
May I ask your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, to suggest one
other idea. With no disposition whatever to entertain doubts
as to the manner in which the executive duty of appointments
shall at any time hereafter be performed, the Supreme Court is
so important, that, in whatever relates to it, Tam willing to make
‘assurance doubly sure, and to adopt, therefore, whatever fairly
comes in my way likely to increase the probability that able and
efficient men will be placed upon that bench. Now | confess
that I know nothing which | think more conducive to that end
‘than the nssigning fo the members of that court important, re«
sponsible, individual duties, Whatsoever makes the individual
li

i

Ine THE JUDICIARY.

prominent, conspicuous, and responsible increases the proba:
bility that he will be some one possessing the proper requisites
for a jndge. It is one thing to give a vote upon a bench (es
pecially if it be a numerous bench) for plaintiff’ or defendant,
and quite another thing to act as the head of a court of various
yarisdiction, civil and criminal, to conduct trials by jury, and
render judgments in law, equity, and admiralty. While these
duties belong to the condition of a judge on the bench, that
place will not be a sinecure, nor likely to be conterred without
proofs of proper qualifications, For these reasons, f am inclined
to wish that the judges of the Supreme Court may not be sep-
‘arated from the circuits, if any other suitable provision can be
made,

As to the present bill, Mr. Chairman, it will doubtless be ob-
jected, that it makes the Supreme Court too numerous. In
regard to that, I am bound to say that my own opinion was,
that the present exigency of the country could have been an-
swered by the addition of two members to the court. I believe
the three Northwestern States might well enough go on for some
time longer, and form a circuit of themselves, perhaps, hereaf-
ter, as the population shall increase, and the state of their affairs
require it. The addition of the third judge is what I assent to,
rather than what I recommend. It is what I would gladly
avoid, if [ could with propriety. Tadmit that, for some causes,
the court as constituted by the bill will be inconveniently large;
for such, especially, as require investigation into matters of fact,
such as those of equity and admiralty, and perhaps for all pri-
vate causes generally, But the great and leading character of
the Supreme Court, its most important duties, and ite highest
functions, have not yet been alluded to. It is its peculiar rela-
tion to this government and the State governments, it is the
power which it rightfully holds and exercises, of revising the
opinions of other tribunals on constitutional questions, as the
great practical expounder of the powers of the government,
which attaches to this tribanal the greatest attention, and makes
it worthy of the most deliberate consideration. Duties at once
s0 important and so delicate impose no common responsibility,
and require no common talent and weight of character. A very
small court seems unfit for these high functions. ‘These duties,
though essentially judicial, partake something of a politica

I doubt the safety of rendering it small in number. My own
‘opinion is, that, if we were to establish Cirenit Courts, and to
confine their judges to their duties on the bench, their number
should not be at all reduced ; and if, by some moderate addition
to it, other important objects may well be answered, 1 am pre-
pared to vote for such addition. Ina government like ours, en-

and confidence to the decisions of a court somewhat numerous,
than to those of one composed of a less number, And, for
myself, I acknowledge my fear, that, if the number of the court
were reduced, and its members wholly withdrawn from the cir-
cuits, it might become an object of unpleasant jealousy and
great distrust.

Mr. Chairman, I suppose I need not assure the committee
that, if Tsaw any thing in this bill which would lessen the re-
‘spectability or shake the independence of the Supreme Court, I
should be the last man to favor it. 1 look upon the judicial de-
partment of this government as its main support. I am per-
suaded that the Union could not exist without it, I shall oppose
whatever I think calculated to disturb the fabric of government,
to unsettle what is settled, or to shake the faith of honest men
in the stability of the laws, or the purity of their administration.
Mf any gentleman shall show me that any of these consequences
is like to follow the adoption of this measure, I shall hasten to
withdraw from it my support. But I think we are bound to do
something; and sball be most happy if the wisdom of the House
shall suggest. a course more free from difficulties than that which
18 now proposed to it.

a

164 THE JUDICIARY.

REMARKS MADE ON THE SAME SUBJECT, ON THE
2rn OF JANUARY, 1526, IN REPLY TO THB ARGUMENTS
AGAINST THE BILL, AND IN FAVOR OF ITS POS’

I nap not intended, Sir, to avail myeelf of the indulgence
which is generally allowed, under circumstances like the present,
of making reply. But the House has been invited with such
earnestness to postpone this measure to another year, it has
been pressed, with so much apparent alarm, to give no farther
countenance or support now to the bill, that I reluctantly depart
from my purpose, and asi leave to offera few brief remarks upon
the leading topics of the discussion.

‘This, Sir, must be allowed, and is, on all hands allowed, to be
a measure of great and general interest. It respects that ime.
portant branch of government, the judiciary; and something of
a judicial tone of discussion is not unsuitable to the occasion.
We cannot treat the question too calmly, or too dispassionately.
For myself, I feel that I have no pride of opinion to gratify, no
eagerness of debate to be indulged, no competition to be pur-
sued. I hope I may say, without impropriety, that I am not
insensible to the responsibility of my own situation as a mem-
ber of the House, and a member of the committee." I am
aware of no prejudice which should draw my mind from the sin-
gle and solicitous contemplation of what may be best; and I
have listened attentively, through the whole course of this de
bate, not with the feelings of one who is meditating the means
of replying to objections, or escaping from their force, but with
an unaffected anxiety to give every argument its just weight,
and with a perfect readiness to abandon this mensure, at any
moment, in favor of any other which should appear to have
solid grounds of preference. But I cannot say that my opinion
is altered. ‘The measure appears to my mind in the same light
as when it was first presented to the House. 1 then saw some
inconveniences attending it, and admitted them. I see them
now; but while the effect of this discussion on my own mind
has not been to do away entirely the sense of these inconven-
iences, it has not been, on the other hand, to remove the greater
abjections which exist to any other plan. I remain fully con

* Mr. Webster was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the House of
Represeatatives, at this session of Congress.

THE JUDICIARY. 165

vineed, that this course is, on the whole, that which is freest from
difficulties. However plausible other systems may seem in their
general outline, objections arise, and thicken as we go into their
details, Tt is not now at all certain that those who are opposed
to this bill are agreed as to what other mensure should be pre=
ferred. On the contrary, it is certain that no plan anites them
all; and they act together only on the ground of their common

dissatisfaction with the proposed bill, That system which
seems most favored is the eireuit system, as provided for in
the Senate's bill of 1819. at anteiat ‘there is not an entire
agreement. One provision in that bill was, to reduce the num+
ber of the judges of the Supreme Court to five. This was a part,
too, of the original resolution of amendment moved by the gen-
tleman from Virginia;* but it was afterwards varied; probably
to meet the approbation of the gentleman from Pennsylvania,f
and others who preferred to keep the court at its present num-
ber. But other gentlemen who are in opposition to this bill
have still recommended a reduction of that number. Now, Sir,
notwithstanding such reduction was one object, or was to be
‘one effect, of the law of 1801, was contemplated, aleo, in the
Senate's bill of 1819, and has been again recommended by
the gentleman from Virginia, and other gentlemen, yet I can+
not persuade myself that any ten members of the House, upon
mature reflection, would now be in favor of such reduction. It
could only be made to take place when vacancies should occur
on the bench, by death or resignation. Of the seven judges of
which the court consists, six are now assigned to circuits in the
Atlantic States; one only is attached to the Western Districts.
Now, Sir, if we were to provide for a reduction, it might hap-
pen that the first vacancy would be in the situation of the single
Wester judge. In that event, no appointment could be made
‘until two other vacancies ehould occur, which might be several
years. 1 enppose that no man would think it just, or wise,
or prudent, to make a legal provision, in consequence of which
it might happen that there should be no Western judge at all
‘on the supreme bench for several years to come. ‘This part of
the plan, therefore, was wisely abandoned by the gentleman,
The court cannot be retuced; and the question is only between

* Mr, Powell f Mr. Buchanan,

La

lob ‘THE JUDICIARY.

seven justices of the Supreme Court, with ten eireuit judges, and
ten justices of the Supreme Court, with no circuit

I will take notice here of another suggestion made by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, who is generally so sober-minded
and considerate in his observations, that they deserve attention,
from respect to the quarter whence they proceed. ‘That gentle-
man recommends that the justices of the Supreme Court should
be relieved from circuit duties, as individuals, but proposes, nev
ertheless, that the whole court should become migratory, or am-
bulatory, and that its sexsions should be holden, now in New
York or Boston, now in Washington or Richmond, and now in
Kentucky or Ohio, And it is singular enough, that this
ment is recommended in the same speech in which the authori-
ty of a late President is cited, to prove that considerations aris-
ing from the usually advanced age of some of the judges, and
their reasonable desire for repose, ought to lead us to relieve
them from all circuit duties whatever. Truly, Sir, this is a
strange plan of relief. Instead of holding courte in his own
State, and perhaps in bis own town, and visiting a neighboring
State, every judge on this plan is to join every other judge, and
the whole bench to make, together, a sort of judicial
‘They are to visit the North, and the South, and to ascend and
descend the Alleghanies. Sir, it is impossible to talk seriously
against such a proposition. To state it, is to refute it, Let me
merely ask, whether, in this peregrination of the court, it is pro
posed that they take all their records of pending suits, and the
whole calendar of causes, with them. If so, then the Kentucky
client, with his counsel, is to follow the court to Boston; and
the Boston client to pursue it back to Kentucky. Or is it, on
the contrary, proposed that there shall be grand judicial divis-
ions in the country, and that while at the North, for example,
none but Northern appeals shall be heard? If this be intended,
then Task, How often could the court sit in each one of these
divisions? Certainly, not oftener than once in two years; prob-
ably, not oftener than once in three, An appeal, therefore,
might be brought before the appellate court in two or three
years from the time of rendering the first judgment; and eup-
posing judgment to be pronounced in the appellate court at
the second term, it would be decided in two or three years more.
But it is not necessary to examine this suggestion further. Sir.

THE JUDICIARY. 167

every thing conspires to prove, that, with respect to the great
iuties of the Supreme Court, they must be discharged at one
‘annual session, and that session must be holden at the seat of

it. If such provision be made ws that the business of
the year in that court may be despatched within the year, reax
sonable promptitude in the administration of justice will be at-
tained; and such provision, I believe, is practicable,

Another objection advanced by the member from Pennaylva-
nia applies as well to the system as it now exists, as to that
which will be substituted if this bill shall pass. 'The honorable
member thinks that the appellate court and the court from
which the appeal comes should, in all cases, be kept entirely dis-
tinct and separate, ‘rue principle requires, in hia judgment,
that the cireuit judge should be excluded from any participa-
tion in the revision of his own judgments. J believe, Sir, that,
in the early history of the court, the practice was for the judge
whose opinion was under revision not to partake in the delib-
erations of the court. This practice, however, was afterwards
altered, and the court resolved that it could not discharge the
judge from the duty of assisting in the decision of the appeal.
‘Whether the two courts ought to be kept so absolutely distinct
and separate as the member from Pennsylvania recommends, is
not so clear a question that persons competent to form an
opinion may not differ upon it, On the one hand, it may very
well be suid, that, if the judgment appealed from has been ren-
dered by one of the judges of the appellate court, courtesy,
Kindness, or sympathy may inspire some disposition in the
members of the same bench to affirm that judgment; and that
the general habit of the court may thus become unfriendly to a
free and unbiased revision. On the other hand, it may be con-
tended, that, if there be no medium of communication between
the court of the first instance, and the court of appellate juris«
diction, there may be danger that the reasons of the first may
not be always well understood, and its judgments consequently
liable, sometimes, to be erroneously reversed, It certainly is not
time, that the chance of justice, in an appellate court, is always
precisely equal to the chance of reversing the judgment belo
although it is necessary for the pence of society und the termi-
nation of litigation to take it for granted, as a general rule, that
whut is decided by the ultimate tribunal is decided rightly.

~~

good opportunity at least of setting forth the grounds and rea-
sons of the original judgment. ‘Thus, in the British House of
Lords a judgment of the King’s Bench ia not ordinarily reversed

ion may influence the individual judge, or some undue portion
of respect for the judgment already pronounced may uncon-
sciously mingle itself with the judgments of others. But the
universality of the practice sufficiently shows that no great prac-
tical evil is experienced from this cause.

It has been said in England, that the practice of revising the
opinions of judges by motions for new trial, instead of filing bills
of exception and suing out writs of error, has greatly diminished
the practical extent. of the appellate jurisdiction of the House of
Lords. ‘This shows that suitors are not advised that they have
no hope to prevail against the first opinions of individual judges,
or the sympathy of their brethren, Indeed, Sir, judges of the
highest rank of intellect have always been distinguished for the
candor with which they reconsider their own judgments. A
man who should commend himself for never having altered his
pinion might be praised for firmness of purpose; but men
would think of him, either that he was a good deal above all
other mortals, or somewhat below the most enlightened of them.
He who is not wise enough to be always right, ehould be wise
enough to change his opinion when he finds it i= The
consistency of n truly gent man is proved by his uniform at-
tachment to truth and principle, and his devotion to the better
reason; not by obstinate attachment to first-formed notions

THE JUDICIARY. 169

Whoever has not candor enough, for good cause, to change his
own opinions, is not safe authority to change the opinions of
other men. But at least, Sir, the member from Pennsylvania
will admit, that, if an evil in this respect exist under the present,
Jaw, this bill will afford some mitigation of that evil. By aug-
menting the number of the judges, it diminishes the influence
of the individual whose judgment may be under revision; and
so far, I hope, the honorable member may himself think the
measure productive of good.

Bat, Sir, before we postpone to another year the consideration
of this bill, I beg again to remind the House that the measure is
not new. It is not new in ita general character; it is not en-
tirely new in its particular provisions. The necessity of some
reform in the judiciu establishment of the country has been pre=
sented to every Congress, and every session of Congress, since
the peace of 1916. What has been recommended, at differs
ent times, has been already frequently stated. It is enough,
now, to eay, that the measure of extending the system by in-
creasing the number of the judges of the Supreme Court was
presented to the House, among other measures, in 1823, by the
Judiciary Committee; and that so late as the lash session it re
ceived a distinct expression of approbation in the other branch
of the legislature. Gentlemen have referred to the bill intro-
duced into this House two years ago. That bill had my appro-
bation; Iso declared at the commencement of this debate. It
proposed to effect the object of retaining the judges upon their
cireuiis without increasing their number. But it was complex.
Tt was thought to be unequal, and it was unsatisfactory. There
appeared no disposition in the House to adopt it; and when the
same measure in substance was afterwards proposed in the other
branch of the legislature, it received the approbation of no
more than a half dozen voices, This led me to make a remark,
at the opening of the debate, which I have already repeated,
that, in my opinion, we are brought to the narrow ground of de-

between the system of Cirouit Courts and the provisions
of this bill. Shall we keep the judges upon the vireuits and
augment their member, or shall we relieve them from cireuit du-
ties and appoint special circuit judges in their places? ‘This, as
it seems to me, is the only practical question remaining for our
decision.

YOR. 11h 15

—

170 THE JUDICIARY.
Tuo not intend, Sir, to go again into the general question of

Jon, ax far as I can be supposed to have had any opinion then
on such subjects, inclined to the argument that recommended
the separation of the judges from the cireuits. But, if I may be
pardoned for referring to any thing so little worthy the regard of
the Honse as my own experience, I will say that that experience
early led me to doubt the correctness of the first impression, and
that I became satisfied that it was desirable in itself that the
judges of the Supreme Court should remain in the active dis-
charge of the duties of the cirenita. I have acted in conformity
to this sentiment so often as this subject has been before Con-
gress in the short periods that I have been amember, 1 still feel
the same conviction; and though T shall certainly yield the
point, mther than that no provision for the existing exigency
should be made, yet I should feel no inconsiderable pain in sub-
mitting to such necessity, I do not doubt, indeed, Sir, that, if
the judges were separated from cireuit duties, we should go on
very well for some years to come. But looking to it as a per-
manent system, I view it with distrust and anxiety.

My reasons are alrendy before the House. Tam not about to
repeat them. I beg to take this occasion, however, to correct
‘one or two misapprehensions of my meaning into which gentle-
men have fallen, J did not eay, Sir, that I wished the judges of
the Supreme Courts to go upon the circuits, to the end that they
might see in the country the impression which thelr opinions
made upon the public sentiment. Nothing like it. What I did
say was, that it was useful that the judge of the Supreme Court
should be able to perceive the application and bearing of the
opinions of that court upon the variety of causes coming before
him at the cirenit, And is not this useful? Is it not probable
that the judge will lay down a general rule with the greatest
wisdom and precision, who comprehends in his view the greatest
number of instances to which that rule is to be applicd? As far

THE JUDICIARY. 171

as J can now recall the train of my own ideas, the expression
was suggeated by a reflection upon the laws of the Western
‘States, respecting title to land, We hear often in this House
of “judicial legislation.” If any such thing exist in this coun-
try, an instance of it doubtless is to be found in the land laws
of some of the Western States. In Kentucky, for example,
titles to the soil appear to depend, to a very great extent, upon
a series of judicial decisions, growing out of an act of the Legis
lature of Virginia passed in 1779, for the sale and disposition of
her public domain, The legislative provision was very short
and general; and as rights were immediately acquired under it,
the want of legislative detail could only be supplied by judicial
construction and determination, Hence a system has grown
up, which is complex, artificial, and argumentative. 1 do not
impute blame to the courts; they had no option but to decide
eases as they arose, upon the best reasons. And although Iam
a very incompetent judge in the case, yet as far as 7 am ine
formed, it appears to me that the courts, both of the State and
of the United States, have applied just principles to the state of
things which they found existing. But, Sir, a8 a rule Inid down
at Washington in one of these cases may be expected to affect
five hundred others, is it not obvious that a judge, bred to tuls
peculiar system of law, and having also many of these cases in
judgment before him in his own circuit, is better enabled to
state, to limit, and to modify the general rule, than another
judge, though of equal talents, who should be a stranger to
the decisions of the State tribunals, a stranger to the opinions
and practice of the profession, and a stranger to all cases except
the single one before him for judgment ?

The honorable member from Pennsylvania asks, Sir, whether
a statute of Vermont cannot be as well understood at Wash-
ington, as at Windsor or Rutland. Why, Sir, put in that shape,
the question hae very little meaning. But if the gentleman in-
tends to ask, whether a judge who has been for years in the
constant discharge of the duties incumbent upon him as the
head of the Circuit Court in Vermont, and who, therefore, has
had the statutes of that State frequently before him, has learned
their interpretation by the State judicatures, and their connec-
tion with other laws, local or general, —if the question be, wheth-
rsuch a judge is not probably more competent to understand

=

THE JUDICIARY.

that statute than another, who, with no knowledge of its local
interpretation or local application, shall look at its letter for the

eager
i!
ne
bee
tne
cal
Fad
i
plele
ai z

=

cy

;
:
i
PE
i
7
e
&

judge of the Supreme Court as another. ‘The per-
the true rule, and its rightful application, whether of
or general law, are supposed to be entirely eazy, because
there are many volumes of statutes and of decisions. There

fi

arc accessible, Nor need Lonisiana fear that her peculiar code
will not be thoroughly and practically known, inasmuch as a
printed copy will be found in the public libraries.

Sir, I allude to such arguments, certainly not for the purpose
of undertaking a refutation of them, but only to express my re-
gret that they should have found place in this discussion. 1
haye not contended, Sir, for any thing like judicial representa-
tion. I care not in what terms of reproach such an idea be
spoken of. It is none of mine. What I said was, and I still
say it, that, with so many States, having various and different
systems, with such a variety of local laws and usages und prac-
tices, it is highly important that the Supreme Court should be
80 constituted as to allow a fair prospect, in every case, that
these laws and usages should be known; and that I know noth-
ing #0 naturally conducive to this end, as the knowledge and
experience obtained by the judges on the circuits, Let me ask,
Sir, the members from New England, if they have ever found
any man this side of the North River who thoroughly undes-
stood our practice of special attachment, our process of gurnish-
ment, or trustee process, or our mode of extending execution
upon land? And let me ask, at the same time, whether there
be an individual of the profession, between this place und Maine
who is, at this moment, competent to the decision of questions
arising under the peculiar system of land titles of Kentucky or
Tennessee? If there be such a gentleman, I confess 1 have not
the honor of his acquaintance.

‘THE JUDICIARY 173

‘On the gencral question of the utility of constant oceapation
in perfecting the character of a judge, Ido not mean now to
enlarge. I am aware that men will differ on that subject, ac-
cording to their different means or different habits of observa-
tion. To me it seems as clear as any moral proposition what-
ever. And [ would ask the honomble member from Rhode
Tasland, since be has referred to the judge of the first circuit, and
has spoken of him in terms of respect not undeserved, whether
be supposes that that member of the court, if, fifteen yeare ago,
on receiving his commission, he had removed to this city, and
had retained here ever since, with no other connection with his
profession than an annual session of six weeks in the Supreme
Court, would have been the judge he now is? Sir, if this ques:
tion were proposed to that distinguished person himeelf, and if
he could overcome the reluctance which he would naturally feel
to speak at all of his own judicial qualities, Iam extremely mis-
taken if he would not refer to his connection with the Cireuit
Court, and thé frequency and variety of his labors there, as effi-
cient causes in the production of that eminent degree of ability
with which he now discharges the duties of his station.

‘There is not, Sir, an entire revolution wrought in the mind of
& professional man, by appointing him a judge. He is still
lawyer; and if he have but little to do as a judge, he is, in
effect, a lawyer out of practice. And how is it, Sir, with lawe
yers who are not judges, and are yet out of practice? Let the
opinion and the common practice of mankind decide this. If
you require professional assistance in whatever relates to your
Teputation, your property, or your family, do you go to him who
is retired from the bar, and who has uninterropted leisure to
pursue his readings and reflections; or do you address yourself
to him, on the contrary, who is in the midst of affairs, busy
every day, and every hour in the day, with professional pursuits?
But I will not follow this topic farther, nor dwell on this part of
the case.

Thave already said, that, in my opinion, the present number
of the court is more convenient than a larger number, for the
hearing of a certain class of causes, ‘This opinion I do not
retract; for I believe it to be correct. But the question is,
‘whether this inconvenience be not more than balanced by other
advantages, I think it is.

ies

174 ‘THE JUDICIARY.

It has been again and again urged, that this bill makes no
provision for clearing off the term business of the Supreme
Court; and strange mistakes, as it appears to me, are commit.
ted, as to the amount of arrears in that court. T believe that
the bill intended to remedy that evil will remedy it. I believe

Courts; and, notwithstanding the mathematical calenlations by
which it has been proved that the proposed addition to the
Jength of the term would enable the court to decide precisely

would enable the court, in two years, to go through all the
causes before it ready for hearing.
Tt has been said, Sir, that this measure will i injure the char

for the exercise of judicial functions. This is cerinin. But then
this general trath, although admitted, does not enable us to fix
with precision the point at which this evil either begins to be
felt at all, or to become considerable; still less, where it is se-
rious or intolerable. If seven be quite few enough, it may not
be easy to show that ten must necessarily be a great deal too
many. But there is another view of the case, connected with
what I have said heretofore in this discussion, and which fure
nishes, in my mind, a complete answer to this part of the arga-
ment; and that is, that a jadge who has various important indi-
vidual duties to perform in the Cirenit Court, and who sits in
the appellate court with nine others, acts, on the whole, in a
more conspicuons character, and under the pressure of more
immediate and weighty responsibility, than if he performed no
individual circuit duty, and eat on the appellate bench with six
others only,

Bat again, it has been argued, that to increase the number of
the Supreme Court is dangerous; because, with such a precise
dent, Congress may hereafter effect any purpose of its own, in
regard to judicial decisions, by changing essentially the whole

THE JUDICIARY. 15

constitution of the court, and overthrowing its settled decis-
fons, by augmenting the number of judges. Whenever Con-
gress, it is snid, may dislike the constitutional opinions and
decisions of the court, it may mould it to its own views, upon
the authority of the present example. But these abuses of
power are not to be anticipated or supposed; and therefore
no argument results from ther.

If we were to be allowed to imagine that the legislature would
act in entire disregard of its duty, there are ways enough, cer-
tainly, beside that supposed, in which it might destroy the judi-
ciary, as well as any other branch of the government. The ju-
diciary power is conferred, and the Supreme Court established,
by the Constitution; but then legislative acts are necessary to
confer jurisdiction on inferior courts, and to regulate proceedings
in all courts. If Congress should neglect the duty of passing
such Inws, the judicial power could not be efficiently exercised,
If, for example, Congress were to repeal the twenty-fifth section
of the judicial act of 1789, and make no substitute, there would
be no mode by which the decisions of State tribunals, on ques-
tions arising under the Constitution and laws of the United
States, could be revised in the Supreme Court. Or if they
were to repeal the eleventh section of that act, the power of try-
ing cauees between citizens of different States, in the tribunals
‘of this government, could not be exercised. All other branches
of the government depend, in like manner, for their continuance
in life and being, and for the proper exercise of their powers, on
the presumption that the legislature will discharge its constitu-
tional duties. If it were possible to adopt the opposite suppo-
sition, doubtless there are modes enough to which we may look.
to see the subversion both of the courts and the whole Consti-
tution.

Mr. Speaker, T will not detain you by further reply to the vas
rious objections which have been made to this bill. What has
occurred to me as most important, | have noticed cither now or
heretofore; and I refer the whole to the dispassionnte judgment
of the House. Allow me, however, Sir, before I sit down, to
disavovr, on my own behalf and on behalf of committee,
all connection between this measure and any opinions or decis
ions, given or expected, in any causes, or classes of causes, by
the Snpreme Court. Of the merits of the case of which early

‘

176 THE JUDICIARY.

mention was mnde in the debate, I know nothing, 1 presume
it was rightly decided, because it was decided by sworn judges,
composing a tribunal in which the Constitution and the laws
have lodged the power of ultimate judgment. It would be un-
worthy, indeed, of the magnitude of this occasion, to bend our

that point. Professional habits and pursuits connect me with
the court, and I feel that it is not proper that I should speak
here of the personal qualities of its members, either generally or
individaally. They shall not suffer, at least, from any ill-timed
or clumsy eulogy of mine. T could not, if 1 wonld, make them
better known than they are to their country; nor could I either
strengthen or shake the foundation of character and talent upon
which they stand.

But of the judicial branch of the government, and of the insti-
tution of the Sapreme Court, as the head of that branch, I beg
to say that no man can regard it with more respect. and attach-
ment than myself, It may have friends more able, it has none
more sincere. No conviction is deeper in my mind, than that
the maintenance of the judicial power is essential and indis-
pensable to the very being of this government. The Constita-
tion without it would be no constitution; the government, no
government. Tam deeply sensible, too, and, ax I think, every
man must be whose eyes bave been open to what has passed
around him for the last twenty years, that the judicial power is
the protecting power of the whole government. Its position ia
upon the outer wall. From the very nature of things and the
frame of the Constitation, it forms the point at which our differ
ent systems of government meet in collision, when collision un-
happily exists, By the absolute necessity of the case, the mem-
bers of the Supreme Court become judges of the extent of
constitutional powers, They are if I may so call them, the

THE JUDICIARY. 17

great arbitrators between contending sovereignties. Every man
is able to see how delicate and how critical must be the exer-
cise of such powers in free and popular governments. Suspicion
and jealousy are easily excited, under such circumstances, aguinst
@ body, necessarily few in number, and possessing by the Con
stitution a permanent tenure of office. While public men in
more popular parts of the government may escape without re-
buke, notwithstanding they may sometimes act upon opinions
whieh are not acceptable, that impunity is not to be expected in
behalf of judicial tribunals Tt cannot but have attracted obser-
vation, that, in the history of our government, the courts have
not been able to avoid severe, and sometimes angry complaint,
for giving their sanction to those public measures which the rep-
resentatives of the people had adopted without exciting particular
disquietude. Members of this and the other house of

acting voluntarily, und in the exercise of their general discretion,
have enacted laws without incurring an uncommon degree of
dislike or resentment; and yct, when those very laws have been
brought before the court, and the question of their validity has
been distinetly raised, and is necessarily to be determined, the
Judges affirming the constitutional validity of such acts, although
the oceasion was forced upon them, and they were absolutely
bound to express the one opinion or the other, have, neverthe-
less, not escaped a severity of reproach bordering upon the very
verge of denunciation. This experience, while it teaches us the
dangers which environ this department, instructs us most per-
suasively in its importance. For its own security, and the secu-
rity of the other branches of the government, it requires such an
extraordinary union of discretion and firmness, of ability and
moderation, that nothing in the country is too distinguished for
sober sense or too gifted with powerful talent, t fill the situa-
tions belonging to it.

THE PANAMA MISSIONS

‘Tne following resolution being under consideration, in committee of
the whole House upon the state of the Union, viz.:—

“ Resolved, That in the opinion of the House it is expedient to ap-
propriate the funds necoteary to enable the President of the United
States to send ministers to the Congress of Panama” ;—

Mr. McLane of Delaware submitted the following amendment there-
to, viz. :—

“It being understood as the opinion of this House, that, as it has al-
‘ways boon the settled policy of this government, in extending our coms
‘mercial relations with foreign nations, to have with them as little politi«
cal connection aa possible, to preserve peace, commerce, and friendship
with all nations, and to form entangling alliances with none; the minis-
tera who may be sent shall attend at the said Congress in a diplomatic
character merely, and ought not to be authorized to discuss, consider,
or consult, upon any proposition of alliance, offensive or defensive,
between this country and any of the Spanish American governments,
or any stipulation, compact, or declaration, binding the United States in
any way, or 10 any extent, to rosist interforence from abroad with the
domestic concerns of the aforesaid governments; or any measure which
aholl commit the present or future noutrol rights or duties of these
United States, either ae may regard European nations, or between the
several stntes of Mexico and South America; leaving the United States
fevce to adopt, in any event which may happen, affecting the relations
of the South American governments with ench othor, or with foreign
nations, such measures as the friendly disposition cherished by the
American people towards the people of those states, and the honor and
interest of this nation, may require” ;—

To which Mr. Rives of Virginia proposed to add, after the words
“ aforesaid governments,” the following : —

* A Spooch deliverod in the House of Representatives of tho United States,
on the Mth of April, 1896.

THE PANAMA MISSION. 17

Or any compact or engagement by which the United States shull be
pledged to the Spanish American sates, to maintain, by force, the prin-
‘lpia thet no: pert of the Amcrionn cootinent ix benooforward subject ts
colonization by any European power.’

STR prcesPg ieee aise’ ay vader tateadorlion) SUC Wak
ster addressed the committee as follows.

‘Mr. Cuaraman,— Iam not ambitions of amplifying this dis-
cussion, On the contrary, it is my anxious wish to confine the
debate, so far as I partake in it, to the real and material quee
tions before us.

Our judgment of things ix liable, doubtless, to be influenced by
our opinions of men. It would be affectation in me, or in any
‘one, to claim an exemption from this possibility of bins I can
say, however, that it has been my sincere purpose to consider
‘and discuss the present subject with the single view of finding
out what duty it devolves upon me, a3 a member of the House
pf Repmsentatives, If any thing has diverted me from that sole
aim, it has been against my intention.

T think, Sir, that ihere are two questions, and two only, for our
decision. ‘The first is, whether the House of Representatives
will assume the responsibility of withholding the ordinary ap-
, for carrying into effect an executive measure, which
the executive department has constitutionally instituted. The
second, whether, if it will not withhold the appropriation, it
will yet take the responsibility of interposing, with its own
opinions, directions, or instructions, as to the manner in which
thie particular executive mensure shall be conducted.

T am, certainly, in the negative, on both these questions. I
am neither willing to refuse the appropriation, nor arm 1 will-
ing to Limit or restrain the discretion of the executive, before-
hand, as to the manner in which it shall perform its own ap-
propriate conetitutional duties. And, Sir, those of us who hold
these opinions have the advantage of being on the common
highway of our national polities, We propose nothing new;
we suggest no change; we adhere to the unif practice of
the government, as I anderstand it, from its o It is for
those, on the other hand, who are in favor of either, or both, of
the propositions, to show ws the cogent reasons which recom-
mend their adoption. It iv their duty to satisfy the House and

—

180 THE PANAMA MISSION.

the country that there issomelling in ike presse eae
calls for such an and unprecedented interference.

‘The President and Senate have instituted a public mission,
for the purpose of treating with foreign states. The Constitu-
tion gives to the President the power of appointing, with the
consent of the Senate, ambassadors and other public ministers
Such appointment is, therefore, a clear and unquestionable ex-
orcise of executive power. It is, indeed, less connected with
the appropriate duties of this House, than almost any other ex
ecutive act; becanse the office of a public minister is mot cre+
ated by any statute or law of our own government. Tee
under the law of nations, and is recognized as existing
Constitution, The acts of Congress, indeed, limit prt Hat
of public ministers; but they dono more. Every thing else in
regurd to the appointment of public ministers, —thelr numbers,
the time of their appointment, and the negotiations contemplated
in such appointments, —is matter for executive discretion. Ev-
ery new appointment to supply vacancies in existing missions
is under the same authority. There are, indeed, what we com-
monly term standing missions, so known in the practice of the
government, but they are not made permanent by any law, All
missions rest on the same ground. Now the question is, wheth-
er, the President and Senate having created this mission, or, in
other words, having appointed the ministers, in the exercise of
their undoubted constitutional power, this House will take upon
itself the responsibility of defeating its objects, and rendering
this exercise: of exeentive power void ?

By voting the salaries in the ordinary way, we assume, as it
scems to me, no responsibility whatever, We merely empower
another branch of the government to discharge its own appro-
priate duties, in that mode which seeme to itself most conducive
to the public Interests. We are, by so voting, no more responsi-
ble for the manner in which the negotiation shall be conducted,
than we are for the manner in which one of the heads of depart«
ment may discharge the duties of his office.

On the other hand, if we withhold the ordinary means, we do
incnr a heavy responsibility. We interfere, as it seems to me,
to prevent the action of the government, according to constitu.
tional forms and provisions. It ought constantly to be remem
hered, that our whol power in the case is merely incidental. {t

THE PANAMA MISSION. 181

is only beenuse public ministers must have salaries, like other
officers, and because no salaries ‘be paid but by onr vote,
that the subject is referred to us at all. The Constitution veste
the power of appointment in the President and Senate; the law
gives to the President even the power of fixing the amount of
salary, within certain limits; and the only question here is upon
the appropriation. There is no donbt that we have the power,
if we see fit to exercise it, to break up the mission, by withhold-
ing the salaries. We have power also to break up the court, by
withholding the salaries of the judges, or to break up the office
of President, by withholding the salary provided for it by law.
All these things, it is true, we have the power to do, since
we hold the keys of the treasury, But, then, can we right
fully exercise this power? The gentleman from Pennsylvania,*
with whom I have great pleasure in concurring on this part
of the case, while I regret that I differ with him on others,
has placed this question in a point of view which cannot be im-
proved These officers do, indeed, already exist. They are
public ministers. If they were to negotiate a treaty, and the Sen-
ate should ratify it, it would become a law of the land, whether
‘we voted their salaries or not, ‘This shows that the Constitution
never contemplated that the House of Representatives should
act a part in originating negotiationa or concluding treaties,

Tknow, Sir, it is a useless labor to discuss the kind of power
which this House incidentally holds in these cases. Men will
differ in that particular; and as the forms of public business
and of the Constitution are such that the power may be exer-
cised by this House, there will always be some, or always may
be some,-who feel inclined to exercise it. For myself, 1 feel
bound not to step out of my own sphere, and neither to exer-
tise or control any authority, of which the Constitution has
intended to lodge the free and unrestrained exercise in other
hands. Cases of extreme necessity, in which a regard to public
safety is to be the supreme Inw, or rather to take place of all
jaw, must be allowed to provide for themselves when they arise.
Arguments drawn from such possible cases will shed no light on
the general path of our constitutional duty.

Mr. Chairman, I have an habitual and very sincere respect for

* Mr. Bachanan,
You. 11 16

Me

182 THE PANAMA MISSION,

the opinions of che gentleman from Delaware, And Ican aay
with trath, that he is the last man in the House from whom 1
should have looked for this proposition of amendment, or from
whom T should have expected to hear some of the reasons whieh
he has given in its support, He says, that, in this matter, the
source from which the measure springs should have no influence
with us whatever. Ido not comprehend this; and I cannot but
think the honorable gentleman has been surprised into an exe
pression which does not convey his meaning. ‘This measure
comes from the executive, and it is an appropriate exercise of
executive power. How is it, then, that we are to consider it as
entirely an open question for us,—as if it were a legislative
measure originating with ourselves? In deciding whether we
will enable the executive to exercise his own duties, are we to
consider whether we should have exercised them in the same way
ourselves? And if we differ in opinion with the President and
Senate, are we on that account to refuse the ordinary means?
I think not; unless we mean to say that we will ourselves
exercise all the powers of the government.

But the gentleman argues, that, although generally such a
vourse would not be proper, yet in the present ease the Presi«
dent has especially referred the matter to our opinion; that he
has thrown off, or attempted to throw off, his own constitutional
responsibility; or at least, that be proposes to divide it with us;
that he requests our advice, and that we, having referred that
request to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, have now received
from that committee their report thereon.

Sir, this appears to me a very mistaken view of the subject;
but if it were all so, if our advice and opinion had thus been
asked, it would not alter the line of our doty. We cannot take,
though it were offered, any share in executive duty. We can-
not divide thelr own proper responsibility with other branches
of the government. ‘The President cannot properly ask, and we
cannot properly give, our advice, as to the manner in which he
shall discharge his duties. He cannot shift the responsibility
from himself; and we cannot nasume it, Such a course, Sir,
would confound all that is distinct in our respective constitu.
tional functions, It wonld break down all known divisions of
power, and put an end to all just responsibility. If the Presi-
dent were to receive directions or advice from us, in things per-

THE PANAMA MISSION. 183

taining to the duties of his own office, what would become of his
responsibility to us and to the Senate? We hold the impeach-
ing power. We are to bring him to trial in any case of mal-
administration. ‘The Scnate are to judge him by the Constitu,
tion and laws; and it would be singular indeed, if, when such
vecasion shonid arise, the party accused should have the means
of sheltering himself under the advice or opinions of bis ac
cusers, Nothing can be more incorrect or more

than this pledging the House beforehand to any opinion as to
the manner of discharging exceutive duties.

But, Sir, tse no evidence whatever that the President has
usked us to take this measure upon ourselves, or to divide the
responsibility of it with him. [ see no such invitation or re-
quest. The Senate having concurred in the mission, the Presi-
dent has sent a message requesting the appropriation, in the
usual and common form. In answer to a call of the House, an-
other message is sent, communicating the correspondence, and
setting forth the objects of the mission. It is contended, that
by this message he usks our advice, or refers the subject to our
opinion. I do not so understand it, Our concurrence, he says,
by making the appropriation, is subject to our free determinn-
tion. Doubtlees it is eo. If we determine at all, we shall deter
mine freely; and the message does no more than leave to our
selves to decide how far we feel ourselves bound, elther to
support or to thwart the executive department, in the exercise of
its duties. There is no message, no document, no communica-
tion to us, which asks for our concurrence, otherwise than as we
shall manifest it by making the appropriation.

Undoubtedly, Sir, the President would be glad to know that
the measure met the approbation of the House, He must be
aware, anquestionably, that all leading measures mainly depend
for success on the support of Congress, Still, there is ne
evidence that on this occasion he has sought to throw off respon-
sibility from himself, or that he desires ua to be answerable for
any thing beyond the discharge of our own constitutional duties
Thave already said, Sir, that I know of no precedent for such a
proceeding as the amendment proposed by the gentleman from
Delaware. None which I think analogous has been cited, ‘The
resolution of the House, some years ago, on the subject of the
slave-trade, is a precedent the other way. A committee had re-

—

1st THE PANAMA MISSION.

ported that, in order to put an end to the slave-tmde, a mature
right of search might be admitted and arranged by negotiation
But this opinion was not incorporated, as the gentleman now
Proposes to incorporate his arhendment, into the resolution of
the House, The resolution only declared, in general terms, that
the President be requested to enter upon such negotiations with
other powers as he might deem expedient, for the effectual abo-
lition of the African slavettrade. It is singular enough, and
may serve as an admonition on the present occasion, that, o
negotiation having been coneluded, in conformity to the opinions
expressed, not, indeed, by the House, but by the committee, the
treaty, when laid before the Senate, was rejected by that body.
The gentleman from Delwware himself says, that the Con-
stitutional responsibility perthins alone to the executive depart-
ment, and that none other has to do with it, asa public measure.
‘These admizzions seem to'me to conclude the question; be-
cause, in the first place, if the constitutional res; ap.
alone to the President, he cannot devolve it on us if he
would ; and because, in the second place, I see no proof of any in
tention on his part so to devolve it on us, even if he had the power.
Mr. Chairman, | will here take occnsion, in order to prevent
misapprehension, to observe, that no one is more convinced than
I am, that it is the right of this House, and often its duty, to
express its general opinion in regard to questions of foreign
policy. Nothing, certainly, is more proper. I have concurred
in such proceedings, and am ready to do so again. On those
great subjects, for instance, which form the leading topics in this
discussion, it is not only the right of the House to express its
opinions, but I think it its duty to do so, if it should suppose the
executive to be pursuing a general course of policy which the
House itself will not ultimately approve. But that is something
entirely different from the present suggestion. Here it is pro-
posed to decide, by our vote, what shall be discussed by partiou-
lar ministers, already appointed, when they shall meet the min-
isters of the other powers. This is not a general expression of
opinion. It is‘a particular direction, or a special instruction. _
Tts operation is limited to the conduct of particular men, ona
particular occasion, Such a thing, Sir, is wholly unprecedented
ia our history. When the House proceeds in the accustomed
way, by general resolution, its sentiments apply as far as ex-

THE PANAMA MISSION. 185

pressed, to all public agents, and on all occasions. They apply
to the whole course of policy, and must necessarily be felt every-
where. But if we proceed by way of direction to particular
ministers, we must direct ther all. In short, we must take upon
ourselves to furnish diplomatic instructions in all cases.

‘We now propose to prescribe what our ministers shall discuss,
and what they shall not discuss, at Panama. But there is no
subject coming up for discussion at Panama, which might not
also be proposed for discussion either here, or at Mexico, or in
the capital of Colombia. If we direct what our ministers at
Panama shall or shall not say on the subject of Mr. Monroc’s
declaration, for example, why should we not proceed to say also
what our other ministers abroad, or our Secretary at home, shall
say on the same subject? There is precisely the same reason
for the one as for the other. The course of the House hitherto,
Sir, has not been such. It has expressed its opinions, when it
deemed proper to express them at all, on great leading questions,
by resolution, and in a general form. ‘These general opinions,
being thus made known, have doubtless always had, and such
expressions of opinion doubtless always will have, their effect.
This is the practice of the government. It is a salutary prac-
tice; but if we carry it further, or rather if we adopt a very dif-
ferent practice, and undertake to prescribe to our public minis-
ters what they shall discuss, and what they shall not discuss, we
take upon ourselves that which, in my judgment, does not at all
belong to us. I sce no more propriety in our deciding now in
what manner these ministers shall discharge their duty, than
there would have been in our prescribing to the President and
Senate what persons ought to be appointed ministers.

An honorable member from Virginia,* who spoke some days
augo, seems to go atill further than the member from Delaware.
He maintains, that we may distinguish between the various ob
jects contemplated by the executive in the proposed negotiation,
and adopt some and reject others. And this high, delicate, and
important trast, the gentleman deduces simply from our power
to withhold the ministers’ salaries. The process of the gentle-
man's argument appears to me as singular as its corclusion.
He founds himself on the legal maxim, that he who has the

* Mr. Rives.
16°

i

186 THE PANAMA MISSION.

power to give may annex to the gift whatever condition or quale
fication he chooses, This maxim, Sir, would be applicable to
the present case, if we were the sovereigns of the country; if
all power were in our hands; if the public money were entirely
our own; if our appropriation of it were mere grace and favor;
and if there were no restraints upon ns but our own sovereign
will and pleasure. But the argument totally forgets that we are
ourselves but public agents; that our power over the treasury is
but that of stewards over a trast fund; that we have nothing to
ive, and therefore no gifte to limit or qualify; that it is as
moeh our duty to appropriate to proper objects, as to withhold
from such as are improper; and that it is as
much, and as clearly, our duty to appropriate in a proper and
constitutional manner, as to appropriate at all,
‘The same honorable member advanced another idea, in which
T cannot coneur. He does not admit that confidence is to be
reposed in the executive, on the present occasion, because con-
fidence, he argues, implies only that, not knowing ourselves
what will be done in a given ease by others, we trast those who
are to act in it, that they will act right; and as we know the
course likely to be pursued in regard to this subject by the ex-
ecutive, confidence can have no place. This seems a singular
notion of confidence, and certainly is not my notion of that con-
fidence which the Constitution requires one branch of the gov
ernment to repose in another. The President is not our agent,
but, like ourselves, the agent of the people. ‘They have trasted
to his hands the proper duties of his office; and we are not to
take those duties out of his bands, from any opinion of our
own that we should execute them better ourselves. ‘The confi-
dence which is due from us to the executive, and from the ex~
ecutive to us, is not personal, but official and constitutional. It
has nothing to do with individual likings or dislikings; but
results from that division of power among departments, and
those limitations on the authority of each, which belong to the
nature and frame of our government. It would be unfortunate
indeed, if our line of constitutional action were to vibrate
backward and forward, according to our opinions of persons,
swerving this way to-day, from undue attachment, and the other
‘vay to-morrow, from distrust or dislike. This may sometimes
happen from the weakness of our virtues, or the excitement of

THE PANAMA MISSION. 187
our passions; but I trast it will not be coolly recommended to

That body is closely connected with the President in executive
measures, Its consent to these very appointments is made ab-
solutely necessary by the Constitution; yet it bas not seen fit,
in this or any other case, to take upon itself the respousibility of
directing the mode in which the negotiations should be con:
ducted.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I am for giving no instrac-
tions, advice, or directions in the case. 1 prefer leaving it where,
in my judgment, the Constitution has left it; to executive die-
eretion and executive responsibility.

Bat, Sir, I think there are other objections to the amendment.
There are parts of it which I could not agre to, if it were
proper to attach any such condition to our vote. As to all that
part of the amendment, indeed, which asserts the neutral policy
‘of the United States, and the inexpediency of forming alliances,
no man assents to those sentiments more readily, of more en-
tirely, than myself. On these pointe we are all agreed, Such
is our opinion; such, the President agsurea us, in terms, ia his
opinion; such we know to be the opinion of the country. If it
be thonght necessary to affirm opinions which no one either
denies or doubts, by a resolution of the House, I shall cheerfully
concur in it, But there is one part of the proposed amendment
to which I could not agree in any form. 1 wish to ask the gen-
tleman from Delaware himeelf to reconsider it. I pray him to
look at it again, and to see whether he means what it expresses
or implies; for, on this occasion, I should be more gratified by
seeing that the honorable gentleman himself had become sensi«
ble that he had fallen into some error in this reapect, than by
seeing the vote of the House againet him by any majority what-
ever.

That part of the amendment to which I now object is that
which requires, as a condition of the resolution before us, that
the ministers shall not “be authorized to discuss, consider, or
consult upon any measure which shal] commit the present or
future neutral rights or duties of these United States, either as
may regard Enropean nations, or between the several states of
Mexico and South America.”

=

188 THE PANAMA MISSION.

Tneed hardly repeat, that this amounts to a precise instruc
tion, It being understood that the ministers shall not be au-
thorized to discuss particular subjects, is a mode of speech pre-

equivalent to saying, “ provided the ministers be instruct-
ed,” or “the ministers being instructed, not to discuss those sub-
jects.” Notwithstanding all that bas been said, or can be said,

and definite inetruction. Jt prescribes to public ministers the

manner in which they are to conduct a pablic negotia-
tion; a duty manifestly and exclusively belonging, in my judg-
ment, to the executive, and not to us

But if we possessed the power to give instractions, this in-
struction would not be a proper one to give. Let us examine it.
The ministers shall not “ discuss, consider, or coneult upon any
measure which shall commit the present or future neutral rights
or duties of these United States, either as may Buropean
nations, or between the several states of Mexico and South
America.”

Now, Sir, in the first place, it is to be observed that they are
not only not to agree to any such measure, but they are not to
discuss it, If proposed to them, they are not to give reasons
for declining it. Indeed, they cannot reject it; they can only
say they are not authorized to consider it. Would it not be
better, Sir, to leave theee agents at liberty to explain the policy
of our government, fully and clearly, and to show the reasons
which induce us to abstain, as far as possible, from foreign con-
nections, and to act in all things with a serupnlous regard to
the duties of neutrality ?

But again; they are to discuss no measure which may com-
mit our neutral rights or duties. ‘Io commit is somewhat in-
definite. May they not modify or in any degree alter our
neutral rights and duties? If not, I hardly know whether a
common treaty of commerce could be negotinted; because ull
such treaties affect or modify, more or leas, the neutral rights or
dutics of the parties; capecially all such treaties as our habitual
policy leads us to form. But I suppose the author of the
amendment uses the word in a larger and higher sense, He
means that the ministers shall not discuss or consider any meas
ure which may have a tendency, in any degree, to place us iu a

THE PANAMA MISSION. 159

hostile attitude towards any foreign state. And here, again, one
cannot help repeating, that the prohibition is, not agninst propos-
ing or assenting to any such measure, but against considering it,

‘inst answering it if proposed, against resisting it with reasons,

But if this objection were removed, still the instruction could
not properly be given. What important or leading measure is
there, connected with our foreign relations, which can be adopt
ed without the possibility of committing us to the necessity of a
hostile attitude? Any assertion of our plainest rights may, by
possibility, have that effect. ‘The author of the amendment
seems to suppose that our pacilic relations can never be changed
but by our own option, He seems not to be aware that other
states may compel us, in defence of ovr own rights, to meus-
ures which, in their ultimate tendency, may commit our neu-
trality. Let me ask, if the ministers of other powers, at Pana-
ma, should signify to our agents that it was in contemplation
immediately to take some measure which these agents knew to
be hostile to our policy, adverse to our rights, and such as we
could not submit to; should they be left free to speak the senti-
ments of their government, to protest against the measure, and
to declare that the United States would not see it carried into
effect? Or should they, ns this amendment proposes, be en-
joined to silence, to let the measure proceed, in order that after-
wards, when perhaps we have gone to war to redress the evil, we
may learn that, if our objections had been fairly and frankly stat-
‘ed, the step would not have been taken? Look, Sir, to the very
tase of Cuba, the most delicate and vastly the most important
point in all oar foreign relations. Do gentlemen think they
exhibit skill or statesmanship in laying such restraints as they
propose on our ministers, in regard to this among other sub-
jects? It has been made matter of complaint, that the execu
tive has not used, already, a more decisive tone towards Mexico
and Colombin, in regard to their designs on this island. Pray,
Sir, what tone could be taken under these instruetions? Not
one word, not one aingle word, could be said on the subject. If
asked whether the United States would consent to the occupa:
tion of that island by those republics, or to its transfer by Spain
to a European power, or whether we should resist such occu-
pation or such transfer, what could they say? “That is a mat-
ter we cannot diseuss, and cannot consider; it would commir

i

9 “THE PANAMA MISSION,

vur nentral relations; we are not at liberty to express the senth-
ments of our government on the subject; we have nothing at ail
to say.” myers gentlemen wish, or what they

If, Sir, we give cee instractions, and they should be obeyed,
and inconvenience’ or evil result, who is answerable? And I
suppose it is expected they will be obeyed. Certainly it cannot
be intended to give them, and not take the responsibility of the
consequences, if they are followed. It cannot be intended to
hold the President answerable both ways; first, to compel him
to obey our instructions, and, secondly, to make him responsible
if evil comes from obeying them.

Sir, events may change. If we had the power to give instrac-
tions, and if these proposed instructions were proper to be given,
before we arrive at our own homes affairs may take a new di-
rection, and the public interest require new and corresponding
orders to our agenta abroad.

‘This is said to be an extraordinary case, and, on that account,
to justify our interference. If the fact were true, the consequence
would not follow. If it be the exercise of a power assigued by
the Constitution to the executive, it can make no difference
whether the occasion be common or uncommon. But, in truth,
there have been much stronger cases for the interference of the
House, where, nevertheless, the House has not interfered. For
example, in the negotiations for peace carried on at Ghent. In
that case, Congress, by both houses, hud declared war for cere
tain alleged causes. After the war had lasted some years, the
President, with the advice of the Senate, appointed ministers to
treat of peace; and he gave them such instructions as he saw
fit. Now, as the war was declared by Congress, and was waged
to obtain certain ends, it wonld have been plausible to say that
Congress ought to know the instructions under which peace
was to be negotiated, that they might see whether the objects
for which the war was declared had been abandoned. Yet no
such claim was set up. The President guve instractions such
ts his judgment dictated, and neither house asserted any right
of interference.

Sir, there are gentlemen in this House, opposed to this mis-
sion, who, I hope, will nevertheless consider this question of
amendment on general constitutional grounds. They are gen

trines, I moved the House to resolve—what? Simply that
provision ought to be made by law to defray the expense of an
agent or commissioner to that country, whenever the President
should deem it expedient to make such appointment. Did I
propose any instruction to the President, or any limit on bis dis-
cretion? None at all, Sir; none at all, What resemblance,
then, can be found between that resolution and this amend-
ment? Let those who think any such resemblance exists
adopt, if they will, the words of the resolution as a substitute
for this amendment. We shall gladly take them.

T am therefore, Mr. Chairman, against the amendment, not
‘only as not being a proper manner of exercising any power be-
Jonging to this House, but aleo as not containing instructions
fit to be given if we possessed the power of giving them. And
as my vote will reat on these grounds, I might terminate my re-
marks here; but the discussion has extended over a broader
surface, and, following where others have led, | will ask your in-
dulgence to a few observations on the more general topics of the
debate,

Mr. Chairman, it is our fortune to be called upon to act our
part as public men at a most interesting era in haman affairs.
‘The short period of your life and of mine has been thick and
‘crowded with the most important events. Not only new inter-
‘ests and new relations have sprang up among states, but new

© Mr. Hemphill,

—

192 ‘THE PANAMA MISSION.

societies, new nations, and families of nations, have risen to take
their places and perform their parts in the order and the inter-
course of the world. Every man aspiring to the character of a
statesman must endeavor to enlarge his views to meet this new
state of things. He must aim at an adequate comprehension of it,
und instead of being satisfied with that narrow political sagucity,
which, like the power of minute vision, sees small things accu-
rately, but can see nothing else, he must look to the far horizon,
and embrace in his broad survey whatever the series of recent
events has brought into connection, near or remote, with the
country whose interests he studies to serve.

We have seen eight states, formed out of colonies on our
own continent, assuine the rank of nations. ‘This is a mighty
revolution, and when we consider what an extent of the surface
of the globe they corer, through what climates they extend, what
population they contain, and what new impulses they must de+
tive from this change of government, we cannot but perceive
that great effects are likely to be produced on the intercourse
and the interests of the civilized world. Indeed, it has been for-
cibly said, by the intelligent and distinguished statesman who
conducts the foreign relations of England,’ that when we now
speak of Enrope and the world, we mean Europe and America;
and that the different systems of these two portions of the globe,
and their several and various interests, must be thoroughly stud-
ied and nicely balanced by the etateamen of the times.

In many respects, Sir, the European and the American na-
tions are alike. They are alike Christian states, civilized states,
and commercial states. They have access to the same common
fountains of intelligence; they all draw from those sources
which belong to the whole civilized world. In knowledge and
letters, in the arts of peace and war, they differ in degrees; but
they bear, neverthelege, a general resemblance. On the other
hand, in matters of government and social institution, the na-
tions on this continent are founded upon principles which never
did prevail, to considerable extent, either at any other time or in
any other place. There has never been presented to the mind
of man a more interesting subject of contemplation than the
establishment of so many nations in America, partaking in the
civilization and in the arts of the Old World, but having left be-

* Mr. Canning.

‘THE PANAMA MISSION. Ll 193

hind them those cambrous institutions which had their origin in
a dork and military age. Whatsoever European experience haa:
developed favorable to the freedom and the happiness of man,
whatever European genius has invented for his improvernent or
gratification, whatsoever of refinement or polish the culture of
European society presents for his adoption and enjoyment,—
all this is offered to man in America, with the additional adyan-
tage of the full power of erecting forms of government op free
and simple principles, without overturning institutions suited to
times long passed, but too strongly supported, either by interests
or prejudices, to be shaken without convulsions, ‘This unaprece-
dented state of things presenta the happiest of all occasions for
an attempt to establish national intercourse upon improved
principles, upon principles tending to peace and the mutual
prosperity of nations. Jn this respect America, the whole of
Amerien, has a new career before her. If we look back on the
history of Europe, we see for how great » portion of the Inst two
centuries her stntes have been at war for interests connected
mainly with her feudal monarchies, Wars for particular dynas-
‘ties, wars to support or provent particular successions, ware to
enlarge or curtail the dominions of particular crowns, wars to
support or to dissolve family alliances, wars to enforce or to
resist religions intolerance, —what long and bloody chapters do
‘not these fill in the history of European polities! Who does
not see, and who does not rejoice to sec, that America bas a
glorious chance of cacaping at least these causes of contention?
Who does not see, and who does not rejoice to see, that, on this
continent, under other forms of government, we have before us
the noble hope of being able, by the mere influence of civil lib
and religious toleration, to dry up these outpouring foun
tains of blood, and to extinguish these consuming fires of war
The general opinion of the age favors such hopes and such
There is a growing disposition to treat the inter
course of nations more like the useful intercourse of friends
philcsophy, just views of national advantage, good sense, the
dictates of a common religion, and an increasing conviction that
‘war is not the interest of the human race, all concur to magnify
‘the importance of this new accession to the list of nations.
‘We have heard it said, Sir, that the tople of South American
independence is worn out, and threadbare. Such it may be
vou. tl 7

Ml

is ‘THE PANAMA MISSION.
Sir, to those who have contemplated it merely as an article of

now bear to them, and the striking attitude in which we our-
selves are now placed, as the oldest of the American nations,

through all coming time.

But, Sir, although the independence of these new states
scems effectually accomplished, yet a lingering and hopeless war
is kept up against them by Spain. This is greatly to be regret-
ted by all nations. To Spain it is, as every reasonable man
sees, useless, and without hope. To the new states themselves
it ix burdensome and afilictive. To the commerce of neutral
nations it is annoying and vexatious. ‘There seems to be some-
thing of the pertinacity of the Spanish character in holding on
in such a desperate course, It reminds us of the seventy years
daring which Spain resisted the independence of Holland. 1
think, however, that there is some reason to believe that the war
approaches its end, I believe that the measures adopted by
our own government have had an effect in tending to produce
that result. I understand, at least, that the question of reeog-
nition has been taken into consideration by the Spanish govern-
ment; and it may be hoped that a war which Spain finds to be
#o expensive, which the whole world tells her is eo hopeless, and
which, if continued, now threatens her with new dangers, she
may, ere long, have the pradence to terminate.

Our own course doring this contest between Spain and her
colonies is well known. Though entirely and strictly neutral,
we were in favor of early recognition. Our opinions were known
to the allied sovereigns when in congress at Aix-la-Chapelle
im JSI8, at which time the affairs of Spain and her colonies
were under consideration; and probably the knowledge of thos

THE PANAMA MISSION. 18

sentiments, together with the policy adopted by England, pre-
vented any interference by other powers at that time, Yet we
have treated Spain with serapolous delicacy. We acted on the
case as one of civil war. We treated with the new govern
ments as governments de facto. Not questioning the right of
Spain to reduce them to their old obedience, if she had the
power, we yet held it to be our right to deal with them as with
existing governments in fact, when the moment arrived at which
it became apparent and manifest that the dominion of Spain
over these, her ancient colonies, was at an end. Our right, our
interest, and our duty. all concurred at that moment to recom-
mend the recognition of their independence. We accordingly
lized it,

Now, Sir, the history of this proposed congress goes back to
an earlier date than that of our recognition. It commences in
1821; and one of the treaties now before us, proposing such a
meeting, that between Colombia and Chili, was concluded in
July, 1822, a few months only after we had acknowledged the
independence of the new states. The idea originated, doubt-
less, in the wish to strengthen the union among the new govern-
‘ments, and to promote the common eavuse of all, the effectual
resistance to Spanish authority. As independence was at that
time their leading object, it is natural to suppose that they con-
templated this mode of mutunl intercourse and mutual arrange-
ment, as favorable to the concentration of purpose and of ac-
tion necessary for the attainment of that object, But this pur-
pose of the congress, or this leading idea, in which it may be
supposed to have originated, has led, as it seems to me, to great
misapprehensions as to its true character, and great mistakes in
regard to the danger to be apprehended from our sending min-
isters to the mecting, his mecting, Sir, is a congress; not a
congress as the word is known to our Constitution and laws,
for we use it in a peculiar sense; but as it is known to the law
of nations, A congress, by the law of nations, is bnt an ap-
pointed meeting for the settlement of affairs between different
nations, in which the representatives or agents of each treat and
hegotinte as they are instructed by their own government. In
other words, this congress is a diplomatic meeting. We are
asked to join no government, no legislature, no league, acting
by votes. It is a congress, such as those of Westphalia, o/

=

196 THE PANAMA MISSION.

Nimeguen, of Ryswick, or of Utrecht; or such as those which
‘ave been held in Europe m >ur own time. No nation fs a
party to any thing done in such assemblies, to which it does not
expressly make itself a party, No one’s rights are put at the
disposition of any of the rest, or of all the rest. What minis.
tors ayree to, being afterwards duly ratified at home, binds their
government; and nothing else binds the government. ‘Whatso-
ever is done, to which they do not assent, neither binds the min-
‘isters nor their government, any more than if they had not been

it.

‘These tmiths, Sir, seem too plain and too commonplace to
be stated, I find my apology only in those ‘misapprehensions
of the character of the mecting to which I have referred both
now and formerly. It has been said that commercial treaties
are not negotiated at euch meetings. Far otherwise ix the fact.
Among the earliest of important stipulations made in favor of
commerce and navigation, were those at Westphalian. What
we call the treaty of Utrecht, was a bundle of treaties, negotiat-
ed at that congress; some of pence, some of boundary, and
others of commerce. Again, it has been said, in order to prove
that this meeting is a sort of confederacy, that such assemblies
are out of the way of ordinary negotiation, and are always
founded on, and provided for, by previous treaties. Pray, Sir,
what treaty preceded the congress ut Utrecht? And the meeting
of our plenipotentiaries with those of England at Ghent, what
‘was that bat a congress? and what treaty preeeded it? It is
said, again, that there is no sovercign to whom our ministers can
be accredited. Let me ask whether, in the case last cited, our
ministers exhibited their credentials to the Mayorof Ghent? Sir,
the practice of nations in these matters is well known, and is
free from difficulty. If the government be not present, agents or
plenipotentiaries interchange their eredentinls. And when it is
said that our ministers at Panama will be, not ministers, but
deputies, members of a deliberative body, not protected in their
public character by the public law, propositions are advanced
of which I see no evidence whatever, and which appear to me
to be wholly without foundation.

It is contended that this congress, by virtue of the treaties
whith the new states have entered into, will possess powers
other than those of a diplomatic character, as between those

THE PANAMA MISSION, 1%

new states themselves. If that were so, it would be uninpore
tant to us. The real question bere is, What will be our relay
tion with those states, by sending ministers to this congress?
‘Their arrangement among themselves will not affect us. Even
if it were a government, like our old Confederation, yet, if its
members had authority to treat with us in behalf of their re+
spective nations on subjects on which we have a right to treat,
* the congress might still be a very proper occasion for such ne=
gotiations, Do gentlemen forget that the French minister was
introduced to our old Congress, mot it in its sessions, carried on
oral discussions with it, and treated with it in behalf of the
French king? All that did not make him a member of it, nor
connect. him at all with the relations which its members bore to
each other. As be treated on the subject of carrying on the war
against England, it was, doubtless, hostile towards that power;
but this consequence followed from the object and nature of the
stipulations, and not from the manner of the intercourse. The
representatives of these South American states, it is said, will
entertain belligerent counsels at this congress. Be it we
‘shall not join in such counsels, At the moment of invitation,
our government informed the ministers of those states, that we
could not make ourselves a party to the war between them and
Spain, nor to counsele for deliberating on the means of its further

prosecution.

Uf, it ix asked, we send ministers to 2 congress composed alto-
gether of belligerents, is it not a breach of neutrality? Cer
tainly not; no man can say it is. Suppose, Sir, that these
ministers from the new states, instead of Panama, were to
assemble at Bogota, where we already have a minister; their
counsels at that place might be belligerent, while the war should
last with Spain, But should we on that account recall our
minister from Bogota? The whole argument rests on this;
that because, at the same time and place, the agents of the
South American governments may negotiate about their own
relations with cach other, in regard to their common war against
Spain, therefore we cannot, at the same time and place, nego-
tinte with them, or any of them, upon our own neutral and com-
mercial relations, This proposition, Sir, cannot be maintained ;
and therefore all the inferences from it fail.

Bat, Sir, 1 see no proof that, as between themselves, the rep

198 ‘THE PANAMA MISSION

rescntatives of the South American states are to possess other
than diplomatic powers, I refer to the treaties, which are essen-
tially alike, and which have been often read.

‘With two exceptions, (which I will notice, the articles of
these treaties, describing the powers of the congress, ure sub-
stantially ike thoee of the treaty of Pari in 1818, providing for
the congress at Vienna. It was there stipulated that all the
powers should send plenipotentiaries to Vienna, to regulate, in
general congress, the arrangements to complete the provicions
of the present treaty. Now, it might have been here asked, how
regulate? How regulate in general congress?—regulate by
votes? Sir, nobody asked such questions; simply because it
was to be a congress of plenipotentiaries. The two exceptions
which I have mentioned are, that this congress is to act as a
council, and to interpret treaties; but there is nothing in either
of these to be done which may not be done diplomatically.
What is more common than diplomatic intercourse, to explain
and to interpret treaties? Or what more frequent than that na-
tions, having a common object, interchange mutual counsels and
advice, through the medium of their respective ministers? ‘To
bring this matter, Sir, to the test, let me ask, When these minix-
ters assemble at Panama, can they do any thing but according
to their instructions? Have they any organization, any power
of action, or any rule of action, common to them all? No more,
Sir, than the respective ministers at the congress of Vienna.
Every thing is settled by the use of the word Pleuipotentiary.
‘That proves the mecting to be diplomatic, and nothing else.
‘Who ever heard of a plenipotentiary member of the legislature?
a plenipotentiary burgess of a city? or a plenipotentiary knight
of the shire?

We may dismiss all fears, Sir, arising from the nature of this
mecting. Our agents will go there, if they go at all, in the
character of rninisters, protected by the public law, negotiating
only for ourselves, and not called on to violate any neutral
daty of their own government. If it be that this meeting will
have other powers, in consequence of other arrangements bes
tween other states, of which I see no proof, still we shall not be
a party to these arrmngements, nor ean we be in any way affect-
ed by them, As far as this government is concerned, nothing
can be done but by negotiation, as in other cases.

‘THE PANAMA MISSION, 199

It has been affirmed, that this measure, and the sentiments
expressed by the executive relative to its objects, are an acknowl-
from the neutral policy of the United States
Sir, I deny that there is an acknowledged departure, or any de-
parture at all, from the neutral policy of the country. What do
‘we mean by our noutral policy? Not, I suppose, a blind and
"ee poe eel Relat nampa ook ie us; not a total
disregard to approaching events, or approaching evils, till they
meet us fall in the face. Nor do we mean, by our neutral policy,
that we intend never to assert our rights by force. No, Sir. We
mean by our policy of neutrality, that the great objects of na-
tional pursuit with us are connected with peace. We covet no
provinces; we desire no conquests; we entertain no ambitious
jects of aggrandizement by war. This is our policy, But it
does not follow from this, that we rely less than other nations
on our own power to vindicate our own rights. We know that
the last logic of kings ie also our last logic; that our own inter-
ests must be defended and maintained by our own arm; and
that peace or war may not always be of our own choosing.
Onur neutral policy, therefore, not only justifies, but requires, our
anxious attention to the political events which take place in the
world, a skilful perception of their relation to our own concerns,
and an early anticipation of their consequences, and firm and
timely assertion of what we hold to be our own rights and our
own interests. Our neutrality is mot a predetermined absti-
nence, either from remonstrances, or from force, Our neutral
policy ia a policy that protects neutrality, that defends neutrality,
that takes up arma, if need be, for neutrality. When it is said,
therefore, that this measure departs from our neutral policy,
either that policy, or the measure itself, is misunderstood. Tt
implies either that the object or the tendency of the measure is
to involve us in the war of other states, which I think cannot
he shown, or that the assertion of our own sentiments, on points
affecting deeply our own interests, may place us in a hostile
nttitade toward other states, and thnt therefore we depart from
neutrality; whereas the truth is, that the decisive assertion and
the firm support of these sentiments may be most essential tc
the maintenance of neutrality,
An hororable member fromm Pennsylvania thinks this congreas
will bring a dark day over the United States. Doubtless, Sir, it

=—

200 THE PANAMA MISSION.

is an interesting moment im our history; but T see no greay
proofs of thick-corming darkness. But the object of the remark
seemed to be to show that the President himself saw difficulties
on all sides, and, making a choice of evils, preferred rather to
send ministers to this congress, than to run the risk of exciting
the hostility of the states by refasing to send. In other words,
the gentleman wished to prove that the President intended an
alliance; although such intention is expressly disclaimed.

Much has been bestowed on the letters of invi-
tation from the ministers. Lshall not go through with verbal
criticisms on these letters, ‘Their general import is plain enough.
Tshall not gather together small and minute taking
a sentence here, a word there, and a syllable in w third place,
dovetailing them into the course of remark, till the printed dis-
course bristles in every line with inverted commas. J look to
the general tenor of the invitations, and I find that we are asked
to take part only in such things as concern ourselves. I look
still more carefully to the answers, and I see every proper can-
tion and proper guard. T look to the message, and I see that
nothing is there contemplated likely to involve us in other men’s
quarrels, or that may justly give offence to any foreign state.
With this I aro satisfied.

I must now ask the indulgence of the committee to an im-
portant point in the discussion, I mean the declaration of the
President in 1823" Not only as a member of the House, but
as a citizen of the country, ] have an anxious desire that this
part of our public history should stand in its proper light. The
country has, in my judgment, a very high honor connected with
that occurrence, which we may maintain, or which we may sne-
fifice. J look upon it asa part of its treasures of reputation ;
and, for one, I intend to guard it,
as Da Pee eens ees Se eee
Enropean powers. in matters relating 0 themselves, we have never taken any
part, nor does it comport with our polioy so to do. It is only when our Fights
are luvaded, or seriously menaced, that we resent Injuries or make p
for defence. With the movements in this hemisphere we ure of necessity more
immodiately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened
and impartial observers. ‘Thr political aystem of the Allied Powers is essertially
different, in this respect, from that of America. ‘This difference from
twat which exists in their tive governments. And to the of our

awe, which hoe been achieved by the loss of so much blood aad treasure, and
matured by the wiedom of their most eulightened citizens, and undor which we

THE PANAMA MISSION, oO

was, whether Ferdinand should be reinstated in all his authority,
by the intervention of foreign force. Russia, Prussia, France,
and Austria were inclined to that measure; England dissented
and protested; but the course was agreed on, and France, with
the consent of these other Continental powers, took the conduct
of the operation into her own hands. In the spring of 1823, a
French army was sent into Spain. Its success was complete.
‘The popular government was overthrown, and Ferdinand re-
established in all his power, This invasion, Sir, was determined
on, and undertaken, precisely on the doctrines which the allied
monarchs had proclaimed the year before, at Laybach; that
ig, that they had a right to interfers in the concerns of an-
other state, and reform its government, in order to prevent the
effects of its bad exarnple; this bud example, be it remembered,
always being the example of free government. Now, Sir, act-
ing on this principle of supposed dangerous example, aud have
ing pat down the example of the Cortes in Spain, it was nat-
ural to inquire with what eyes they would look on the colonics
of Spain, that were following still worse examples. Would
King Ferdinand and his allies be content with what had been
done in Spain itself, or would he solicit their aid, and was it
likely they would grant it, to subdue his rebellious American
2

Sir, it was in this posture of affairs, on an occasion which has
already been alluded to, that I ventured to suy, carly in the sen-
sion of December, 1823, that these allied monarchs might possi-
bly turn their attention to America; that America came within

have enjoyed euch unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe
it, to candor, and to the amicable relations existing betwoen the United
‘States and thove po declare that we should consider any atunonpt on their
‘part to extend their systom to any portion of this hemisphere ax dangerous to
Our peace and safery. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any Euro
pean porter, we hare not interfered aud shal) not interfere, But with the gore
fmnments who have declared their independence and maintained it, aud whose ine

‘we have on great consideration and on just principles acknowledged,
‘we eould not view any interposition for the purpose of oppreswing them, or eou-
frolling in any other manner their destiny, in any other ight thaa aa the mani
festatinn of an unfriendly disposition toward tho United Statee

a

THE PANAMA MISSION.

their avowed doctrine, and that her examples might very possi-
bly attract their notice, The doctrines of Laybach were not
limited to any continent. Spain had colonies in America, and
having reformed Spain herself to the true standard, it was not
impossible that they might see Git to complete the work by rec-
onciling, in their way, the colonies to the mother country. Now,
Sir, it did so buppen, that, as soon as the Spanish king was
completely reéstablished, he invited the codperation of his al-
lies, in regard to South America. In the same month of De-
vember, of 1823, a formal invitation was addressed by Spain to
the courts of St, Petersburg, Vienna, Berlin, and Paris, propos+
ing to establish a conference at Paris, in order that the
tentiaries there assembled might aid Spain in adjusting the
affairs of her revolted provinces. ‘'hese affairs were proposed te
be adjusted in sach manner as should retain the sovercignty of
Spain over them; and though the cobperation of the allies by
force of arms was not directly solicited, such was evidently the
object aimed at. The king of Spain, in making this request te
the members of the Holy Alliance, argued as it has been seen
he might argue. Ee quoted their own doctrines of Laybach;
he pointed out the pernicious example of America; and he re-
minded them that their succees in Spain itself had paved the
way for successful operations against the spirit of liberty on this
side of the Atlantic.

The proposed meeting, however, did not take place. Engy
land had already taken a decided course; for ns carly as Octo-
ber, Mr. Canning, in a conference with the French minister in
London, informed him distinctly and expressly, that England
would consider any foreign interference, by force or by menace,
in the dispate between Spain and the colonies, as a motive for
recognizing the latter without delay. It is probable this deter-
mination of the English government was known here at the com-
mencement of the session of Congress; and it was under these
circumstances, it was in this crisis, that Mr. Monroe's declaration
was made, It was not then ascertained whether a meeting of
the allies would or would not take place, to concert with Spain
the means of reéstablishing her power; but it was plain enough
they would be pressed by Spain to aid her operations; and it was
plain enough, also, that they had no particular liking to what war
taking place on this side of the Atlantic, nor any great disinclina

THE PANAMA MISSION, 208

tion to interfere. This was the posture of affaira; and, Sir, 1
concur entirely in the sentiment expressed in the resolution of a
gentleman from Pennaylvania,* that this declaration of Mr. Mon-
roe was wise, seasonable, and patriotic.

Tt has been said, in the course of this debate, to have been a
loose and vague declaration. It was, I believe, sufficiently
studied. I have understood, from good authority, that it was
considered, weighed, and distinetly and decidedly approved, by
every one of the President's advisers at that time. Our govern-
ment could not adopt on that occasion precisely the course
which England had taken. England threatened the immediate
recognition of the provinces, if the Allies should take part with
‘Spain against them. We hud already recognized them. It re
mained, therefore, only for our government to say how we should
consider a combination of the Allied Powers, to effect objects in
America, as affecting ourselves; and the message was intended
to say, what it does say, that we should regard such combina-
tion as dangerous to us. Sir, | agree with those who maintain
the proposition, aud I contend against those who deny it, that
the message did menn something; that it meant much; and J
maintain, against both, that the declaration effected much good,
answered the end designed by it, did great honor to the foresight
and the spirit of the government, and that it cannot now be
taken back, retracted, or annulled, without disgrace. It met,
Sir, with the entire concurrence and the hearty approbation of
the country. ‘he tone which it uttered found a corresponding
responee in the breasts of the free people of the United States.
That people saw, and they rejoiced to see, that, on a fit occa-
sion, our weight had been thrown into the right seale, and that,
without departing from our duty, we had done something use-
ful, and something effectual, for the cause of civil liberty. One
general glow of cxultation, one universal feeling of the gratified
love of liberty, one conscious and proud perception of the con-
sideration which the country possessed, and of the respect and
honor which belonged to it, pervaded all bosoms. Possibly the
public enthusiasm went too far; it certainly did go far. But,
Sir, the sentiment which this declaration inspired was not con-
fined to ourselves, Its force was felt everywhere, by all those
who vould understand its object and foresee its eflect. Ln that

* Mr. Marklew

on THE PANAMA MISSION.

very House of Commons of whieh the gentleman from South
Carolina has spoken with such commendation, how was it re-
ceived? Not only, Sir, with approbation, but, I may say, with
no little enthusiasm. While the leading minister® expressed

to give utterance to all the feeling of the occasion, declared that
no event had ever created greater joy, exultation, and gratitude
among all the free men in Europe; that be felt pride in being
connected by blood and language with the people of the United
States; that the policy disclosed by the message became a
great, a free, and an independent nation; und that be hoped his
own country would be prevented by no mean pride, or paltry
jealousy, from following eo noble and glorious an example.

It is doubtless true, as I took occasion to observe the other
day, that this declaration must be considered us founded on our
tights, and to spring mainly from # regard to their preservation.
It did not commit us, at all events, to take up arms on any in
ication of hostile fecling by the powers of Burope towards
South America. If, for example, all the states of Europe had
refused to trade with South America until her states should
return to their former allegiance, that would have fonished no
cause of interference to us. Or if an armament had been far
nished by the Allies to act against provinces the most remote
from us, ns Chili or Buenos Ayres, the distance of the scene
of action diminishing our apprehension of danger, and dimin-
ishing alao our means of effecvual interposition, might still
have left us to content ourselves with remonstrance. But a
very different case would have arisen, if an army, equipped and
maintained by these powers, had been landed on the shores of
the Gulf of Mexico, and commenced the war in our own imme-
diate neighborhood. Such an event might justly be regarded
a8 dangerous to ourselves, and, on that ground, call for decided
and immediate interference by ux The sentiments and the
policy announced by the declaration, thus understood, were,
therefore, in strict conformity to our duties and our interest.

Sir, | look-on the message of December, 1823, a8 forming u
bright page in our history. I will help neither to erase it nor tear

* Mr. Canning. + Mr. Brougham.

‘THE PANAMA MISSION 05

tt out; nor shall it be, by any act of mine, blurred oF blotted,
It did honor to the sagacity of the government, and 1 will not
diminieh that honor. It elevated the hopes, and gratified the
patriotism, of the people. Over those hopes T will not bring a
mildew ; nor will T put that gratified patriotism to shame.

But how should it happen, Sir, that there should now be such
a new-born fear on the subject of this declaration? The crisis
is over; the danger'is past. At the time it was made, there was
real ground for apprehension; mow there is none. Tt was then
possible, perhaps not improbable, that the Allied Powers might in-
terfere with America, There is now no ground for any such fear,
Most of the gentlemen who have now spoken on the subject were
at that time here. They all heard the declaration. Not one of
them complained. And yet now, when all danger is over, we
are vehemently warned againat the sentiments of the declaration.

‘To avoid this apparent inconsistency, it is, however, contend-
ed, that new force has been recently given to this declaration.
But of this I'see no evidence whatever. I see nothing in any
instructions or communications from our government changing
the chameter of that declaration in any degree. There is, as 1
have before said, in one of Mr. Poinsett’s letters, an inaccuracy
of expression. If he hns recited correetly his conversation with
‘the Mexican minister, he did go too far, farther than any instruc
ion warranted. But, taking his whole correspondence together,
it fs quite manifest that he has deceived nobody, and that he has
‘not committed the country. On the subject of a pledge, he put
“the Mexican minister entirely right. He stated to him distinctly,
that this government had given no pledge which others could
call upon it to redeem. What could be more explicit? Again,
‘Sir, it is plain that Mexico thought us under no greater pledge
than England; for the letters to the English and American min-
‘eters, requesting interference, were in precisely the same words,
‘When this passage in Mr. Poinsett's letter was first noticed, we
were assured there was and must be some other authority for it,
Tt was confidently said he had instractions authorizing it in his
pocket, It turns out otherwise. As little ground is there to
complnin of any thing in the Secretary's letter to Mr. Poinsett,
It seems to me to be precisely what it should be. It does not,
‘we has been alleged, propose any coiperation between the gov
vriment of Mexico and our own, Nothing like it. It instructs

YOL. te 18

a

206 THE PANAMA MISSION.

our ministers to bring to the notice of the Mexican government
the line of policy which we have marked out for ourselves, act-
tng on our own grounds, and for onr own Interests; and to sug.
gest to that government, acting on its own ground, and for its
own a ae ID See SS Here,
Bir, is no alliance, nor even any

So, ngain, ns to Be coavatoe desi wuiab voted to the appear-
ance of the French flect in the West India seas. Be it remem-
bered that our government was contending, in the conrse of this

with Mexico, for an equality in matters of com-
merce. It insisted on being placed, in this respect, on the same
footing as the other Spanish American states. To enforce this
claim, our known friendly sentiments towards Mexico, as well
as to the rest of the new states, were suggested, and properly
suggested. Mexico was reminded of the timely declaration
which had been made of these sentiments, She was reminded
that she herself had been well inclined to claim the benefit re-
sulting from that declaration, when a French fleet appeared in
the neighboring seas; and she was referred to the course adopted
by our government on that occasion, with an intimation that
she might learn from it how the same government wonld have
acted if other possible contingencies had happened. What is
there in all this of any renewed pledge, or what is there of any
thing beyond the true line of our policy? Do gentlemen mean
‘to say that the communication made to France, on this occasion,
was improper? Do they mean to repel and repudiate that
declarstion? That declaration was, that we could not see Cuba
transferred from Spain to another European power. If the
House mean to contradict that, be it so. If it do not, then, as
the government had acted properly in this case, it did furnish
ground to believe it would act properly, also, in other cases, when
they arose. And the reference to this incident or oceurrence by
the Secretary was pertinent to the argument which he yas
pressing on the Mexican government.

Thave but a word to say on the subject of the declaration
against European colonization in America. The Inte Presiden.
scems to have thought the occasion used by him for that pur-
pose to be a proper one for the open avowal of a principle which
had already been acted on, Great and practical inconveniences,
it was feared, might be apprehended from the establishment of

THE PANAMA MISSION. 207

aew colonies in America, having a European origin and a Bue
ropean connection. Attempts of that kind, it was obvious.
might possibly be made, amidst the changes that were taking
place in Mexico, as well as in the more southern states, Mex-
ico bounds us, on a vast length of line, from the Gulf of Mexico
to the Pacific Ocean. There are many reasons why it should
not be desired by us, that an establishment, under the protection
of a different power, should occupy any portion of that space.
We have a general interest, that, through all the vast territoricy~
resened from the dominion of Spain, our commerce may find its
way, protected by treaties with governments existing on the
spot. These views, and others of a similar character, rendered
it highly desirable to us, that these new states should settle it,
asa part of their policy, not to allow colonization within their
Tespective territories. ‘Trae, indeed, we did not need their aid
to aasist us in maintaining such a course for ourselves; but we
had an interest in their assertion and support of the principle as
applicable to their own territories. =
T now proceed, Mr. Chairman, to a few remarks on the subject
of Cuba, the most important point. of our foreign relations. It
is the hinge on which interesting events may possibly turn, I
pray gentlemen to review their opinions on this subject before
they fally commit themselves, I understood the honorable
member from South Carolina to say, that if Spain chose to
transfer this island to any power in Europe, she had a right to
do so, and we could not interfere to prevent it Sir, this is a
delicate subject. 1 hardly feel competent to treat it aa it de-
serves; and I am not quite willing to state here all that 1 think
about it. [ must, however, dissent from the opinion of the gen-
tleman from South Carolina. The rights of nations, on subjects
of this kind, are necessarily very much modified by circurustances.
Because England or France could not rightfully complain of the
transfer of Florida to us, it by no means follows, as the gentle
man supposes, that we could not complain of the cession of Cu-
ba to one of them. ‘The plain difference is, that the transfer of
Florida to us was not dangerous to the safety of either of those
nations, nor fatal to any of their great and essential interests.
Proximity of position, neighborhood, whatever augments the
power of injuring and annoying, very properly belong to the con-
sideration of all cascs of this kind, ‘The greater or loss facility

—

208 THE PANAMA MISSION.

of access itself is of considemtion in such questions, becauze it
brings, or may bring, weighty consequences with it. It justifies,
for these reasons and on these grounds, what otherwise might
never be thought of, By negotiation with a foreign power, Mr.
Jefferson obtained a province. Without any alteration of our
Constitution, we have made it part of the United States, and its
Senators and Representatives, now coming from several States,
are here among us. Now, Sir, if, instead of being Louisiana,
‘this had been one of the provinces of Spain proper, or one of her
South American colonies, he must have been ‘a madman that
should have proposed such an acquisition. A high conviction of
its convenience, arising from proximity and from close natural
connection, alone reconciled the country to the measure. Con-
siderations of the sume sort have weight in other cnses.

An honorable member from Kentucky * argues, that although
we might rightfully prevent another power from taking Cuba
from Spain by force, yet, if Spain should choose to make the
voluntary transfer, we should have no right whatever to in-
terfere. Sir, this is a distinction without a difference. If we
are likely to have contention about Cuba, let us firet well con-
sider what our rights are, aid not commit ourselves. And,
Sir, if we have any right to interfere at all, it upplies as well to
the case of a peaceable as to that of a forcible transfer. If na-
tions be at war, we are not judges of the question of right in
that war; we must acknowledge in both parties the mutual
right of attack and the mutual right of conquest, It is not for
us to set bounds to their belligerent operations so long as they
do not affect ourselves. Our right to interfere in any euch case
is but the exercise of the right of reasonable and necessary sel{-
defence. It is n high and delicate exercise of that right; one
not to be made but on grounds of strong ond manifest reason,
justice, and necessity. The real question is, whether the posses
sion of Cuba by a great maritime power of Europe would seri-
ously endanger our own immediate security or our essential in-
terests, 1 put the question, Sir, in the language of some of the
best considered atate papers of modern times. ‘The general rule
of national law 4s, unquestionably, aguinst interference in the
transactions of other states. There are, however, acknowledge I

* Mr. Wioktiffe.

THE PANAMA MISSION, 209

exceptions, growing out of elreumstances and founded in those
circumstances. These exceptions, it has been properly said,
cannot without danger be reduced to previous rule, and incor
fasted inte the: orthoses Ginlocreey of patiGun: Nevertheless,
they do exist, and must be judged of, when they arise, with a
just regard to our own essential interests, but in a spirit of strict
justice and delicacy also towards foreign states,

The ground of these exceptions is, as I have already stated,
selfpreservation. It is not a slight injury to our interest, it in
not even a great inconvenience, that makes out a case. There
must be donger to our security, or danger, manifest and immi-
nent danger, to our essential rights and our essential interests,
Now, Sir, let us look at Cuba. 1 need hardly refer to its pres-
ent amount of commercial connection with the United States,
Our statistical tables, I presume, would show us that our com-
merce with the Havana alone is more in amount than our whole
commercial intercourse with France and all her dependencies,
But this is but one part of the case, and not the most important.
Cuba, as is well said in the report of the Committee of Foreign
Affairs, is placed in the mouth of the Mississippi. Its ocenpas
tion by a strong maritime power would be felt, in the first mo-
ment of hostility, as far up the Mississippi and the Missouri as
our population extends, It is the commanding point of the
Galf of Mexico, See, too, how it lies in the very line of our
coastwise traffic; interposed in the very highway between
New York and New Orleans.

Now, Sir, who has estimated, or who can estimate, the effect
ofa change which should place this island in other hands, sub-
ject it to new rules of commercial intercourse, or connect it with
objects of a different and still more dangerous nature? Sir, I
repeat that I feel no disposition to pursue this topic on the pres-
ent occasion. My purpose is only to show its importance, and
to beg gentlemen not to prejudice any rights of the country by
assenting to propositions, which, perhaps, it may be necessary
hereafter to review.

And here I differ again with the gentleman from Kentucky
Mle thinks, that, in this as in other cuses, we should wait till the
event comes, without any previous declaration of our sentimente
upon subjects important 19 our own rights or our own interests
Sir, sucn declarations are often the appropriate means of pre-

Is*

=

‘THE PANAMA MISSION.

that which, if unprevented, it might be difficult to re
A great object in holding diplomatic intercourse is
‘to expose the views and objects of nations, and to pre-
by candid explanation, collision and war. In this case,
we government had said that we could not assent to the trans
of Cuba to another European state. Can we so assent?
gentlemen think we can? If not, then it was entirely proper
t this intimation should be frankly and seasonably made.
Candor required it; and it would have been unpardonable, it
would have been Injustice, as well as folly, to be silent while
we might suppose the transaction to be contemplated, and
then to complain of it afterwards If we should have a sub-
sequent right to complain, we have a previous right, equally
clear, of protesting; and if the evil be one which, when it
comes, would allow us to apply a remedy, it not only allows
us, bot it makes it our duty, also to apply prevention.

Bat, Sir, while some gentlemen have maintained that on the
subject of a transfer to any of the European powers the Presi-
dent has said too much, others insist that on that of the occupn-
tion of the island by Mexico or Colombia he has said and done
too little. 1 presume, Sir, for my own part, that the strongest
Jangnage has been directed to the source of greatest danger.
Heretofore that danger was, doubtless, greatest which was ap-
prehended from a voluntary transfer. The other has been met
‘os it arose; and, thus far, adequately and sufficiently met.

And here, Sir, I cannot but say that I never knew 1 more ex-
traordinary argument than we have heard on the conduct of the
executive on this part of the case. ‘The President is charged
with inconsistency; and in order to make this out, public de-
spatches are read, whieh, it is said, militate with one another.

Sir, what are the facts? This government saw fit to invite
the Emperor of Russia to use hia endeavors to bring Spain to
trent of pence with her revolted colonies. Russia was addressed
on this occasion as the friend of Spain; and, of course, every ar-
gument which it was thought might bave influence, or onght to
have influence, cither on Russia or Spain, was suggested in the
correspondence. Among other things, the probable lose to Spain
of Cuba and Porto Rico was urged; and the question was
asked, how it was or could be expected by Spain, that the
United States should interfere to prevent Mexico and Colormbie

FET?

gon

a

fr

THE PANAMA MISSION. 2u

from taking those islands from her, since she was their enemy,
in a public war, and since she pertinaciously, and unreasonably,
as we think, insists on maintaining the war; and since these
islands offered an obvious object of attack. Was not this, Sir,
@ very proper argument to be urged to Spain? A copy of this
despatch, it seems, was sent to the Senate in confidence. It has
not been published by the executive. Now, the alleged iricon-
eae that, notwithstanding this letter, the President har

interfered to dissuade Mexico and Colombia from attacking
‘Cuba; that, finding or thinking thet those states meditated such
@ purpose, this government has urged them to desist from it.
‘Sir, was ever any thing more unreasonable than this charge?
‘Was it not proper, that, to produce the desired result of peace,
our government should address different motives to the different
parties in the war? Was it not its business to set before each
party its dangers and its difficulties in pursuing the war? And
if now, by any thing unexpected, these respective correspond-
ences have become public, are these different views, addressed
thus to different parties and with different objects, to be relied on
as proof of inconsistency? It is the strangest accusation ever
heard of. No government not wholly destitute of common
sense would have acted otherwise. We urged the proper mo-
tives to both parties. To Spain we urged the probable loss of
Cuba; we showed her the dangers of its capture by the new
states; and we asked her to inform us on what ground it was
that we could interfere to prevent such capture, since she was at
‘war with those states, and they had an unquestionable right to
attack her in any of her territories; and, especially, she was
asked how she could expect good offices from us on this occa.
sion, since she fully understood our opinion to be that she was
persisting in the war without or beyond all reason, and with
sort of desperation. This was the appeal made to the good
sense of Spain, through Russia. But soon afterwards, having
reason to euspect that Colombia and Mexico were actually pre-
paring to attack Cuba, and knowing that sueh an event would
most seriously affect us, our government remonstrated against
such meditated attack, and to the present time it has not been
made, In all this, who sces any thing either improper or incon:
sistent? For myself, £ think that the course pursued showed a
‘watchful regard to our own interest, and is wholly free from ans
‘nyputation either of impropriety or ineonsistency.

—

22 ‘THE PANAMA MISSION.

There are other subjects, Sir, in the President's message
which have been discussed in the debate, but on which I shall
not long detain the committee.

It cannot be denied, that, from the commencement of our gov
ernment, it has been its object to improve and simplify the prine
ciples of national intercourse. It may well be thought a fit oc
casion to urge these improved principles at a moment when so
many new states are coming into existence, untrammelled, of
course, with previous and long-established connections or habits,
‘Some hopes of benefit connected with these topics are suggest-
ed in the message.

‘The abolition of private war on the ocean is also among the
subjects of possible consideration, ‘This is not the first time
that that subject has been mentioned. The late President took
occasion to enforce the considerations which he thought recor
mended it. For one, 1 am not prepared to say how far such
abolition may be practicable, or how far it ought to be punued;
but there are views belonging to the subject which have not
been, in any degree, answered or considered in this discussion.
Tt is not always the party that has the power of employing the
lorgest military marine that derives the greatest benefit from
authorizing privateers in war. It is not enough that there are
brave and gallant captors; there must be something to be cap-
tured. Suppose, Sir, a war between ourselves and any one of
the new states of South America were now existing, who would
lose most by the practice of privateering in such a war? There
would be nothing for us to attack, while the means of attacking
us would flow to our enemies from every part of the world.
Capital, ships, and men would be abundant in all their ports,
and our commerce, spread over every sea, would be the destined
prey. So, again, if war should unhappily spring up among
those states themselves, might it not be for our interest, as being
likely to be much connected by intercourse with all parties, that
our commerce should be free from the visitation and vearch of
private armed ships, one of the greatest vexations to neutral
commerce in time of war? ‘These, Sir, are some of the consid-
erations belonging to this subject. | have mentioned them only
to show that they well deserve scrious attention.

Ihave not intended to reply to the tiany observations which
have been submitted to us on the message of the President to

THE PANAMA MISSION. 213

this Houze, or that to the Senate, Certainly 1 am of opinion,
that some of those obeervations merited an anewer, and they
have been answered by others. On two points only will I make
aremark. It has been said, and often repeated, that the Presi-
dent, in his message to the Senate, hus spoken of his own power
in regard to missions in terms which the Constitution does not
warrant. If gentlemen will turn to the measage of President
Washington relative to the mission to Lisbon,” they will see al-
most the exact form of expreseion used in this case. The other
point on which [ would make a remark is the allegation that an
unfair use has been made, in the argument of the message, of
General Washington's Farewell Address. There would be no
end, Sir, to comments and criticisms of this sort if they were to
be pursued. I only observe, that, as it appears to me, the argu-
ment of the message, and its use of the Farewell Address, are
not fairly understood. It is not attempted to be inferred from
the Farewell Address, that, according to the opinion of Wash-
ington, we ought now to have alliances with foreign states. No
such thing. The Farewell Address recommends to us to ab-
vtnin as much as possible from all sorts of political connection
‘with the states of Europe, alleging as the reason for this advice,
that Europe has a set of primary interests of her own, separate
from ours,and with which we have no natural connection. Now
the message argues, and argues troly, that, the new South Amer-
jean states not having a set of interests of their own, growing
out of the balance of power, family alliances, and other similar
canses, separate from ours, in the same manner and to the same

ax the primary interests of Europe were represented to
be, this part of the Farewell Address, aimed at those separate
interests expressly, did not apply in this case. But does the
message infer from this the propriety of alliances with these new
states? Far from it, It infers no such thing. On the contrary,
it disclaims all such purpose.

There is one other point, Sir,on which common justice re
quires a word to be said. It has been alleged that there are
material differences ns to the papers sent respectively to the two
houses. All this, as it seems to me, may be easily and satisfac
torily explained. In the first place, the instructions of Mar

* Sparks's Washington, Vol. XII. p. 9

214 ‘THE PANAMA MISSION.

1824, which, it is said, were not sent to the Senate, were in-
stractions on which a treaty had been already negotiated ;
which treaty had been subsequently ratified by the Senate. It
may be presumed, that, when the treaty was sent to the Senate,
the instractions accompanied it; and if so, they were actually
already before the Senate; and this accounts for one of the al-
loged differences. In the next place, the letter to Mr. Middleton,
fix Russia, not sent to the House, but now published by the
‘Senate, is such a paper as possibly the President might not think
proper to make public. There is evident reason for such an
inference. And, lastly, the correspondence of Mr. Brown, sent
here, but not to the Senate, appears from its date to have been
received after the communication to the Senate. Probably when
sent to us, it was alzo sent, by another message, to that body.

‘These observations, Sir, are tedious and uninteresting. lam
glad to be through with them. And here [ might terminate my
remarks, and relieve the patience, now long and heavily taxed,
of the committee, But there is one part of the discussion, on
which I must ask to be indulged with a few observations,

Paine, Sir, have been taken by the honorable member from
Virginia, to prove that the measure now in contemplation, and,
indeed, the whole policy of the government respecting South
America, is the unhappy result of the influence of « gentleman
formerly filling the chair of this House. To make out this, he
has referred to certain apeeches of that gentleman delivered here.
He charges him with having become himself affected at an early
day with what he is pleased to eall the South American fever;
and with having infused its baneful influence into the whole
counsels of the country.

If, Sir, it be trac that that gentleman, prompted by an ardent
love of civil liberfy, felt carlier than others a proper sympathy
for the struggling colonies of South America; or that, acting on
the maxim that revolutions do not go backward, he had the
sagacity to foresee, enrlier than others, the successful termina-
tion of those straggles; if, thus feeling, and thus perceiving, it
fell to him to lead the willing or unwilling counsels of his coun-
try, in her manifestations of Kindness to the new governments,
and in her seasonable recognition of their independence, —if it
be this which the honorable rember imputes to him, if it be by
this course of public conduct that he has identified his name

‘THE PANAMA MISSION 24

with the cause of South American liberty, he ought to be es
teemed one of the most fortunate men of the age. —[f all this be
a8 is now represented, he has acquired fame enough. It is
enough for any man thus to have connected himself with the
greatest events of the age in which he lives, and to have been
foremost in measures which reflect high honor on his country, in
the judgment of mankind, -Sir, it is always with great relue+
tance that J am drawn to speak, in my place here, of individe-
als; but I could not forbear what I have now said, when I hear,
in the House of Reprezentativee, and in this land of free spirits,
that it is made matter of imputation and of reproach to have
been first to reach forth the hand of weleome and of succor to
new-born nitions, straggling to obtain and to enjoy the bless
ings of liberty.

We are told that the country is deluded and deceived by cab-
alistic words. Cabalistic words! If we express an emotion of
pleasure at the results of this great action of the spirit of politi
eal liberty; if we rejoice at the birth of new republican na-
tions, and express our joy by the common terms of regurd and
sympathy ; if we feel and signify high gratification that, through+
out this whole continent, men are now likely to be blessed by
free and popular institutions; and if, in the uttering of these
sentiments, we happen to speak of sister republics, of the great
American family of nations, or of the political system and forms
of government of this hemisphere, then indeed, it seems, we deal
in senseless jargon, or impose on the judgment and feeling of
the community by cabalistic words! Sir, what is meant by
this? Is it intended that the people of the United States ought
to be totally indifferent to the fortunes of these new neighbors?
Is no change in the lights in which we are to view them to
be wrought, by their having thrown off foreign dominion, estab-
lished independence, and instituted on our very borders repub-
lican governments essentially after our own example ?

Sir, 1 do not wish to overrate, [do not overrate, the progress
‘of these new states in the great work of establishing a well
secured popular liberty. 1 know that to be a great attainment,
‘and I know they are but pupils in the school. But, thank God,
they are in the echool. They are called to meet difficulties such
‘as neither we nor our fathers encountered, For these we ought
to make Jarge allowances. What have we ever known like the

a

2Lo THE PANAMA MISSION.

colonial vassalage of these states? When did we or our an-
cestors feel, like them, the weight a aeprirtcni
presses men to the earth, or of that

would shut up heaven pater br seat nies pore nian
from another stock. We belong to another race. We have
known nothing, we have felt nothing, of the political despotiem
of Spain, nor ot the heat of ber Bice of intaleranea. No rational
man expects that the South can ron the same rapid career as
the North; or that an insurgent province of Spuin is in the
same condition as the English colonies when they first asserted
their independence. ‘There is, doubtless, much more to be done
in the first than in the Inst case. But on that account the honor
of the attempt is not less; and if all difficulties shall be in time
surmounted, it will be greater. The work may be more ardu-
ous, it is not less noble, because there may be more of igno-
rance to enlighten, more of bigotry to subdue, more of preju-
dice tocmdicate. If itbe a weakness to feel a strong interest in
the success of these great revolutions, I confess myself guilty of
that weakness, If it be weak fo feel that Tam an American, to
“think that recent events have not only opened new modes of in-
tercourse, but have created also new grounds of regard and sym-
pathy between ourselves and our neighbors ; if it be weak to feel
that the South, in her present state, is somewhat more emphati-
eally a part of America than when she lay obscure, oppressed,
and unknown, under the grinding bondage of a foreign power;
if it be weak to rejoice when, even in any corner of the earth,
human beings are able to rise from beneath oppression, to erect
themselves, and to enjoy the proper happiness of their intelligent
nature ;— if this be weak, it is a weakness from whieh I claim
no exemption,

A day of solemn retribution now visits the once proud mon-
archy of Spain. ‘The prediction is fulfilled. ‘The spirit of Mons
texama and of the Incas might now well say,—

“ Art thou, 100, fallen, Iberia? Do we see
‘The robber and the murderer weak aa wot
‘Thou! that hast wasted carth and dared despise
Alike the wrath and merey of the skies,
‘Thy pomp .* in the grave; thy glory laid
Low in the pits thine avarice has made,’"*

Cowper's Charity.

‘THE PANAMA MISSION. 217

Mr. Chairman, I will only detain you with one more reflec-
tion on this subject. We cannot be so blind, we cannot so shut
‘up our senses and smother our faculties, as not to see, that, in
the progress and the establishment of South American liberty,
our own example has been among the most. stimulating causes.
Jn their emergencies, they have looked to our experience; in
their political institutions, they have followed our models; in
their deliberations, they have invoked the presiding spirit of ow
own liberty. They have looked steadily, in every adversity, to
the great Northern light. ‘in the hour of bloody conflict, they
have remembered the fields which have been conseorated by the
blood of our own fathers; and when they have fallen, they have
wished only to be remembered with them, as men who had
acted their parts bravely for the cause of liberty in the Western
World.

Sir, Ihave done. If it be weakness to feel the sympathy of
one’s nature excited for such men, in such a cause, I am guilty
of that weakness. If it be pradence to meet their proffered
civility, not with reciprocal kindness, but with coldness or with
insult, I choose still to follow where natural impulse leads, and>
to give up that false and mistaken prudence for the voluntary
sentiments of my heart.

VO tt Ag

REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS.

Mx. Prestonyr,—It has not been my purpose to take any
part in the discussion of this bill. My opinions in regard to ita
general object, [ hope, are well known; and I had intended to
content myself with a steady and persevering vote in its favor.
Bat when the moment of final decision has come, and the divis-
ion is so likely to be nearly equal, I feel it to be a duty to. put,
not only my own vote, but my own earnest wishes also, and
my fervent entreaties to others, into the doubtful scale,

Tt must be admitted, Sir, that the persons for whose benefit
this bill is designed are, in some respects, peculinrly unfortunate,
They are compelled to mect not only objections to the principle,
but, whichever way they turn themselves, embarrassing objec-
tions also to details. One friend hesitates at thie provision, and
another at that; while those who are not friends at all of course
oppose every thing, and propose nothing. When it was con-
templated, heretofore, to give the petitioner a sam outright in
satisfaction of their claim, then the argument was, among other
things, that the treasury could not bear so heavy a draught on
its means at the present moment, ‘The plan is accordingly
changed; an annuity ix proposed; and then the objection changes
also, It is now said, that this is but granting pensions, and that
the pension systern has already been carried too far. T confess,
Sir, I felt wounded, deeply hurt, at the observations of the gen-
tleman from Georgia, “So, then, said he, “these modest and
high-minded gentlemen take a pension at last!" How is it pos-
sible tha’: a gentleman of his generosity of character, and gen-

* A Speech delivered in the Senate of rho United States, on the 25th of

April, 1828, on the Bill for the Relief of the Surviving Officers of the Revo:
ution,

REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS. 219

eral kindness of feeling, cam indulge in such a tone of trium-
phant irony towards a few old, gray-headed, poor, and broken
warriors of the Revolution! ‘There is, I know, something repul-
sive and opprobrious in the name of pension. But God forbid
that I should taunt them with it! With grief, heart-felt grief,
do behold the necessity which leads these veterans to accept the
bounty of their country, in a manner not the most agreeable to
their feelings. Worn out and decrepit, represented before us by
those, their former brothers in arms, who totter along our lob-
bies, or stand leaning on their crutches, I, for one, would most
gladly support such a measure as elould consult at once their
services, their years, their necessities, and the delicacy of their
sentiments. I would gladly give, with promptitude and grace,
with gratitude and delicacy, that which merit has earned and
necessity demands.

Sir, what are the objections urged against this bill? Let us
look at them, and see if they be real; let us weigh them, to
know if they be solid; for we are not acting on a slight matter,
nor is what we do likely to pass unobserved now, or to be for-

hereafter. I regard the occasion as one full of interest
and full of responsibility. Those individuals, the little remnant
of a gallant band, whose days of youth and manhood were
spent for their country in the toils and dangers of the field, are
now before us, poor and old,—intimating their wants with re-
fuctant delicacy, and asking succor from their country with dec+
orous solicitude. How we shall treat them it behooves us well
to consider, not only for their sake, but for our own sake also,
and for the sake of the honor of the country. Whatever we do
will not be done in a corner. Our constituenta will see it; the
people will eee it; the world will see it.

Let us candidly examine, then, the objections which have
been raised to this bill, with a disposition to yield to them, if
from necessity we must, but to overcome them, if in fairness
we can,

In the first place, it is said that we ought not to pass the bill,
because it will involve us in a charge of unknown extent. We
are reminded, that, when the general pension law for Revolution-
ary soldiers passed, an expense was incurred far beyond what
had been contemplated; that the estimate of the number of
wurviying Revolutionary soldiers proved altogether fallacious;

220 REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS.

and that, for aught we know, the same mistake may be commit:
ted now,

Is this objection well founded? Let me say, in the first place,
that If one measure, right in itself, has gone farther than it was
intended to be carried, for want of accurate provisions and ade-
quate guards, this may farnish a very good reason for supplying
such guards and provisions in another measure, but can afford
no ground at all for rejecting such other measure altogether, if
it be in itself just and reasonable. We should avail ourselves
of our experience, it seems to me, to correct what has been found
amiss; and not-draw from it an undistingnishing resolution to do
nothing, merely because it has taught us, that, in something we
have already done, we have acted with too little care. In the
next place, does the fact bear out this objection? Is there any
difficulty in ascertaining the number of the officers who will be
benefited by this bill, and in estimating the expense, therefore,
which it will create? I think there is none. The records in
the department of war and the treasury furnish such evidence
that there is no danger of material mistake. The diligence of
the chairman of the committee bas enabled him to lay the facts
connected with this part of the case so fully and minutely before
the Senate, that I think no one can feel serious doubt. Indeed,
it is admitted by the adversaries of the bill, that this objection
does not apply here with the same force as in the former pen-
sion-law. It is admitted that there is a greater facility in this
case than in that,in ascertaining the number and names of those
who will be entitled to receive that bounty.

This objection, then, is not founded in trae principle; and if it
were, it is not, sustained by the facts. I think we ought not to
yield to it, unless, (which I know is not the sentiment which per-
vades the Senate,) feeling that the measure ought not to pass,
we still prefer not to place our opposition to it on a distinet
and visible ground, but to veil it under vague and general objec:
tions,

In the second place, it has been objected that the operation
of the bill will be unequal, because all officers of the same rank
will receive equal benefit from it, although they entered the army
at different times, and were of different ages. Sir, is not this
that sort of inequality which must always exist in every general
provision. Is it possible that any law can deacend into such par-

REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS. 221

ticulars? Would there be any reason why it should do so, if
it could? ‘The bill is intended for those who, being in the army
in October, 1780, then received a solemn promise of bulf-pay
for life, on condition that they would continue to serve through
the war. Their ground of merit is, that, whensoever they joined
the army, being thus solicited by their country to remain in it,
they at once went for the whole; they fastened their fortunes
to the standards which they bore, and resolved to continue their
nilitary service till it should terminate either in their country’s
success or in their own death. This is their merit and their
ground of claim. How long they had been already in service,
is immaterial and unimportant. They were then in service; the
salvation of their country depended on their continuing in that
service. Congress saw this imperative necessity, and earnestly
solicited them to remain, and promised the compensation. They
saw the necessity also, and they yielded to it,

Bot, ngain, it is said that the present time is not auspicious,
The bill, it is urged, should not pass now. The venerable mem-
ver from North Carolina says, as I understood him, that he
would be almost as willing that the bill should pass at some
other session, as be discussed at this. He speaks of the dis+
tresses of the country at the present moment, and of another
bill, now in the Senate, having, as he thinks, the effect of laying
ew taxes upon the people. He is for postponement. But it
appears to me, with entire respect for the honorable member,
that this is one of the cases least of all fit for postponement.
Tt is not a measure that, if omitted this year, may as well be
done next. Before the next year comes, some of those who
aced the relief may be beyond its reach. To postpone for an-
other year an annuity to persons already so aged, — an annuity
founded on the merit of services which were rendered half a
century ago,— to postpone,to another whole year a bill for the
relief of deserving men,— proposing, not aggrandizement, but
support, not emolument, but bread,—is a mode of disposing of
it in which J cannot concur,

Bat it is argued, in the next place, that the bill ought not to
pase, because those who have spoken in its favor have placed it
on different grounds. They have not agreed, it is said, whether
it is to be regarded as a matter of right, or matter of gratuity,
or bounty. Is there weight in this objection? If some think

19°

222 REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS.

the grant onght to be made, as an exercise of jndicions and
well-deserved bounty, does it weaken that ground that others
think it founded in strict right, and that we cannot refuse it
without manifest and palpable injustice? Or is it strange that
those who feel the legal justice of the claim should address to
those who do not feel it considerations of a different character,
but fit to have weight, and which they hope may have weight?
Nothing is more plain and natural than the course which this
application has taken. ‘The applicants themselves have placed
it on the ground of equity and law. ‘They advert to the resolve
of 1780, to the commutation of 1783, and to the mode of fund-
ing the certificates, They stand on their contract, This is
perfectly natural. On that basis they can present the argument
themselves, Of what is required by justice and equity, they
may reason, even in their own case. But when the

is placed on different grounds; when personal merit is to be
urged as the foundation of a just and economical bounty; when
services are to be mentioned, privations recounted, pains
enumerated, and wounds and scars referred to, the discussion
necessarily devolves upon others, In all that we have seen
from theee officers im the various paperé presented by them, it
cannot bat be obvious to every one how litde is said of per-
sonal merit, and how exclusively they confine themselves to
what they think their rights under the contract.

I must confess, Sir, that principles of equity, which appear to
me as plain as the sun, are urged by the memorialists them-
selves with great caution, and much qualification. They ad-
vance their claim of right without extravagance or overstrain-
ing; and they submit to it the unimpassioned sense of justice
of the Senate.

For myself, 1 am free to say, that, if it were a case between
individual and individual, 1 think the officers would be entitled
to relief in a court of equity. I may be mistaken, but such is
my opinion, My reasons are, that I do not think they had »
fair option in regard to the commutation of halfpay. Ido not
think it was fairly in their power to accept or reject that offer
The condition they were in, and the situation of the country,
compelled them to submit to whatever was proposed. In the
next place, it seems to me ton evident to be denied, that the
five years’ full pay was never effectually received by them. A

REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS. 223

formal compliance with the terms of the contract, not a real
compliance, is at most all that ever took place. For these rea-
sons, I think, io an individual case, law and equity would
reform the settlement. The conselence of chancery would deal
with this case as with other cases of hard bargains; of advan-
tages obtained by means of inequality of situation; of acknowl-
edgnd debts, compounded from necessity, or compromised with-
ut satisfaction. But although such would be my views of this
claim, as between man and man, I do not place my vote for this
bill on that ground. I see the consequence of admitting the
claim, on the foundation of strict right. 1 see at onee, that, on
that ground, the heirs of the dead would claim, as well as the
living; and that other public ereditore, as well as these holders
of commutation certificates, would aleo have whereof to com-

I know it is altogether impossible to open the accounts
of the Revolution, and to think of doing justice to every body.
Mach of suffering there necessarily was, that can never be paid
for; mach of loss that can never be repaired. 1 do not, therefore,
for myself, reet my vote on grounda leading to any such conse-
quences. I feel conetrained to eay, that we cannot do, and
onght not to think of doing, every thing in regard to Revolu-
tionary debts which might be desirable, if the whole settlement
‘were now to be gone over anew.

‘The honorable member from New York* has stated what]
think the true ground of the bill. I regard it as an act of dis-
creet and careful bounty, drawn forth by meritorious servicos
and by personal necessities, I cannot argue, in this case, with
the technicality of my profession; and because 1 do not feel
able to allow the claim on the ground of mere right, lam not
willing, for that reason, to nonsuit the petitioners, as not having
made out their case. Suppose we admit, as I do, that, on the
ground of mere right, it would not be safe to allow it; or, sup-
pose that to be admitted for which others contend, that there is
in the case no striet right upon which under any circumstances,
the claim could stand ; still it docs not follow that there is no
feasonable and proper foundation for it, or that it ought not to
be granted. If it be not founded on strict right, it is not to be
regurded as being, for that reason alone, an undeserved gratulty,

* Mr. Van Buren

224 REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS.

or the effusion of mere good-will. If that which in gmnted be
not always granted on the ground of absolute right, it does not
follow that it is granted merely from an arbitrary preference, or
vapricions beneficence. In most cases of this sort, mixed con
siderations prevail, and ought to prevail. Some consideration is
due to the claim of right; much to that of merit and service;
and more to that of pergonal necessity. If 1 knew that all the per-
sons to be benefited by this bill were in cireumstances of comfort
and competency, I should not support it, But this I know to be
otherwise, Teannot dwell with propriety or delicacy on this part
of the case; but I feel its force, and I yield to it, A-single instance
of affluence, or a few cases where want does not tread close on
those who are themselves treading close on the borders of the
grave, does not affect the general propriety and necessity of the
measure. I would not draw this reason for the bill into too
much prominence. We all know it exists; and we may, I
think, safely act upon it, without so discussing it ns to wound,
in old, but sensitive and still throbbing bosoms, feelings which
education inspired, the habits of military life cherished, and a
just self-respect is still desirous to entertain, I confess 1 meet
this claim, not only with a desire to do something in favor of
these officers, but to do it in a manner indicative, not only of
decorum, but of deep respect, — that respect which years, age,
public service, patriotism, and broken fortune, command to spring
up in every manly breast.

It is, then, Sir, a mixed claim of faith and public gratitude,
of justice and honomble bounty, of merit and benevolence. It
stands on the same foundation as that grant, which no one ree
grets, of which all are proud, made to the illustrious foreigner,
who ehowed himself so early, and has proved himself so con-
stantly and zealously, a friend to our country.

‘Then, again, it ie objected, that the militia have a claim upon
us; that they fought at the side of the regular soldiers, and
ought to share in the country’s remembrance. But it is knowp
to be impossible to carry the measure to such an extent as to
embrace the militia; and it is plain, too, that the cases are dif-
ferent, ‘The bill, as I have already said, confines itself to those
who served not occasionally, not temporarily, but permanently ;
who allowed themselves to be counted on as men who were to
sec the contest through, last as long as it might; and who have

REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS. 225

made the phrase “listing during the war" a proverbial ex-
pression, signifying unalterable devotion to our cause, through
good fortune and ill fortune, till it reaches its close. ‘This is a
plain distinction; and although, perhaps, I might wish to do
more, I see good ground to bere for the present, If we must

this debate, in terms of well-deserved praise. Be assured, Sir,
there could with difficulty be found a man who drew his sword,
or carried his musket, at Concord, at Lexington, or Bunker's
iil, who would wish you to reject this bill. They might ask
you todo more, but never to reftain from doing this. Wonld
to God they were assembled here, and had the fate of the bill in
their own hands! Would to God the question of its passage
‘were to be put to them! ‘They would affirm it, with a unity of
acclamation that would rend the roof of the Capitol.

I support the measure, then, Mr. President, because I think it
@ proper and judicious exereise of well-merited national bounty.
I think, too, the general sentiment of my own constituents, and
of the country, is in favor of it. I believe the member from
North Carolina himself admitted, that an increasing desire that
something should be done for the Revolutionary officers mani-
fested itself in the community. The bill will make no imme.
diate or greet draught on the treasury. Jt will not derange the
finances. If I bad supposed that the stnte of the treasury would
have been urged against the passage of this bill, 1 should not
have voted for the Delaware breakwater, because that might
have been commenced next year; nor for the whole of the sume
which have been granted for fortifications; for their advance-
ment with a little more ora little less of rapidity is not of the
first necessity. But the present case is urgent. What we do
should be done quickly.

Mr. President, allow me to repeat, that neither the subject nor
the oceasion is an ordinary one. Our own fellow-citizens do
not so consider it; the world will not so regard it. A few de
serving soldiers are before us, who served their country faithfully
through a seven years’ war, That war was a civil war, It was
commenced on principle, and sustained by every sacrifice, on
the groat ground of civil liberty. They fought bravely, and bled
freely. ‘The cause succeeded, and the country triumphed. But

226 REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS.

the condition of things did not allow that country, sensible as
it was to their services and merits, to do them the full justice
which it desired. It could not entirely fulfil its engagements,
‘The army was to be disbanded; but it was unpaid. It was to
Jay down ita own power; but there was no government with
adequate power to perform what had been promised to it, In
this critical moment, what is its conduct? Does it disgrace its
high character? Ie temptation able to seduce it? Does it
speak of righting itself? Does it undertake to redress its own
wrongs by its own sword? Does it lose its patriotism in its
deep sense of injury and injustice? Does military ambition
cause its integrity to swerve? Far, far otherwise.

Tt had faithfully served and saved the country; and to that
country it now referred, with onhesitating confidence, its claim
and its complaints. It laid down its arms with alacrity; it min-
gled iteelf with the mass of the community; and it waited till,
in better times, and under a new government, its eervices might
be rewarded, and the promises made to it fulfilled. Sir, this ex-
ample is worth more, far mare, to the cause of eivil liberty, than
this bill will cost us. We can hardly recur to it too often, or
dwell on it too much, for the honor of our country and of its
defenders, Allow me to say, again, that meritorious service in
civil war is worthy of peculiar consideration; not only because
there is, in such wars, usually less power to restrain
but because, also, they expose all prominent actors in them to
different kinds of danger. It is rebellion as well as war. ‘Those
who engage in it must look, not only to the dangers of the field,
but to confiscation also, and attainder, and ignominious death,
With no efficient and settled government, either to sustain or
to control them, and with every sort of danger before them, it is
great merit to have conducted themselves with fidelity to the
country, under every discouragement on the one hand, and with
‘unconquerable bravery towards the common enemy on the other,
Such, Sir, was the conduet of the officers and soldiers of the Rev-
olutionary army.

I would not, and do not, underrate the services or the suffer-
ings of others. I know well, that in the Revolutionary contest
all made sacrifices, and all endured sufferings; as well those who
paid for service, as those who performed it. 1 know that, in the
reeords of all the little municipalities of New England, abundant

REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS. 27

proof exists of the zeal with which the canse was espoused, and
the sacrifices with which it was cheerfully maintained. T have
often there read, with absolute astonishment, of the taxes, the
contributions, the heavy subscriptions, sometimes provided for
by disposing of the absolute necessaries of life, by which enlist-
ments were procured, and food and clothing furnished. It would
be, Sir, to these same municipalities, to these same little patri-
‘otic councils of Revolutionary times, that I should now look, with
most assured confidence, for a hearty support of what. this bill
proposes. There, the scale of Revolutionary merit stands high.
‘Phere are still those living who speak of the 19th of April, and
the 17th of June, without thinking it necessary to add the year.
‘These men, one and all, would rejoice to find that those who
stood by the country bravely, through the doubtful and perilous
struggle which conducted it to independence and glory, had not
been forgotten in the decline and close of life,

The objects, then, Sir, of the proposed bounty, are most wor-
thy and deserving objects, The services which they rendered
were in the highest degree useful and important. The country
to which they rendered them is great and prosperous, ‘They
have lived to sce it glorious; Iet them not live to sce it unkind.
For me, I can give them but my vote and my prayers; and I
give them both with my whole heart.

SECOND SresCH ON THE TARIFF. 229

vo discuss the measure; not believing that, in the present state

‘of things, any good could be done by me in that way. . But the | >
frequent declaration that this was altogether a New

measure, bill for securing a monopoly to the capitalists of the —
North, and other expressions of a similar nature, have induced —

ine to address the Senate on the aubject.

New England, Sir, has not been a leader in this policy, On |
the contrary, she held back herself and tried to hold others back
from it, from the adoption of the Constitution to 1824. Up to
1824, she was accused of sinister and selfish designs, because
she discountenanced the progress of this policy. It was Inid to .
her charge then, that, having established her manufactures her-
self, she wished that others should not have the power of rival-
ling her, and for that reason opposed all legislative encourage
ment. Under this angry denunciation against her, the act of
1824 passed. Now, the imputation is precisely of an opposite
character. The present measure is pronounced to be exclusively
for the benefit of New England; to be brought forward by her
agency, and designed to gratify the eupidity of the proprietors
of her wealthy establishments.

Both charges, Sir, are equally without the slightest foundation.
The opinion of New England up to 1824 was founded in the
conviction that, on the whole, it was wisest and best, both for
herself and others, that manufactures should make haste elowly.
She felt a reluctance to trust great interests on the foundation
of government patronage; for who could tell how long such
patronage would last, or with what stendiness, skill, or perses
verance it would continue to be granted? Tt is now nearly
fifteen years since, among the first things which I ever ventured
to say here, I expressed a serious doubt whether this govern-
‘ment waa fitted, by its construction, to administer aid and pro-
ection to particular pursuits; whether, having called such pur-
suits into being by indications of its favor, it would not after
wards desert ther, should troubles come upon them, and leave
them to their fate. Whether this prediction, the result, certain
ly, of chance, and not of sagacity, is about to be falfilled, remains
to be seen.

At the same time it is true, that, from the very first. commences
ment of the government, thoxe who have administered its con-
cerns have held a tone of encouragement and invitation towards

vor, mt 20

a

230 SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF,

those who should embark in manufactures. All the Presidents,
T believe without exception, have concurred in this general scn-
timent; and the very first act of Congress laying duties on
imports adopted the then unusual expedient of a preamble, ap-
parently for little other purpose than that of declaring that the
duties which it imposed were laid for the encouragement and
of manufactures, When, at the commencement of
the late war, duties were doubled, we were told that we should
find « mitigation of the weight of taxation in the new aid and
snecor which would be thus aflorded to our own manufacturing
labor. Like arguments were urged, and prevailed, but not by
the aid of New England votes, when the tariff was afterwards
arranged, at the close of the war in 1816. (Finally, after a whole
winter's deliberation, the act of 1824 received the sanction of
both houses of Congress, and settled the policy of the country.
What, then, was New England todo? She was fitted for man-
ufacturing operations, by the amount and character of her popu-
lation, by her capital, by the vigor and energy of her free labor,
by the skill, economy, enterprise, and perseverance of her peo-
ple. 9\I repeat, What was she under these circumstances to do?
» A great and prosperous rival in her near neighborhood, threaten-
ing to draw from her n part, perhaps a great part, of her foreign
* commerce; was she to use, or to neglect, those other means of
secking her own prosperity which belonged to her character and
her condition? Was she to hold ont for ever against the course
of the government, and see herself losing on one side, and yet
* make no effort to sustain herself on the other? | No, Sir. Noth-
ing was left to New England, after the act of 1824, but to con-
form herself to the will of others. Nothing was left to her, but
to consider that the government had fixed and determined its
‘own policy; and that policy was protection,

New England, poor in some respects, in others is as wealihy
as her neighbors, Her soil would be held in low estimation by
those who are acquainted with the valley of the Mississippi and
the fertile plains of the South, Bat in industry, in habits of la.
bor, skill, and in accumulated eapital, the fruit of two centuries
of industry, she may be said to be rich. After this final declarae
tion, this solemn promulgation of the policy of the government, I
again ask, What was she todo? Was she to deny herself the
use of her advantages, natural and acquired? Was she to con-

rr

SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF. 231

tent herself with useless regrets? Was she longer to resist what
she could no longer prevent? Or was she, rather, to adapt her
acts to her condition; and, seeing the policy of the government
thus settled and fixed, to accommodate to it ax well as she could
her own pursnits and her own industry? Every man will see
that she had no option, Every man will confess that there re-
mained for her but one course, She not only saw this herself,
but had all along foreseen, that, if the system of protecting man-
ufactures should be adopted, she must go largely into them, 1
believe, Sir, almost every man from New England who voted
against the law of 1824 declared that, it, notwithstanding his
opposition to that law, it should still pass, there would be no al-
ternative but to consider the course and policy of the govern-
ment a8 then eettled and fixed, and to act accordingly. The law
did pass; and a vast increase of investment in manvfacturing
establishments was the consequence, Those who made such
investments probably entertained not the slighest doubt that as
much asx was promised would be effectually granted; and that
if, owing to any unforeseen occurrence or untoward event, the
benefit designed by the law to any branch of manufactures
should not be realized, it would furnish a fair case for the con-

sideration of government, Certainly they could not expect,

after what had passed, that Interests of great magnitude would
be left at the merey of the very first change of circumstances
which might occur.

Aa « general remark, it may be said, that the interests con-
cerned in the act of 1824 did not complain of their condition
under it, excepting only those connected with the woollen man-
ufactures, These did complain, not so mach of the act itself
as of a new state of circumstances, unforeseen when the law
passed, but which had now arisen to thwart its bencficial opera-
tions as to them, although in one respect, perhaps, the law itsclf
was thought to be unwisely framed.

‘Three causes have been generally stated as having produced
the disappointment experienced by the manofacturers of wool
under the law of 18%,

First, it is alleged that the price of the raw material has been
mised too high by the net itself, ‘This point had been dis-
cussed at the time, and although opinions varied, the result, 80
far us it depended on this part of the case, though it may be

=

232 SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF.
said to have becn unexpected, was certainly not entirely un-
foreseen.”

Bat, secondly, the manofacturers imputed their
ment to a réductiun of the price of wool in England, which took
place just about the date of the law of 1824. ‘This reduetion
was produced by lowering the duty on imported wool from six-
pence sterling to one penny sterling per pound. The effect of
this is obvious enough; but in order to sce the real extent of the
reduction, it may be convenient to state the matter more partic-

ularly.

‘The meaning of our law was donbtless to give the American
mannfacturer an advantage over his English competitons Pro+
tection must mean this, or it means nothing. The English
manufacturer having certain advantages on his side, such as
the lower price of labor and the lower interest of money, the
object of our law was to counteract these advantages by creat-
ing others, in behalf of the American manufacturer,
to see what was necessary to be done in order that the Ameri-
can manufacturer might sustain the competition, a comparison
of the respective advantages and disadvantages was to be made.
In this view the very first element to be considered was, what is
the cost of the raw material to each party. On this the whole
must materially depend. Now when the law of 1824 passed,
the English manufacturer paid a duty of sixpence sterling per
pound on imported wool. But in a very few days afterwards,
this duty was reduced by Parliament from sixpence to a penny.

A reduction of five pence per pound in the price of wool was
estimated in Parliament to be equal to a reduction of twenty-
six per cent, ad valorem on all imported wool; and this reduce
tion, it is obvious, had its effect on the price of home-prodaced
wool also, Almost, then, at the very moment that the framers
of the act of 1824 were raising the price of the raw material
here, a8 that act did raise it, It was lowered in England by the
very great reduction of twenty-six per cent. Of course, this
changed the whole basis of the calculation. It wrought a com-
plete change in the relative advantages and disadvantages of
the English and American competitors, and threw the prepon=
derance of advantage most decidedly on the side of the English.

* Sen abore, p. 138.

SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF. 233

If the American manufacturer had not vastly too great a prefer
vnee before this reduction took place, it ia clear he had too little
afterwards.

Tn a paper which has been presented to the Senate, and often
referred to,—u paper distinguished for the nbility and clearness
with which it enforces general principles,— the Boston Report,
it is clearly proved (what, indeed, is sufficiently obvious from
the mere comparison of dates) that the British government did
not reduce its duty on wool because of our act of 1824, Cer
tainly this is trae; but the effect of that reduction on our manus
factures was the same precisely as if the British act had been
designed to operate agninst them, and for no other purpose. I
think it cannot be doubted that our law of 1824, and the re-
duction of the wool duty in England, taken together, left our
manufactures in a worse condition than they were before, If
there was any reasonable ground, therefore, for passing the
law of 1824, there is now the same ground for some other meas+
ure; and this ground, too, is strengthened by the consideration
of the hopes excited, the enterprises undertaken, and the capital
invested, in consequence of that law,

Tn the last place, it was alleged by the manufactarere that
they suffered from the mode of collecting the duties on woollen
fabrics at the custom-houses. ‘These duties are ad valorem du-
ties. Such duties, from the commencement of the government,
have been estimated by reference to the invoice, as fixing the
value at the place whence imported. When not suspected to
be false or fraudulent, the invoice is the regular proof of value.
Originally this was a tolerably safe mode of proceeding. While
the importation was mainly in the hands of American mere
chants, the invoice would of course, if not false or fraudulent,
express the terms and the price of an actual purchase and sale.
But an invoice is not necessarily an instrament expressing the
sale of goods, and their prices. If there be but a list or cata-
Jogne, with prices stated by way of estimate, it is still an in-
voice, and within the law. Now the suggestion is, that the
English manufacturer, in making out an invoice, in which prices
are thus stated by himself in the way of estimate merely, is able
to obtain an important advantage over the American merchant
who purchases in the same market, and whose invoice states,
consequently, the actual prices, on the sale. In proof of this

20°

mt SECOND SPEBCH ON THE TARIFF.

suggestion, it is alleged that, in the Inrgest importing city in the
Union, a very great proportion, some say nearly all, of the wool-
ton fabries are imported on foreign account. The various papers
which have eome before us, praying for a tax on auction sales,
aver that the invoice of the foreign importer ix generally much
lower than that of the American importer; and that, in conse-
quence of this and of the practice of sales at auction, the Ameri-
tan merchant must be driven out of the trade. I cannot answer
for the entire accuracy of these statements, but I have no doubt
there is something of truth in them. The main facts have been
often stated, and I have neither seen nor heard « deni! of them.

Is it true, then, that nearly the whole importation of woollens
is, in the largest importing city, in the hands of foreigners? Is
it true, as stated, that the invoices of such foreign importers are
generally found to be lower than thoee of the American import-
er? If these things be so, it will be adrnitted that there is rea-
son to believe that undervaluations do take place, and that some
corrective for the evil should be administered. I am glad to
sce that the American merchants themselves begin to bestow
attention upon a subject, as interesting to them as it is to the
manufacturers,

Under this state of things, Sir, the law of the last session was
proposed. It was confined, as I thought properly, to wool and
woollens, It took up the great and leading subject of com-
plaint, and nothing else. It was urged, indeed, agninst that bill,
that, although much had been said of frauds at the custom-house,
no provieion was made in it for the prevention of such frauds,
That is a mistake, The general frame of the bill was such,
that, if skilfally drawn and adapted to its purpose, its tendency
to prevent such frauds would be manifest. By the fixing of
prices at successive points of graduation, or minimums, as they
are called, the power of evading duties by undervaluations would
be most materially restrained. Lf these pointa, indeed, were sul
ficiently distant, it is obvious the duty would assume something
of the certainty and precision of a specifie duty. But this bill
failed, and Congress adjourned in March, lst. year, leaving the
subject where it had found it.

‘The complaints which had given rise to the bill continued;
and in the course of the summer a meeting of the wool-growera
and wool-manufacturers was held in Pennsylvania, at which

S=COND SPEECH OF THE TARIEF, 2u5

& petition to Congress was agreed upon, Tdo not feel it neces.
ary, on behalf of the citizens of Massachusetts, to disclaim a
participation in that meeting. Persons of much worth and re-
spectability attended it from Massnchuectts, and ite procecd-
ings and results manifested, I think, a degree of temper and
moderation highly creditable to those who composed it.

Bat while the bill of last year was confined to that which
alone had been a subject of complaint, the bill now before us is
of a very different description. It proposes to mise duties on
various other articles besides wool and woollens. It contains
some provisions which bear with unnecessary severity on the
whole community; others which affect, with peculiar hardship,
particular interests; while both of them benefit nobody and noth-
ing but the treasury. It contains provisions which, with what-
ever motive put into it, it is confessed are now kept in for the
very purpose of destroying the bill altogether; or with the in-
tent to compel those who expect to derive benefit, to feel smart
from it also. Probably such a motive of action has not often
been avowed,

‘The wool manufacturers think they have made out a case for
the interposition of Congress, ‘They happen to live principally
at the North and East; and in a bill professing to be for their
telief, other provisions are found, which are supposed (and sup-
ported because they are supposed) to be such as will press with
pecoliar hardship on that quarter of the country. Sir, what can
be expected, but evil, when a temper like this prevails? How
can such a hostile, retaliatory legislation be reconciled to com-
mon justice, or common prudence? Nay, Sir, this rule of action
seems carried still farther. Not only are clauses found, and con-
tinued in the bill, which oppress particular interests, but taxes
are laid also, which will be severely felt by the whole Union;
and this, too, with the same design, and for the same end before
mentioned, of causing the smart of the bill to be felt, Of this
description is the molasses tax; a tax, in my opinion, absurd
and preposterous, in relation to any object of protection, need-
lessly oppressive to the whole community, and beneficial no
where on earth but at the treasury. And yet bere it is, and here
it is kept, under an idea, conceived in ignorance and cherished
for a short-lived triamph, that New England will be deterred by
this tax from protecting her extensive woollen manufactures; or

2b SECOND SPEECH UN THI TARIFF
if

not, that the authors of this policy may at least have the
ra ase Pel sede Bn Soca
part

consumed for food, in order that it may likewise double the daty
on the three millions which are distilled into spirits; and all
this for the contingent and doubtfal purpose of augmenting the
consumption of spirits distilled from grain. I say contingent
and doubtful purpose, because I do not believe any euch effect
will be produced. I do not think a hundred gallons more of
spirits distilled from grain will find a market in consequence of
this tax on molasses. The debate, here and elsewhere, has
shown that, I think, clearly. But suppose some slight effect of
that kind should be produced, is it so desirable an object as that
it should be sought by such means? Shall we tax food to en-
courage intemperance? Shall we raise the price of a wholesome
article of sustenance, of daily consumption, especially among
the poorer classes, in order that we may enjoy a mere chance of
causing these same classes to use more of our home-made
ardent spirits?

Sir, the bare statement of this question puts it beyond the
reach of all argument. No man will serionsly undertake the
defence of such a tax, It is better, much more eandid certainly,
to admit, as has been admitted, that, obnoxious as it is and
abominable ae it is, it is kept in the bill with a special view to
i+ effects on New England votes and New England interests.

a

-

SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF. 237

The bill also takes away all the drawback allowed by existing
Jawa on the exportation of spirits distilled from molasses; and
this, it is supposed, and truly supposed, will injuriously affect
New England. It will have this effect to a considerable degree ;
for the exportation of such spirits is a part of her trade, and,
thongh not great in nmount, it is a part which mingles usefully
with the exportation of other articles, ussista to make out an
assorted cargo, and finds a market in the North of Europe, the
Mediterranean, and in South America, This exportation the
bill proposes entirely to destroy.

‘The increased duty on molasses, while it thus needlessly and
wantonly enhances the price to the consumer, may affect also,
in a greater or lesa degree, the importation of that article; and
be thus injurious to the commerce of the country. The impor
tation of molasses, in exchange for lumber, provisions, and other
articles of our own production, is one of the largest portions of our
West India trade, —a trade, it may be added, though of small
profit, yet of short voyages, suited to small capitals, employing
many hands and much navigation, and the earliest and oldest
branch of our foreign commerce. That portion of this trade
which we now enjoy is conducted on the freest and most liberal
principles. ‘The exports which sustain it are from the East, the
South, and the West; every part of the country having thus an
interest in its continuance and extension. A market for these
exports is of infinitely more importance to any of these por-
tions of the country, than all the benefit to be expected from
the supposed increased consumption of spirits distilled from
grain,

Yet, Sir, this tax is to be kept in the bill, that New England
may be made do feel, Gentlemen who hold it to be wholly un-
constitutional to lay any tax whatever for the purposes intended
by this bill, cordially vote for this tax. An honorable gentle-
man from Maryland* calls the whole bill a “bill of abomina-
tions” This tax, he agrees, is one of its abominations, yet he
votes for it, Both the gentlemen from North Carolina have
signified their dissatisfaction with the bill, yet they have both
voted to double the tax on molasses, Sir, do gentlemen flatter
themselves that this course of policy can answer their purposes?

* Mr. Smith,

233 SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF.

Do they not perceive that such a mode of proceeding, with »
view to such avowed objects, must waken a spirit that shall treat
taunt with scorn and bid menace defiance? Do they not know
«if they do not, it is time they did) that a policy like this,
avowed with such self-satisfaction, persisted in with a delight
which should only accompany the discovery of some new and
wonderful improvement in legislation, will compel every New
England man to feel that he is degraded and debased if he does
not resist it?

Sir, gentlemen mistake us; they greatly mistake us ‘To
those who propose to conduct the afiairs of government, and to
enact laws on such principles as these and for such objects as
these, New England, be assured, will exhibit, not submission,
but resistance; not humiliation, but disdain. Against her, de.
pend on it, nothing will be gained by intimidation. If you pro-
pose to suffer yourselves in order that she may be made to sufler
also, she will bid you come on; she will meet challenge with
challenge; she will invite you to do your worst, and your best,
and to see who will hold out longest. She has offered you every
‘one of her votes in the Senate to strike out this tax on molas-
ses, You have refused to join her, and to strike it out. With
the aid of the votes of any one Southern State, for example, of
North Carolina, it could have been struck out, But North Car-
colina has refused her votes for this purpose. She has voted te
keep the tax in, and to keep it in at the highest rate. And yet
Sir, North Carolina, whatever she may think of it, is fully ws
much interested in this tax as Massachusetts. I think, indeed,
she is more interested, and that she will feel it more heavily and
sorely. She is herself a great consumer of the article, through-
out all her classes of population. This increase of the duty will
lewy on her citizens a new tax of fifty thousand dollars a year,
or more; und yet her representatives on this floor support the
tax, although they have so often told us that her people are now
poor, and already borne down with taxes. North Carolina will
feel this tax also in her trade, for what foreign commerce has
she more useful to her than the West India market for her pro-
visions and lumber? And yet the gentlemen from North Caro»
lina insist on keeping this tax in the bill, Let them not, then,
complain, Let them not hereafter call it the work of others. It
is their own work, Let therm not lay it to the manufacturers,

SECOND SPEECH ON [HE TARIFF. 239

The manufacturers have had nothing to do with it. Let them
not lay it to the wool-growers. The wool-growers have had
nothing to do with it. Let them not Iny it to New England.
New England has done nothing but oppose it, and ask them

to oppose it also, No, Sir; let them take it to themselves.
Let them enjoy the fruit of their own doings. Let thern assign
their motives for thus taxing their own constituents, and abide ©
their judgment; but do not let thern flatter themselves that Naw
England cannot pay a molasses tax as long as North Carolina
chooses that such # tax shall be paid.

Sir, am sure there is nobody here envious of the prosperity
of New England, or who would wish to see it destroyed. But
if there be such anywhere, | cannot cheer them by holding out
the hope of a speedy accomplishment of their wishes. The

ty of New England, like that of other parts of the coun+
try, may, doubtless, be affected injuriously by unwise or unjust
jaws. It may be impaired, especially, by an unsteady and shift.
ing policy, which fosters particular objects to-day, and abandons
them to-morrow. She may advance faster, or slower; bat the
propelling principle, be assured, ie in her, deep, fixed, and active,
‘Her course is onward and forward. The great powers of free
Jubor, of moral habits, of general education, of good institutions,
of skill, enterprise, and perseverance, are all working with her,
and for her; and on the small surface which her population cov-
ers, she is destined, I think, to exhibit striking results of the oper-
ation of these potent causes, in whatever constitutes the happi-
ness or the ornament of human society.

Mr. President, this tax on molasses will benefit the treasury,
though it will benefit nobody else. Our finances will, at least,
be improved by it. I assure the gentlemen, we will endeavor to
use the funds thus to be mised properly and wisely, and to the
public advantage, We have already passed a bill for the Dela-
‘ware breakwater; another is before us, for the improvement of
several of our harbors; the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal bill has
this moment been brought into the Senate; and next session
we hope to bring forward the breakwater at Nantucket. These
appropriations, Sir, will require pretty ample means; it will be
convenient to have a well-supplied treasury; and I state for
the especial consolation of the honorable gentlemen from North
Carolina, that so long as they choose to compel their consti

SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF.

Se ee eT ie eran aan eee
ceeds thereof shall be appropriated, as far as T am concerned,
Siete catia objects, in useful and necessary works of
internal improvements.
coat chapel Meant phe Aterhal ote ord
where others have led, and compelled me to follow. I have but
exhibited gees end cries babar Pere
course of proceeding. But this manner of passing Inws 1s

of the Senate, and more useful to the country. Why should we
not act upon this bill, article by article, judge fairly of each, rex
tain what a majority approves, and reject the rest? If it be, as
the gentleman from Maryland called it, “a bill of abominations.”
why not strike out as many of the abominations as we can?
Extreme measures cannot tend to good. They must produce
mischief, If a proper and moderate bill in regard to wool and
woollens had passed last year, we should not now be in our pres+
ent situation. If such a bill, extended perhaps to a few other
articles, if necessity so required, hud been prepared and recom:
mended at this cession, much both of excitement and of evil
would have been avoided.

Novertheless, Sir, it is for gentlemen to judge for themselves,
Tf, when the wool manufacturers think they have a fair right to
call on Congress to carry into eflect what was intended for them
by the law of 1824, and when there is manifested some disposi-
tion to comply with what they thus request, the benefit cannot
be granted in any other manner than by inserting it in a sort of
bill of paine and penalties, a “bill of abominations,” it is not for
me to attempt to reason down what has not been reasoned up;
but I must content myself with admonishing gentlemen that
their policy is destined, in all probability, to terminate in their
own sore dsappointment,

advert once more, Sir, to the subject of wool und woollens,
for the purpose of showing that, even in respect to that part of
the bill, the interest mainly protected is not that of the manufue-
turers. On the contrary, it is that of the wool-growers. ‘The
wool-grower is vastly more benefited than the manufacturer.
The interest of the manufacturer is treated a8 secondary and

SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF. 24

subordinate, throughout the bill. Just so much, and no more, ie
done for him, as is supposed necessary to enable him to purchase
and manufacture the wool. The agricultural interest, the farm-
ing interest, the interest of the sheep-owner, is the great object
which the bill is calculated to benefit, and which it will benefit,
if the manafacturer can be kept alive. A comparison of exist-
ing duties with those proposed on the wool and on the cloth,
will show how this part of the case stands.

At present, a duty of thirty per cent. ad valorem is laid on all
wool costing ten cents per pound, or upwards; and a duty of
fifteen per cent. on all wool under that price.

The present bill proposes a specific duty of four cents per
pound, and also an ad valorem duty of fifty per cent. on all wool
of every description.

The result of the combination of these two duties is, that
wool fit for making good cloths, and costing fram thirty to forty
cents per pound in the foreign market, will pay a duty at least
equal to sixty per cent. ad valorem. And wool costing less than
ten cents in the foreign market will pay a duty, on the average,
of a hundred per cent, ad valorem,

Now, Sir, these heavy duties are laid for the wool-grower.
‘They are designed to give a spring to agriculture, by fostering
one of its most important products,

But let us see what is done for the manufacturer, in order tu
enable him to manufacture the raw material, at prices so much
enhanced.

As the bill passed the House of Representatives, the advance
of duties on cloths is supposed to have been not more than three
per cent. on the minimum points, Taking the amount of duty
to be now thirty-seven per cent. ad valorem on cloths, this bill,
as it came to us, proposed, if that supposition be true, only to
carry it up to forty. Amendments here adopted have enhanced
this duty, and are understood to have carried it up to a duty of
forty-five or perhaps fifty per cent. ad valorem. ‘Taking it at the
highest, the duty on the cloth is raised thirteen per cent.; while
that on wool is raised in some instances thirty, and in some in-
stances eighty-five per cent,; that is, in one case from thirty to
sixty, and in the other from fifteen to a hundred, Now the cal
culation is said to be true which supposes that a daty of thirty
per cent. on the raw material enhances by fiteen per cent. the

vou. Whe 21

242 SECOND SPERCH ON THE TARIFF.

ost of producing the cloth; the raw material being estimated
generally to be equal to half the expense of the fabric. ‘So that,
while by this bill the manufacturer gains thirlees per cent. on
the elnth, he would appear to lose fiftces per cent, on the same
cloth by the increase in the price of the wool, And this would
not only appear to be trae, but wonld, I suppose. be actually
‘true, were it not that the market may be open to the manufac
turer, under this bill, for such cloths as may be furnished at
Prices intermediate between the graduated prices established by
the bill.

For example, few or no foreign cloths, it is supposed, costing
more than fifty cents a yard and less than a dollar, will be im-
ported; therefore, American cloths worth more than fifty cents,
and less than a dollar, will find a market. So of the intervals,
or intermediate spaces, between the other statute prices. In this
mode it may be hoped that the manufacturers may be sustained,
and rendered able to carry on the work of converting the raw
material, the agricultural product of the country, into an article
necessary and fit for use. This statement, I think, sufficiently
shows that no further benefit or advantage is intended for them,
than such as shall barely enable them to accomplish that pur-
pose; and that the object to which all others have been made to
yield is the advantage of agriculture,

And yet, Sir, it is on occasion of a bill thus framed, that «
loud and ceaseless cry has been raised against what is called the
cupidity, the avarice, the monopolizing spirit, of New England
manofacturers! ‘This is one of the main “ abominations of the
bill"; to remedy which it is proposed to keep in the other aborn-
inations. Under the prospect of advantage held out by the law
of 1824, men have ventared their fortunes, and their means of
subsistence for themselves and families, in woollen manufae-
tures, ‘They bave ventured investments in objects requiring a
large outlay of capital; in mills, houses, waterworks, and ex-
pensive machinery. Events have occurred, blighting their pros-
pects and withering their hopes,—events which have deprived
them of that degree of succor whieh the legislature manifestly
intended. They come here asking for relief against an mnfore-
seen occurrence, for remedy against that which Congress, if it
had foreseen, would have prevented; and they are told, that
what they ask is an abomination! They say that an ‘ntcrest

SECOND SPEBCH ON THE CARIFF. 243

important to them, and important to the country, and princi-
pully called into existence by the government itself, has received
‘a severe shock, under which it must sink, if the government will
not, by reasonable means, endeavor to preserve what it has cre-
ated. And they are met with a volley of hard names, a tirade
of reproaches, and a loud cry against capitalists, speculators, and
stock-jobbers! For one, 1 think them hardly treated; 1 think,
and from the beginning have thought, their claim to be a fair
one. With how much soever of undue haste, or even of credu-
lity, they may be thought to have embarked in these i!
under the hopes held out by government, I do not feel it to be
just that they should be abandoned to their fate on the first ad-
verse change of circumstances; although I have always seen,
and now sec, how difficult, perhaps I should rather say how im-
possible, it is for Congress to uct, when such changes occur, in a
manner at once efficient and discreet; prompt, and yet mod-
‘erate.

For these general Teasons, and on these grounds, I am decid-
edly in favor of a measure which shall uphold and support, io
behalf of the manufacturers, the law of 1824, and carry its bene=
fits and advantages to the full extent intended. And though I
am not altogether satisfied with the particular form of these en-
‘actments, I am willing to take them, in the belief that they will
answer an essentially important and necessary purpose.

It is now my painful duty to take notice of another part of
‘the bill, which I think in the highest degree objectionable and
anrensonable; 1 mean the extraordinary augmentation of the
duty on hemp. I cannot well conceive any thing more unwise
or ill-judged than this « to me to be. The duty is already
thirty-five dollars per tonfeand the bill proposes a progressive
increase till it shall reach sixty dollars, ‘This will be absolutely
oppressive on the shipping intcrest, the great consumers of the
article. When this duty shall have reached its maximum, it
will create an annual charge of atleast one hundred thousand
dollars, falling not on the aggregate of the commercial interest,
but on the ship-owner. It is a very unequal burden. ‘The nave
igation of the country has already a hard struggle to sustain
itself against foreign competition; and it is singular enough, that
this interest, which ie already 60 severely tried, which pays so
anuch in duties on hemp, duck, and iron, and which it is now

——

ma SECOND SPEECH UN THE TARIFF.

proposed to put under new burdens, is the only interest which i=
subject to a direct tax by a law of Congress. The tonnage duty
is euch a tax. If this bill should page in its present form, I shall
think it my duty, at the earliest suitable opportunity, to bring
forward a bill for the repeal of the tonnage duty. It amounts,
I think, to a hundred and twenty thousand dollars a year; and
its removal will be due in all justice to the ship-owner, if he is
to be made subject to a new taxation on hemp and iron.

But, objectionable as this tax is, from its severe pressure on a
particular interest, and that at present a depressed interest, there
are still further grounds of dissatisfaction with it, It is not eal»
culated to effect the object intended by it, If that object be the
increase of the sale of the dew-rotted American hemp, the in-
creased duty will have little tendency to produce that result;
because such hemp is so much lower in price than imported
hemp, that it must be already used for such purposes as it is fit
for. It is said to be selling for one hundred and twenty dollars
per ton; while the imported hemp commands two hundred and
seventy dollars. The proposed duty, therefore, cannot materially
assist the sale of American hemp of this quality und description.

But the main reason given for the increase is the encourage-
ment of American water-rotted hemp. Doubtless, this is an
important object; but I have seen nothing to satisfy me that it
can be obtained by means like this. At present there is pro-
duced in the country no considerable quantity of water-rotted
hemp. [tis problematical, at best, whether it ean be produced
under any encouragement, The hemp may be grown, doubtless,
in various parts of the United States, as well as in any country
in the world; but the process of preparing it for use, by water-
rotting, I believe to be more difficult and laborious than is gen-
erally thought among us. I incline to think, that, happily for
us, labor is in too much demand, and commands too high prices,
to allow this process to be carried on profitably. Other objec-
tions, also, beside the amount of labor required, may, perhaps,
be found to exist, in climate, and in the effects liable to be pro-
duced on health in warm countries by the nature of the process.
But whether there be foundation for these suggestions or not,
the fact still is, that we do not produce the article, Tt cannot,
at present, be had at any price. To augment the daty, theree
fore, on foreign hemp, can only have the effect of compelling

Se: >

SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIEY. 245

the consumer to pay 20 much more money into the treasury.
The proposed increase, then, is doubly objectionable; first, be-
cause it creates a charge not to be borne equally by the whole
country, but 1 new and heavy churge, to be borne exclusively by
one particular interest} and, second, because that, of the money
raised by this charge, little or none goca to accomplish the pro-
fessed object, by aiding the hemp-grower; but the whole, or
nearly the whole, falls into the treasury. Thus the effect will
be in no way proportioned to the cause, and the advantage ob-
tained by some not at all equal to the hardship imposed on
others, While one interest will suffer much, the other interest
will gnin little or nothing.

Tam quite willing to make a thorough and fair experiment,
on the subject of water-rotted hemp; but 1 wish at the same
time to do this ina manner that shall not oppress individuals,
or particular classes. I intend, therefore, to move an amend
ment, which will consist in striking out so much of the bill as
raises the duty on hemp higher than it is at present, and in

inserting a clause, making it the duty of the navy department
to purchase, for the public service, American water-rotted hemp,
whenever it can be had of a suitable quality; provided it can be
purchased at a rate not exceeding by more than twenty per
cent. the current price of imported hemp of the same quality.
If this umendment should be adopted, the ship-owner would
have no reason to complain, as the price of the article would
not be enhanced to him; and, at the same time, the hemp-
grower who shall try the experiment will be made sure of a cer-
tain market, and a high price. ‘The existing duty of thirty-five
dollars per ton will still remain to be borne by the ship-owner.
The twenty per cent. udvance on the price of imported hemp
will be equal to fifty dollars per ton; the aggregate will be
eighty-five dollars; and this, it must be admitted, is a liberal
and effective provision, and will secure every thing which can be
reasonably desired by the hemp-grower in the most ample man-
her.

But if the bill should become « law, and go into operation in
ite present shape, this duty on hemp is likely to defeat its own
object in another way. Very intelligent persons entertain the
opinion, that the consequence of this high duty will be such,
that American vessels engaged in foreign commerce will, to a

21°

-_

|

246 SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF,

great extent, supply themselves with cordage abroad. "This, of
course, will diminish the consumption at home, and this injure
the hemp-grower, and at the same time the manufacturer of
cordage. Again, there may be reason to fear that, as the duty is
not raised on cordage manufactured abroad, such cordage may
be imported in greater or less degree in the place of the un-
manufactured article, Whatever view we take, therefore, of
this hemp duty, it appears to me altogether objectionable.

Much haw been said of the protection which the navigation
of the country has received from the discriminating duties on
tonnage, and the exclusive enjoyment of the coasting trade. Tn
my opinion, neither of these measures has materially sustained
the shipping interest of the United States. I do not concur in
the sentiments on that point quoted from Dr. Seybert’s statistical
work. Dr. Seybert was an intelligent and worthy man, and
compiled a valuable book; but he was engaged in public life at
a time when it was more fashionable than it has since become,
to ascribe efficacy to discriminating duties. ‘The shipping inters
est in this country has made its way by its own enterprise. By
its own vigorous exertion it spread itself over the seas, and by
the game exertion it still holds ita place there. It seems idle to
talk of the benefit and advantage of discriminating duties, when
they operate agninst us on one side of the ocean quite as much
as they operate for us on the other. To suppose that two na-
tions, having intercourse with cach other, can secure each to
itself a decided advantage in that intercourse, is little less than
absurdity; and this is the absurdity of discriminating duties,
‘Still less reason is there for the idea, that our own ship-owners
hold the exclusive enjoyment of the coasting trade only by vir«
tue of the law which prevents foreigners from sharing it. Look
at the rate of freights. Look at the manner in which this coast
ing teade is conducted by our own vessels, and the competition
which eubsists between them. In a majority of instances, prob-
ably, these vessels are owned, in whole or in part, by those who
navigate them. ‘These owners are at home at one end of the
voyage; and repairs and supplies are thus obtained in the cheap.
est and most economical manner. No foreign vessels would be
able to partake in this trade, even by the aid of preferences and
bounties.

‘The shipping interest of this country requires only an open

SECOND SPEECH ON CHE TARIFF, 7

field, aud a fnirchance. Every thing else it will do for itself. But
it has not a fair chance while it is so severely taxed in what-
ever enters into the necessary expense of building and equip-
ment. In this respect, its rivals have advantages which may in
the end prove to be decisive against us, I entreat the Senate
to examine and weigh this subject, and not go on, blindly, to
unknown consequences. The English ship-owner is carefully
regarded by his government, and aided and succored, whenever
and wherever necessary, by a sharp-tighted policy. Both he
and the American ship-owner obtain their hemp from Russia,
But observe the difference. The duty on hemp in England ia
but twenty-one dollars; here, it ix proposed to make it sixty,
notwithstanding its cost here is necessarily enhanced by an
additional freight, proportioned to a voyage longer than that
which brings it to the English consumer, by the whole breadth
of the Atlantic.

Sir, I wish to invoke the Senate's attention, earnestly, to the
subject; I would awaken the regard of the whole government,
more and more, not only on this but on all occasions, to this
great national interest; an interest which lies at the very foun-
dation both of our commercial prosperity and our naval achieve-
ment.

SS

FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION."

On the 29th of December, 1829, resolution was moved by Mr.
Poot, one of the Senators from Connecticut, which, after the addition of
the last clause by amendment, stood as follows : —

“ Resolved, That the Committee on Public Lands be instructed to in-
quire und report the quantity of public lands remaining unsold within
each State and Territory. And whether it be expedient to limit for a
certain period the sales of the public lands to such lands only as have
heretofore been offered for sale and are now subject to entry at the
minimum price. And, also, whether the office of Surveyor-General,
and some of the land offices, may not be abolished without detriment to
the public interest; or whether it be expedient to adopt measures to
hasten the sales and extend more rapidly the surveys of the public
Jonds.”

On the 18th of January, Mr. Benton of Missouri addressed the Senate
on the subject of this resolution. On the 19th, Mr. Hayne of South
Carolina spoke at considerable length, After he bad eoncluded, Mr.
Webster rose to reply, but gave way on motion of Mr. Benton for an
adjournment.

On the 20th, Mr, Webster spoke as follows : —

Norarve has been farther from my intention than to take any
part in the discussion of this resolution. It proposes only an in-
quiry on a subject of mach importance, and one in regard to
which it might strike the mind of the mover and of cther gentle-
men that inqairy and investigation would be useful. Although
Tam one of those who do not perceive any particular utility in
instituting the inquiry, I have, nevertheless, not seen that arm
would be likely to result from adopting the resolution. Indeed,
it gives no new powers, and hardly imposes any new duty on

* Delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 20th of January, 1890.

FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLITION. ay

the committee. All that the resolution proposes should ov done,
the committee is quite competent, without the resolution, to do
by virtue of its ordinary powers. But, Sir, although I have felt
yuite indifferent about the passing of the resolution, yet opinions
were expressed yesterday on the general subject of the public
lands, and on some other subjects, by the gentleman from
South Carolina, «0 widely different from my own, that Iam not
willing to let the occasion pass without some reply. If T deemed
the resolution as originally proposed hardly necessary, still less do
I think it cither necessary or expedient to adopt it, since a sec
‘ond branch has been added to it to-day. By this second branch,
the committee is to be instructed to inquire whether it be expedi-
ent to adopt measures to hasten the sales, and extend more rap-
idly the surveys of the public lands,

Now it appears, Mr. President, that, in forty years, we have
sold no more than about twenty millions of acres of public
lands. The annual snles do not now exceed, and never have
exceeded, one million of acres. A million a year is, according
to our experience, as much as the increase of population can
bring into settlement. And it appears, also, that we have, at
this moment, surveyed and in the murket, ready for sale, two
hundred and ten millions of acres, or thereabouts. All this vast
mass, at this moment, lies on our hands for mere want of pur-
chasers. Can any man, looking to the real interests of the coun-
try and the people, seriously think of inquiring whether we ought
not to hasten the public surveys still faster, and to bring, still
more and more rapidly, other vast quantities into the market?
The truth is, that, rapidly as population has increased, the sur-
veys have, nevertheless, outrun our wants, ‘There are more
lands than purchasers. They are now sold at low prices, and
taken up as fast as the increase of people furnishes hands to
fake them up. It is obvious, that no artificial regulation, no
forcing of sales, no giving away of the lands even, can produce
any great and sudden augmentation of population. The ratio
of incrense, though great, has its bounds, Hands for labor are
multiplied only at a certain rate. The lands cannot be settled
but by settlers, nor faster than settlers can be found. A system,
if now adopted, of forcing sales, at whatever prices, may have
the effect of throwing large quantities into the hands of individ
uals, who would in this way, in time, become themascives com

i]

250 FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION.

petitors with the government in the sale of land. My own
opinion has uniformly been, that the public lands should be
offered [reely, and at low prices; xo as to settlement

5 80
and cultivation as rapidly as the increasing population of the
country is competent to extend settlement and cultivation, Ev-
ery actual settler should be able to bay good land, ata cheap
mite; but, on the other hand, speculation by individuals on a large
seale should not be encouraged, nor should the value of all
lands, sold and unsold, be reduced to nothing, by throwing new
and vast quantities into the market at prices merely nominal.

T now proceed, Sir, to some of the opinions expressed by the
gentleman from South Carolina. ‘Iwo or three topics were
touched by him, in regard to which he expressed sentiments in
which Ido not at all concur,

In the first place, Sir, the honorable gentleman spoke of the
whole course and policy of the government towards those who
have purchased and settled the public lands, and seemed to
think this policy wrong. He held it to have been, from the first,
hard and rigorous; he was of opinion, that the United States
had acted towards those who had subdued the Western wilder-
ness in the spirit of a step-mother; that the public domain bad
been improperly regarded as a source of revenue; and that we
had rigidly compelled payment for that which ought to have been
given away. He said we ought to have imitated the example
of other governments, whieh had acted on a much more liber
system than ours, in planting colonies. He dwelt, particularly,
upon the settlement of America by colonies from Europe; and
reminded us, that their governments had not exacted from those
colonies payment for the soil. In reference to them, he said, it
had been thought that the conquest of the wilderness was itself
an equivalent for the soil, and he lamented that we had not fol-
towed that example, and pursued the same liberal course towards
our own emigrants to the West.

Now, Sir, I deny, altogether, that there has been any thing
harsh or severe in the policy of the government towards the new
States of the West. On the contrary, I maintain that it has
uniformly purened towards those States a liberal and enlight-
ened system, such as its own daty allowed and required, and
such as their interest and welfare demanded. The government

FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION

251
has been no step-mother to the new States. She has not been
careless of their interests, nor deaf to their requests; but from
the first moment when the territories which now form those
States were ceded to the Union, down to the time in which Tam
now speaking, it has been the invariable object of the govern-
ment, to dispose of the soil according to the true spirit of the
obligation under which it received it; to hasten its settlement
and cultivation, as far and as fast as practicable; and to rear the
new communities into new and independent States, at the car
liest moment of their being able, by their aocabers, Weal a
regular government.

Ido not admit, Sir, that the analogy to which the gentleman
refers us is just, or that the cases are at all similar. There is
‘no resemblance between the cases, upon which a statesman can
found an argument. ‘he original North American coloniste
either fled from Europe, like our New England ancestors, to
avoid persecution, or came hither at their own charges, and often
at the rain of their fortunes, as private adventurers, Generally
speaking, they derived neither succor nor protection from their
governments at home, Wide, indeed, is the difference between
those cases and ours, From the very origin of the government,
these Western Jands, and the just protection of those who had
settled or should settle on them, have been the lending objects in
our policy, und have led to expenditures, both of blood und treas+
ure, not inconsiderable; not, indeed, exceeding the importance
of the object, and not yielded gradgingly; but yet entitled
to be regarded as great, though necessary sacrifices, made for
high, proper ends, The Indian title has been extinguished at
the expense of many millions, Is that nothing? There is still
a much more material consideration, These colonists, if we
are to call them so, in passing the Alleghanies, did not pass be-
yond the care and protection of their own government, Where
ever they went, the public arm was still stretched over them,
A parental government at home was still ever mindful of their
condition and their wants, and nothing was spared which a
just sense of their necessities required. Is it forgotten that it
was one of the most arduous duties of the government, in ity
earliest years, to defend the frontiers against the Northwestern
Indians? Are the sufferings and misfortunes under Harmar and
St Clair not worthy to be remembered? Do the occurrences

252 FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION.

connected with these military efforts show an neglect
of Western interests? And here, Sir, what becomes of the gen+
tleman’s analogy? What English armies accompanied our an-
cestors to clear the forests of a barbarous foe? What treasures
of the exchequer were expended in buying up the original title
to the soil? What governmental arm held its mgis over our
fathers’ heads, as they pionvered their way in the wilderness?
Sir, it was not till General Wayne's victory, in 1794, that it
could be said we had conquered the savages. It was not till
that period that the government could Have considered itself as
haying established an entire ability to protect those who should
undertake the conquest of the wilderness.

And here, Sir, at the epoch of 1794, let us pause and survey
the scene, as it actually existed thirty-five years ago. Let us
look back and behold it. Over all that is now Ohio there then
stretched one vast wilderness, unbroken except by two small
spots of civilized culture, the one at Marietta and the other at
Cincinnati, At these little openings, hardly each a pin’s point
upon the map, the arm of the fronticr-man had levelled the forest
and let in the sun. ‘These little patches of earth, themselves
almost overshadowed by the overhanging boughs of that wilder
ness which had stood and perpetuated itself, from century to
century, ever since the creation, were all that had then been ren-
dered verdant by the hand of man. In an extent of hundreds
and thousands of square miles, no other surface of smiling
green attested the presence of civilization. The hunter's path
crossed mighty rivers, flowing in solitary grandeur, whose sources
lay in remote and unknown regions of the wilderness. Tt strack
upon the north on a vast inland sea, over which the wintry
tempests raged as on the ocean; all around was bare creation.
It was fresh, untouched, unbounded, magnificent wilderness,

And, Sir, what is it now? Is it imngination only, or can it
possibly be fact, that presents such a change as surprises and
astonishes us when we turn our eyes to what Ohio now is? Is
it reality, or a dream, that, in 20 short a period even as thirty-five
yeare, there has sprung up, on the same eurface, an independent
State with a million of people? A million of inhabitants! an
amount of population greater than that of all the cantons of
Switzerland; equal to one third of all the people of the United
States when they undertook to accomplish their independence

HIRST SPEECH ON POOT'S RESOLUTION. Ps

This »ew member of the republic has already left far behind her
a majority of the old States. She is now by the side of Vir
ginia and Pennsylvania; and in point of numbers will shortly
admit no equal but New York herself. If, Sir, we may juder
of measures by their results, what lessons do these facts read us
upon the policy of the government? What inferences do they
sathorize upon the general question of kindness or unkindnese ?
What convictions do they enforee ax to the wisdom and ability,
on the one band, or the folly and incapneity, on the other, of our
general administration of Western affairs? Sir, does it not re-
quire some portion of self-respect in us to imagine, that, if our
light had shone on the path of government, if our wisdom could
have been consulted in its measures, a more rapid advance to
strength and prosperity would have been experienced? For my
own part, while Tam struck with wonder at the success, I also
look with-admiration at the wisdom and foresight which origi«
nally wrranged and prescribed the system for the settlement of
the public domain, Its operation has been, without a moment's
interruption, to push the settlement of the Western country to
the extent of our utmost means.

But, Sir, to return to the remarks of the honorable member
from South Carolina. He says that Congress has sold these
Jands and put the money into the treasury, while other govern
ments, acting in a more liberal spirit, gave away their lands;
and that we ought also to have given ours away. I shall not
stop to state an account between our revenues derived from land,
and our expenditures in Indian treaties and Indian wars. But
I must refer the honorable gentleman to the origin of our own
title to the soil of these territories, and remind him that we re~
ceived them on conditions and under trusts which would have
been violated by giving the soil away. For compliance with
those conditions, and the just execution of those trusts, the public
faith was solemnly pledged. The public lands of the United
States have been derived from four principal sources. First,
cessions made to the United States by individual States, on
the recommendation or request of the old Congress; secondly,
the compact with Georgia, in 1802; thirdly, the purchase of
Louisiana, in 1803; fourthly, the purchase of Florida, in 1819,
Of the first class, the most important was the cession by Vir
ginis of all her right and title, ax well of soil as jurisdiction, to al!

vou. |, 22

4 FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION.

the territory within the limits of her charter Lying to the north:
awest of the Ohio River. Tt may not be ill-timed to recur to the
causes and occasions of this and the other similar grants,

When the war of the Revolution broke out, a great difference
existed in different States in the proportion between people and
territory. The Northern and Eastern States, with very small
surfaces, contained comparatively a thiek population, and there
was generally within their limits no great quantity of waste
lands belonging to the government, or the crown of
‘On the contrary, there were in the Southern States, in Virginia
and in Georgia, for example, extensive public domains, wholly
unsettled, and belonging to the crown. As these possessions
would necessarily fall from the crown in the event of a prosper-
‘ous issue of the war, it was insisted that they ought to devolve
‘on the United States, for the good of the whole, The war, it
whe argued, wae undertaken and carried on at the common ex-
pense of all the colonies; its benefits, if successful, ought also to
be common; and the property of the common enemy, when
vanquished, ought to be regarded as the general acquisition of
all. While yet the war was raging, it was contended that Con-
grees ought to have the power to dispose of vacant and un-
patented lands, commonly called crown lands, for defraying the
expenses of the war, and for other public and general purposes.
“Reason and justice,” said the Assembly of New Jersey, in
1778, “must decide that the property which existed in the
crown of Great Britain previous to the present Revolution
ought now to belong to the Congress, in trust for the use and
benefit of the United States, They have fought and bled for it,
in proportion to their respective abilities, and therefcre the re-
ward ought not to be prodilectionally distributed. Shall such
States as are shut out by situation from availing themselves of
the least advantage from this quarter be left to sink under an
enormous debt, whilst others are enabled in a short period to re-
place all their expenditures from the hard earnings of the whole
confederacy 2

Moved by considerations and appeals of this kind, Congress
took up the subject, and in September, 1780, recommended to
the several States in the Union having claims to Western teri-
tory, to make liberal cessions of a portion thereof to the United
States; and on the 10th of October, 1780, Congress resolved.

4's

FIRST SPEECH ON FOOTS RESOLUTION. 2b

that any lands «o ceded, in pursuance of their preceding recom-
mendation, should be disposed of for the common benefit of the
United States; should be settled and formed into distinet repub-
lican States, to become members of the Federal Union, with
the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence as
the other States; and that the lands should be granted, or set-
tled, at euch times, and under such regulations, as should be
agreed on by Congress. Again, in September, 1783, Congress
passed another resolution, setting forth the conditions on which
cexsions from States should be received; and in October follows
ing, Virginia made her cession, reciting the resolution, or act, of
September preceding, and then transferring to the United States
her title to her Northwestern territory, upon the express condi-
tion that the lands so ceded should be considered as a common
fand for the use and benefit of such of the United States as bad
become or should become members of the confederation, Vir
ginia inclusive, and should be faithfully and bond fide disposed
of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatever,
‘The grants from other States were on similar conditions. Mas-
sachusetts and Connecticut both had claims to Western lands,
and both relinquished them to the United States in the same
manner, These grants were all made on three substantial con-
ditions or trusts. First, that the ceded territories should be
formed into States, and admitted in due time into the Union,
with all the rights belonging to other States; secondly, that the
lands should form a cornmon fund, to be disposed of for the gen-
eral benefit of all the States; and thirdly, that they should be
‘sold and settled, at such time and in such manner as Congress
should direct.

Now, Sir, it is plain that Congress never has been, and is not
now, at liberty to disregard these solemn conditions. For the
falfilment of all these trusts, the public faith was, and is, fully
pledged, How, then, would it have been possible for Congress,
if it had been so disposed, to give uway these public lands?
How could it have followed the example of other gover
ments, if there had been such, and considered the conquest ot
the wilderness an equivalent compensation for the soil? The
States had looked to this territory, perhaps too sanguinely, aa a
fund out of which means were to come to defray the expenses
of the war. It had been received as a fund, as a fand Congress

256 FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION.

had bound itself to apply it To have given it away, would
have defeated all the objects which Congress and particular
States had had in view im asking and obtaining the cession,
and would have plainly violated the conditions which the ceding
States attached to their own

‘The gentleman admits, that the lands cannot be given away
until the national debt is paid; tecuizen! toa pent imtoo
they stand pledged. But this is not the original pledge. There
is, 30 to speak, an carlicr mortgage. Before the debt was funded,

them, as ina common fund. Congress has uniformly adhered to
this condition. It has proceeded to sell the lands, and to realize
‘as much from them as was compatible with the other trusts
ercated by the same decds of cession, One of these deeds of
trust, a2 1 have already eaid, was, that the lands ehould be sold
and settled, at such time and in such manner as Co:

this respect, to exercise its own best judgment, and not to
transfer the discretion to others. It has not felt itself at liberty
to dispose of the soil, therefore, in large mazes to individuals,
thus leaving to them the time and manner of ettlement, It
had stipolated to use its own judgment. If, for instance, in
corder to rid itself of the trouble of forming a system for the sale
of those lands, and going into detail, it had sold the whole of
what is now Ohio, in one mass, to individuals or companies, it
would clearly have departed from its just obligations, And who
can now tell, or conjecture, how great would have been the evil
of such a course? Who can say what misehiefs would have
ensued, if Congress had thrown these territories into the hands
of private speculation? Or who, on the other hand, can now
foresce what the event would be, should the government depart
from the game wise course hereafter, and, not content with such.
gradual absorption of the public lands as the natural growth of
our population may accomplish, should force great portions of
then, at nominal or very low prices, into private hands, to be
sold and settled as and when such holders might think would be
most for their own interests ?

Hitherto, Sir, I maintain, Congress has acted wisely, and done
its duty on this subject. I hope it will continue to do it, De

FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 257

parting from the original idea, so soon as it was found practica-
ble and convenient, of selling by townships, Congress has dis-
posed of the soil in smaller and still amaller portions, till at
length it sells in parcels of no more than eighty aeres; thus put-
ting it into the power of every man in the country, however
poor, but who has health and strength, to become a freeholder
if he desires, not of barren acres, but of rich and fertile soil,
‘The government has performed all the conditions of the grant.
While it has regarded the public lands as a common fund, and
has sought to make what reasonably could be made of them, as
a source of revenue, it has also applied its best wisdom to sell
and scttle them, as fast and as happily as possible; and when
soever numbers would warrant it, each territory hus been suc-
cessively admitted into the Union, with all the rights of an inde-
pendent State.

Is there then, Sir, Task, any ground for a well-founded charge
of hard dealing? for any just accosation of negligence, indiffer-
ence, or parsimony, which is capable of being sustained against
the government of the country in its conduct towards the new
States? | think there is not.

But there was another observation of the honorable member,
which, I confess, did not a little surprise me. As a reason for
wishing to get rid of the public lands as soon as we could, and
as we might, the honorable gentleman said he wanted no per-
manent sources of income. He wished to sce the time when
the government should not possess a shilling of permanent reve-
nue. If he could speak a magical word, and by that word con-
vert the whole Capitol into gold, the word should not be spoken.
‘The administration of a fixed revenue, he said, only consolidates
the government and corrupts the people! Sir, I confess I heard
these sentiments uttered on this floor not without deep regret
and pain.

Tam aware that these and similar opinions are espoused by
certain persons out of the Capitol and out of this government;
but I did not expect so soon to find them here, Consolidation!
—that perpetual cry both of terror and delusion, —Consolida-
tion! Sir, when gentlemen speak of the eflects of a common
fund, belonging to all the States, as having a tendency to con-
solidation, what do they mean? Do they mean, or can they
mean, any thing more than that the union of the States will ba

29°

—

258 FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION.

strengthened by whatever continues or furnishes inducements tw
the people of the States to hold together? If they mean merely
this, then, no doubt, the [Lied many oti fo thing else
in which we have a common interest, tend to consolidation;
und to this species of consolidation every tme American ought
to be attached; it is neither more nor less than strengthening
the Union itielf, This ix the sense in which the framers of the
Constitution use the word consolidation, and in this sense I
adopt and cherish it. They tell us, in the letter submitting the
Constitution to the consideration of the country, that, “In all
our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view
that which appears to us the greatest interest of every trae
American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved
‘our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence.
‘This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on
our minds, led each State in the Convention to be less rigid on
points of inferior magnitude than might have been otherwise
a ”

This, Sir, is General Washington’s consolidation, ‘This is
the true, constitutional coneolidation. I wish to see no new
powers drawn to the general government; but I confess I re-
joice in whatever tends to strengthen the bond that unites us,
and encourages the hope that our Union may be perpetual.
And therefore I cannot but feel regret at the expression of such
opinions ae the gentlernan has avowed, because I think their
obvious tendency is to weaken the bond of our connection. I
know that there are some persons in the part of the country
fromm which the honorable member comes, who habitually speak
of the Union in terms of indifference, or even of disparage:
ment. The honorable member himself is not, I trust, and can
never be, one of these. They significantly declare, that it ie
time to calenlate the value of the Union; and their aim seems
to be to enumerate, and to magnify, all the evils, real and imagi-
nary, which the government under the Union produces.

The tendency of all these ideas and sentiments ix obviously
to bring the Union into discussion, as a mere question of present
and ternporary expediency; nothing more than a mere matter
of profit and loss. The Union is to be preserved, while it suits
local and temporary purposes to preserve it; and to be sum
dered whenever it shall be found to thwart such purposes

FIRST SPEECH ON FOOI'S RESOLUTION. 259

Union, of itself, is considered by the disciples of this school as
hardly a good. Tt is only regarded as a possible means of good;
or, on the other hand, as a possible means of evil. They cherish
no deep and fixed regard for it, flowing from a thorough convic+
tion of its absolate and vital necessity to our welfare, Sir, [
deprecate und deplore this tone of thinking and acting. I deem
far otherwise of the union of the States; and so did the framers
of the Constitution themselves. What they said, 1 believe;
fully and sincerely believe, that the union of the States is essen-
tial to the prosperity and safety of the States, Iam a unionist,
and, in this sense, a national republican. I would strengthen
the ties that hold us together. Far, indeed, in my wishes, very
far distant be the day, when our associated and fraternal stripes
shall be severed asunder, and when that happy constellation
under which we have risen to so much renown shall be broken
up, and sink, star after star, into obscurity and night!

Among other things, the honorable member spoke of the pub-
lie debt. To that he holds the public lands pledged, and has
expressed his usual earnestness for its total discharge. Sir, 1
have always voted for every measure for reducing the debt, since
Thave been in Congress. “I wished it paid becunse it is a debt,
and, so far, is a charge upon the industry of the country and the
finances of the government. But, Sir, I have observed, that,
whenever the subject of the public debt is introduced into the
Senate, a morbid sort of fervor is manifested in regard to it,
which I have been sometimes at a loss to understand. The
debt is not now large, and ix in a course of most rapid reduction.
A few years will see it extinguished. Iam not entirely able to
persuade myself that itis not certain supposed incidental ten-
dencies and effects of this debt, rather than its pressure and
charge as a debt, that cause so much anxiety to get rid of it
Possibly it may be regarded as in some degree a tie, holding the
different parts of the country together, by considerations of mu-
tual interest. If this be one of its effvcts, the effect itself is, in
my opinion, not to be lamented. Let me not be misunderstood.
T would not continue the debt for the sake of any collateral or
consequential advantage, euch as I have mentioned. I only
mean to say, that that consequence itself is not one that I re-
gret; at the same time, that, if there are others who would or
who do regret it, 1 differ from them.

260 FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION.

As I have already remarked, Sir, it was one among the rea:
bons assigned by the honorable member for his wish to be rid of
the public lands altogether, that the public disposition of them,
und the revenues derived from them, tend to eras ee
‘This, Sir, I confess, passes my comprehension, These lands
are sold at public Setiiciree okies up at fixed prices, to form
farms and freeholds. Whom does this corrapt? According to
the system of ealee, a fixed proportion is everywhere reserved,
ae a fond for education. Does education corrupt? Is the
schoolmaster a ecorrupter of youth? the spelling-book, does it
break down the morals of the rising generation? and the Holy
Scriptures, are they fountains of corruption? Or if, in the exe
excise of a provident liberality, in regard to its own property as
‘a great landed proprietor, and to high purposes of utility towards
othere, the government gives portions of these lands to the mak-
ing of a canal, or the opening of a road, in the country where
the lands themselves are situated, what alarming and over+
whelming corruption follows from all this? Can there be noth«
ing pure in government except the exercise of mere control?
Can nothing be done without corruption, but the impositions
of penalty and restraint? Whatever is positively
whatever is actively good, whatever spreads abroad benefits and
blessings which all can see and all can feel, whatever opens chan-
nels of intercourse, augments population, enhances the value of
property, and diffuses knowledge, — must all this be rejected and
reprobated as a dangerous and obnoxious policy, hurrying us to
the double ruin of a government, turned into despotism by the
mere exercise of acts of beneficence, and of a people,
beyond hope of rescue, by the improvement of their condition ?

‘The gentleman proceeded, Sir, to draw a frightful picture af
the future. He spoke of the centuries that must elapse before
all the lands could be sold, and the great hardsbips that the
States must suffer while the United States reserve to themselves,
within their limita, such large portions of soil, not liable to taxa-
tion. Sir, this is all, or mostly, imagination. If these lands were
leasehold property, if they were held by the United States on
rent, there would be much in the idea, But they are wild lands,
held only till they can be sold; reserved no longer than till eome-
body will take them up, at low prices. As to their not
taxed, ] would ask whether the States themselves, if they owned

be

FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 261

them, would tax them before sale? Sir, if in any case any Sinte
can show that the policy of the United States retards her settle-
ment, or prevents her from cultivating the lands within her lim-
its, she shall have my vote to alter that policy, But I look upon
the public lands asa public fund, and that we are no more aur
thorized to give them away gratuitously than to give away gras
tuitously the money in the treasury. I am quite aware, that
the sums drawn annually from the Western States make a
heavy drain upon them; but that is unavoidable. For that very
reason, among others, I have always been inclined to pursue
towards them a kind and most liberal policy; but I am not at
liberty to forget, at the same time, what is due to other States,
and to the solemn engagements under which the government
rests.

1 come now, Mr. President, to that part of the gentleman's
speech which has been the main occasion of my addressing the
Senate. The East! the obnoxious, the rebuked, the always re«
proached East! — we have come in, Sir, on this debate, for even
more than a common share of accusation and attack. If the
honorable member from South Carolinn was not our original
accuser, he has yet recited the indictment against us with the
airand tone of a public prosecutor, He has summoned us to
plead on our armignment; and be tells us we are charged with
the crime of a narrow and selfish policy; of endeavoring to re-
strain emigration to the Weat, and, having that object in view,
of maintaining a steady opposition to Western measures and
‘Western interests, And the cause of all this narrow and selfish
policy, the gentleman finds in the tariff; 1 think he called it the
accursed policy of the tariff. ‘This policy, the gentleman tells us,
requires multitudes of dependent laborers, a population of pan-
pers, and that it is to secure these at home that the East op-
poses whatever may induce to Western emigration. Sir, I rise
to defend the East. I rise to repel, both the charge itself, and
the cause assigned for it. I deny that the East has, at any time,
shown un illiberal policy towards the West, I pronounce the
whole accusation to be without the least foundation in any
facts, existing either now or at any previous time, I deny it in
the general, and [ deny each and all ite particulars. Ideny the
sum total, and I deny the detail. I deny that the East has ever
manifested hostility to the West, and I deny that she has adopt-

whe FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION.
ed any policy that would naturally buve Jed her in such «

course:

Bat the tariff! the tariff!! Sir, I beg to say in regard to the
East, that the original policy of the tariff is not hers, whether it
be wise or unwise. New England ie not its author. IM gentle-
men will refer to the tariff of 1816, they will find that this was
not carried by New England votes. It was traly more a South-
ern than an Eastern measure. And what votes carried the tare
iff of 1824? Certainly not those of New England. It is known
to have been made matter of reproach, especially against Mas-
sachusetts, that she would not aid the tariff of 1824; and a eelf-
ish motive was imputed to her for that, also. In point of fact,
it is trae that she did, indeed, oppose the tariff of 1824. There
‘were more votes in favor of that law in the House of Represen-
tatives, not only in cach of a majority of the Western States,
but even in Virginia herself, than in Massachusetts It was
literally forced upon New England; and this shows how ground-
less, how void of all probability, must be any charge of hos-
tility to the growth of the Western States, as naturally flows
ing from a cherished policy of her own,

But leaving all conjectures about causes and motives, I go at
once to the fact, and I meet it with one broad, comprehensive,
and emphatic negative. I deny that, in any part of her history,
at any period of the government, or in relation to any leading
subject, New England has manifested such hostility as is charged
upon her. On the contrary, I maintain that, from the day of the
cession of the territories by the States to Congress, no portion
of the country has acted either with more liberality or more ine
telligence, on the subject of the public lands in the new States,
than New England.

‘This statement, though strong, is no stronger than the strict-
est truths will warrant. Letus look at the historical facts. So
soon as the cessions were obtained, it became necessary to make
provision for the government and disposition of the territory.
‘The country was to be governed. This, for the present, it was
obvious, must be by some territorial system of administration.
But the soil, also, was to be granted und settled. ‘Those im-
mense regions, large enough almost for an empire, were to be
appropriated to private ownership. How was this best to be
deve? What system for sale and disposition should be adopt

FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 265

ed? Two modes for conducting the sales presented themselves;
the one a Southern, and the other a Northern mode. It would
be tedions, Sir, here, to ran out these different systems into all
their distinctions, aud to contrast the opposite results. ‘That
which was adopted was the Northern system, and is that which
‘we now sce in succeseful operation in all the new States. ‘That
which was rejected was the system of warrants, surveys, entry,
and location; such as prevails south of the Ohio. It is not
necessary to extend these remarks into invidious compari-
sons. This last system is that which, as has been expressively
said, has shingled over the country to which it was applied
with so many conflicting titles and claims. Every body ac-
quainted with the subject knows how easily it leads to spec-
ulation and litigation, — two great calamities in a new country.
From the system actually established, these evils are banished.
Now, Sir, in effecting this great measure, the first important
measure on the whole subject, New England acted with vigor
and effect, and the latest posterity of those who settled the region
northwest of the Ohio will have reason to remember, with grat-
‘tude, her patriotiem and her wisdom. The syetem adopted was
her own system, She knew, for she had tried and proved its
value. It was the old-fashioned way of surveying lands before
the issuing of any title papers, and then of inserting accurate
and precise descriptions in the patents or grants, and proceeding
‘with regular reference to metes and bounds, ‘This gives to origi-
nal titles, derived from government, a certain and fixed chor
ucter; it cuts up litigation by the roots, and the settler com-
mences his lnbor with the assurance that he has a clear title. It
is easy to perceive, but not easy to measure, the importance of
this in a new country. New England gave this system to the
Weet; and while it remains, there will be spread over all the
‘West one monument of her intelligence in matters of govern-
ment, and her practical good sense.

«/At the foundation of the constitution of these new North.
western States lies the celebrated Ordinance of 1787. We are
accustomed, Sir, to praise the lawgivers of antiquity; we help to
perpetuate the fame of Solon and Lycurgus; but I doubt wheth-
erone single law of any lawgiver, ancient or modern, has pro-
duced effects of more distinct, marked, and lasting character than
the Ordinance of 1757. That instrument was drawn by Nathan

24 FIRST SPEECH ON FOOr'S RESOLUTION.

Dane, then and now a citizen of Massachusetts. Tt was adopt:
ed, as I think I have understood, without the slightest altera-
tion; and certainly it hus happened to few men to be the
authors of a political mensure of more large and enduring con-
sequence, It fixed for ever the character of the population in
the vast regions northwest of the Ohio, by excluding from them
involuntary servitude. It impressed on the soil itself, while it
was yet a wilderness, an incapacity to sustain any other than
freemen, Jt laid the interdict against personal servitude, in
original compact, not only deeper than all local law, but deeper,
also, than all local constitutions. Under the circumstances then
existing, I look upon this original and seasonable provision as a
real good attained. We see its consequences at this moment,
and we shall never cease to see ther, perhaps, while the Ohio
shall flow. It was a great and salutary measure of prevention.
Sir; | should fear the rebuke of no intelligent gentleman of
Kentucky, were I to ask whether, if such an ordinance could
have been applied to his own State, while it yet was a wilder-
ness, and before Boone had passed the gap of the Alleghanies,
he does not suppose it would have contributed to the ultimate
greatness of that commonwealth? It is, at any rate, not to be
doubted, that, where it did apply, it bas produced an effect not
easily to be described or measured, in the growth of the States,
and the extent and increase of their population. Now, Sir, as 1
have stated, this great measure was brought forward in 1787, by
the North. It was sustained, indeed, by the votes of the South,
but it must have failed without the cordial support of the
New England States. If New England had been governed by
the narrow and selfish views now ascribed to her, this very
measure was, of all others, the best calculated to thwart ber
purposes. It was, of all things, the very means of rendering
certain a vast emigration from her own population to the West.
She looked to that consequence only to disregurd it She
deemed the regulation a most useful one to the States that
would spring up on the territory, and advantageous to the coun.
try at large. She adhered to the principle of it perseveringly,
year after year, until it was finally accomplished.

Leaving, then, Mr. President, these two great and leading
measures, and coming down to our ewn times what is there in
the history of recent measures of government that exposes New

FIRS1 SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 265

England to this accusation of hostility to Western interesis? 1
assert, boldly, that, in all measures conducive to the welfare of
the West, since my acquaintance here, no part of the country
has manifested a more liberal policy. 1 beg tosny, Sir, that I do
not state this with a view of claiming for her any special regard
on that account. Notatall, She does not place her support
of measures on the ground of favor conferred. Far otherwise.
What she has done has been consonant to her view of the gen
tral good, and therefore she has done it She has sought to
make no gain of it; on the contrary, individuals may have felt,
undoubtedly, some natural regret at finding the relative impor-
tance of their own States diminished by the growth of the
West. But New England bas regarded that as the natural
course of things, and has never complained of it, Let me see,
Sir, any one measure favorable to the West, which has been
opposed by New England, since the government bestowed its at-
tention on these Western improvements. Select what you will,
if it be a measure of acknowledged utility, I answer for it, it
will be found that not only were New England votes for it, but
that New England votes carried it. Will you take the Cumber-
land Road? who has made that? Will you take the Portland
Canal? whose support carried that bill? Sir, at what period
beyond the Greek kalends could these measures, or measures
like these, have been accomplished, had they depended on the
votes of Southern gentlemen? Why, Sir, we know that we
mast have waited till the constitutional notions of those gentle.
men had undergone an entire change. Generally speaking, they
have done nothing, and can do nothing. All that has been
effected has been done by the votes of yeproached New Eng-
land. I undertake to say, Sir, that if you look to the votes on
any one of these measures, and strike out from the list of ayes
the names of New England members, it will be found that, in
every case, the South would then have voted down the Weat,
and the measure would have failed. 1 do not belicve any one
instance can be found where this is not strictly trae, Ido not
believe that one dollar has been expended for these purposes be-
youd the mountains, whieh could have been obtained without
vordial cobperation and support from New England.

Sir, I put the question to the West itself, Let gentlemen
who bave sat here ten years come forth and declare. by what

YOLr tite 23

FIRST SPEECH UN FOOT’S RESOLUTION.

266

aids, and by whose votes, they have succeeded, in measures
deemed of essential importance to their part of the country
'To all men of sense and candor, in or out of Congress, who
have any knowledge upon the subject, New England may ap-
peal for refutation of the reproach it is now attempted to cast
upon her in this respect,

I take the liberty to repeat, that I make no claim on behalf of
New England, or on account of that which I have now stated.
She does not profess to have acted out of favor; for it would
not become her so to have acted. She asks for no especial
thanks; but, in the conscionsness of having done her duty in
these things uprightly and honestly, and with a fair and liberal
spirit, be assured she will repel, whenever she thinks the occa
sion calls for it, an unjust and groundless imputation of partial-
ity and selfishness,

The gentleman alluded to a report of the late Secretary of the
‘Trewsury, which, according to his reading or construction of it,
recommended what. he calls the tariff policy, or a branch of that
policy; that is, the restraining of emigration to the West, for
the purpose of kecping hands at home to carry on manufactures,
1 think, Sir, that the gentleman misapprehended the meaning
of the Secretary, in the interpretation given to his remarks. I
understand him only as saying, that, since the low price of lands
at the West acts as a constant and standing bounty to agrical-
ture, it is, on that account, the more reasonable to provide en-
couragement for manufactures, But, Sir, even if the Secretary's
observation were to be understood as the gentleman understands
it, it would not be a sentiment borrowed from any New Eng-
land source. Whether it be right or wrong, it does not origi-
nate in that quarter.

In the course of these remarks, Mr. President, I have spoken _
of the supposed desire, on the part of the Atlantic States, to
check, or at least not to hasten, Western emigration, asa nar-
row policy, Perhaps I ought to have qualified the expression;
because, Sir, I am now abont to quote the opinion of one
to whom I would impute nothing narrow. I ar about to
refer you to the language of a gentleman of much and de-
served distinction, a member of the other House, and ocen-
pying a prominent situation there. The gentleman, Sir, is from
South Carolina. In 1825, a debate arose in the House of Rep-

FIRST SPEECH UN FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 267

Tesuntatives on the subject of the Western Road. It happened
to me to take some part in the debate; Iwas answered by the
honorable gentleman to whom I allude, and I replied. May I
be pardoned, Sir, if T read « part of this debate.

“The gentleman from Massachusetts has urged,” said Mr. McDuffie,
“as one leading reason why the government should make ronda to the
‘Weest, that these roads have « tendency to settle the public lands ; that
they increase the inducements to setilement, and that this is a national
object. Sir, 1 difler entirely from his views on the subject. 1 think
that the public lands are sotiling quite fast enough; that our people
‘aced no stimulus to urge them thither, but want rather a check, at
least on that artificial tendency to Western settlement which we have
created by our own laws,

“The gentleman says, that the great object of government with re-
spect to thoes lands is, not to make them a source of revenue, but to get
them settled. What would have been thought of this argument ia the
old thirteen States ? It amounts to this, that those States are to offer a
bonus of their own impoverishment, to croate a vortex to swallow up our
floating population. Look, Six, at the present aspect of the Southern
States, In no part of Europe will you see the same indications of de-
euy. Deserted villages, houses falling 1 ruin, impoverished lands
thrown out of cultivation, Sir, I believe that, if the public lands had
nover been sold, the aggregate amount of the national wealth would
have boen greater at this moment. Our population, if concentrated in
the old States, and not ground down by tariils, would have beca more
prosperous und wealthy. But overy inducement has been held out to
them to settle in the West, until our population has become sparse, and
then the effects of this sparseness are now to be counteracted by another
artificial system. Sir, I say if there is any object worthy the attention
of this government, it isa plan which shall limit the sale of the public
lands. If those lands were sold according to their real value, be it so,
But while the government continues as it does to give them away, they
will draw the population of the older States, and still further increase
the effect which is already distressingly felt, and which must go to dir
minish the value of all those States possess, And this, Sir, is held out
to us.as a motive for granting the present appropriation, I would not,
indeed, prevent the formation of roads on these considerations, but 1
certainly would not encourage it, Sir, there is an additional itorn in the
account of the benefits which this government has conferred on the
Western States. It is the sale of the public lands at the minimum price,
‘At this moment we are selling to the people of the West, lands, at one
dollar and twenty-five cents, which are worth fifteen dollars, and which
would sell at that price if the markets were not glutted ’

268 FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION.
Mr. Webster observed, in reply, that

“The gentleman from South Carolina had mistaken him, if he eup-
posed that it was his wish so to hnsten the sales of the public lands, as
to throw them inte the hands of purchasers who would sell again. His
idea only went as far os this: that the price ehould be fixed #0 low as
‘not to prevent the settlement of the lands, yet not so low as to allow
“speculators to purchase. Mr, Webster observed, that he could not at all
concar with the gentleman from South Carolina, in wishing to restrain
‘the laboring classes of population in the Eastern States from going to
uny part of our territory where they could better their condition ; nor
did he suppose that euch an idea was anywhere entertained. The ob-
servations of the gentleman had opened to him new views of policy on
this subject, and he thought he now could perceive why some of our
States continued to have such bad roads; it must be for the purpose of
preventing people from going out of them. ‘The gentleman from South
Carolina supposes, that, if our population had been confined to the old
thirteen States, the nggregate wealth of the country would have been
greatcr than it now is, But, Sir, it is an error, that the increase of the
aggregate of the national wealth is the object chiofly to be pursued by
government. ‘The distribution of the national wealth is an object quite
as important as its increase. He was not surprised that the old States
not increasing in population so fast as was expected, (for he believed
nothing like « decrease was preended,) should be an iden by no means
agreeable to gentlemen from those States. We are all reluctant to
submit to the lose of relative importance; but this was nothing more
than the natural condition of a country densely peopled in one part,
and possessing in another a vast tract of unsettled lands. The plan of
the gentleman went to reverse the order of nature, vainly expecting to
retain men within a small and comparatively unproductive territory, * who
have all the world before them where to choose." For his own part, he
was ip favor of letting population take its own course ; he should expe
rience no feeling of mortifiention if any of his constituents liked heer
to settle on the Kansas or Arkansas, or elsewhere within our territory ;
let them go, and be happior if they could. ‘The gentleman says, our
aggregate of wealth would have been greater if our population had been
restrained within the limits of the old States; but doos he not consider
population to be wealth? And has not this been incroased by the sot-
tlement of « new and fertile country? Such a country presents the most
alluring of all prospects to a young and laboring man; it gives him u
frochold, it offers to him woight and respectability in society ; and above
all, it presents to him a prospect of @ permanent provision for his chil-
dren, Sir, these are inducements which never were resisted, and never

FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 269

will be ; and, were the whole extent of country filled with population
up to the Rocky Mountains, these inducements would carry that popula
tion forward to tho shores of the Pacific Ocean. Sir, it is in vain to
talk; individuals will seek their own good, and not any artificial aggre-
gate of the national wealth, A young enterprising and hardy agricul-
wrist can conceive of nothing better to him than plonty of good, cheap.
tand.”

Sir, with the reading of these extracts I leave the subject.
‘The Senate will bear me witness that Iam not accustomed to
allude to local opinions, nor to compare or contrast different
portions of the country. T have often suffered things to pass
withont any observation, which I might properly enough have
considered as deserving remark, But I have felt it my duty,
on this occasion, to vindicate the State I represent from
and imputations on her public character and conduct, which I
know to be undeserved and unfounded. If advanced elsewhere,
they might be passed, perhaps, without notice. But whatever
is said here is supposed to be entitled to public regard, and to
deserve public attention; it derives importance and dignity
from the place where it is uttered. As a true representative of
the State which has sent me here, it is my duty, and a duty
which I shall fulfil, to place her history and her conduct, her
honor and her character, in their just and proper light, 80 often
as I think an attack is made upon her, so respectable as to de-
serve to be repelled.

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION,"

Mr. Weesten having concluded the preceding speech, Mr. Benton
spoke in reply, on the 20th and 2ist of January, 1830, Mr. Hayne of
South Carolina followed on the same side, but, after some time, gave
way for a motion for adjournment. On Monday, the 25th, Mr. Hayne
resumed, and concluded his argument, Mr, Webstor immediately rose
in reply, but yielded the floor for a motion for adjournment.

‘The next day (26th January, 1880) Mr, Webster took the floor and
delivered the following speech, which has given such great celebrity to
the debate. The cireumstances connected with this remarkable effort
‘of parliamentary eloquence are stated in the biographical memoir in
the first volume of this collection.

Me. Prestoenr,— When the mariner has been tossed for
many days in thick weather, and on an unknown sea, he natu-
rally avails himself of the first pause in the storm, the earliest
glance of the sun, to take his latitude, and ascertain how far the
elements have driven him from his true course, Let us imi-
tate this prudence, and, before we float farther on the waves of
this debate, refer to the point from which we departed, that we
may at least be able to conjecture where we now are. J ask for
the reading of the resolution before the Senate.

‘The Secretary read the resolution, as follows :—

Resolved, That the Committee on Public Lands be instructed to in-
quire and report the quantity of public Innds remaining unsold within
each State and Territory, and whether jt be expedient to limit for a cer
tain period the eales of the public lande to euch lands only as have hereto
fore been offered for sale, and are now subject to entry at the minimum

*
* Nolivored in the Senate of the United States on the 96h of January, 1890.

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOTS RESOLUTION. eza)

price. And, also, whether the office of Surveyor-General, and some
of the land offices, may not be abolished without detriment to the public
interest ; or whether it be expedient to adopt mensures to hasten the sales
and extend more rapidly the surveys of the public lands.”

‘We have thus heard, Sir, what the resolution is which is ac
tually before us for consideration; and it will readily occur to
every one, that it is almost the only subject about which some-
thing has not been said in the speech, ranning through two
days, by which the Senate has been entertained by the gentle
man from South Carolina. Every topic in the wide range of
our public affairs, whether past or present,— every thing, general
or local, whether belonging to national politics or party polities,
—seems to have attracted more or less of the honorable mem-
ber’s attention, save only the resolution before the Senate. He
has spoken of every thing but the public lands; they have
escaped his notice. To that subject, in all his excursions, he
has not paid even the cold respect of a passing glance.

When this debate, Sir, was to be resumed, on Thursday
morning, it so happened that it would have been convenient for
me to be elsewhere. The honorable member, however, did not
incline to put off the discussion to another day. He bad a
shot, he said, to retarn, and be wished to discharge it. That
shot, Sir, which he thus kindly informed us was coming, that
we might stand out of the way, or prepare ourselves to fall by it
und die with decency, has now been received, Under all advan-
tages, and with expectation awakened by the tone which pre-
ceded it, it has been discharged, and has spent its force. It may
become me to say no more of its effect, than that, if nobody
is found, after all, either killed or wounded, it is not the first
time, in the history of human affairs, that the vigor and success
of the war have not quite come up to the lofty and sounding
phrase of the manifesto,

‘The gentleman, Sir, in declining to postpone the debate, told
the Senate, with the emphasis of his hand upon his heart, that
there was something rankling here, which he wished to relieve,
IMr Hayne rose, and disclaimed having used the word ranle-
ling J It would not, Mr. President, be safe for the honorable
member to appeal to those around him, upon the question
whether he did in fact make use of that word. But he may
have been unconscious of it, At any rate, it is enough that he

272 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION,

disclaims it, But still, with or without the use of that particu-
lar word, he had yet something here, he said, of which he wished
to rid himself by an immediate reply. In this respect, Sir, I
have a great advantage over the honorable ‘There
is nothing here, Sir, which gives me the slightest: ‘unensiness ;
neither fear, nor anger, nor that which is sometimes more trou-
blesome than either, the consciousness of having been in the
wrong, There is nothing, either originating here, or now received
here by the gentleman’s shot. Nothing originating here, for 1
had not the «lightest feeling of unkindness towards the hon-
orable member. Some passages, it is true, had occurred since
our acquaintance in this body, which I could have wished might
have been otherwise; but I had ased philosophy and forgotten
them, I paid the honorable member the attention of listen-
ing with respect to his firet speech; and when he eat down,
though surprised, and I must even say astonished, at some of
his opinions, nothing was farther from my intention than to
commence any personal warfare. Through the whole of the
few remarks I made in answer, I avoided, studiously and care~
fully, every thing which I thought possible to be construed into
disrespect. And, Sir, while there Js thus nothing

here which I have wished at any time, of now wish, to disebarge,
I must repeat, also, that nothing has been received dere which
rankies, or in any way gives me annoyance. I will not accuse
the honorable member of violating the rules of civilized war;
T will not say, that he poisoned his arrows, But whether his
shafts were, or were not, dipped in that which would have
caused rankling if they had reached their destination, there was
not, as it happened, quite strength enough in the bow to bring
them to their mark. If he wishes now to gather up those shafts,
he must look for them elacwhere; they will not be found fixed
and quivering in the object at which they were aimed,

The honorable member complained that I had slept on his:

speech. I must have slept on it, or not slept at all, The mo-
ment the honorable member sat down, his friend from Missouri
rose, and, with much honeyed commendation of the speech, sug-
gested that the impressions which it had produced were too
charming and delightful to be disturbed by other sentiments or
other sounds, and proposed that the Senate should adjourn.
Would it have been quite amiable in me, Sir, to interrupt this

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 278

excellent good feeling? Must I not have been abeolately mali-
cious, if 1 could have thrnst myself forward, to destroy sensa~
tions thus pleasing? Was it not much better and kinder,
both to sleep upon them myself, and to allow others also fhe
pleasare of sleeping upon them? But if it be meant, by
sleeping upon hia speech, that I took time to prepare a reply
to it, it is quite a mistake. Owing to other engagements, |
could not employ even the interval between the adjournment
of the Senate and its meeting the next morning, in atten+
tion to the subject of this debate. Nevertheless, Sir, the mere
matter of fact is undoubtedly true, I did sleep on the gentic-
man’s speech, and elept soundly, And I slept equally well on
his speech of yesterday, to which I am now replying. It is quite
possible that in this respect, also, T possess some advantage over
the honorable member, attributable, doubtless, to a cooler tem-
perament on my part; for, in trath, [ slept upon his speeches
remarkably well,

But the gentleman inquires why he was made the object of
such a reply. Why was he singled out? If an attack has been
made on the East, he, he assures us, did not begin it; it was
made by the gentleman from Missouri. Sir, T answered the
gentleman's speech becnuse | happened to hear it; and because,
also, I chose to give an answer to that speech, which, if unan-
swered, I thought most likely to produce injurious impressions.
Idid not: stop to inquire who was the original drawer of the bill.
1 found a responsible indorser before me, and it was my pare
pose to hold him liable, and to bring him to his just responsibil-
ity, without delay. But, Sir, this interrogatory of the honorable
member was only introductory to another. He proceeded to
ask me whether | had tarned upon him, in this debate, from
the consciousness that I should find an overmateh, if 1 ventured
on a contest with his friend from Missouri, If, Sir, the hon-
orable member, modestia gratia, bad chosen thus to defer to
his friend, and to pay him a compliment, without intentional
disparagement to others, it would have been quite according to
the friendly courtesies of debate, and not at all ungrateful to my
own feelings. J am not one of those, Sir, who esteem any trib-
ate of regard, whether light and occasional, or more serious
and deliberate, which may be bestowed on others, a8 80 much
un ustly withholden from themselves, Bat the tone and man

a

74 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION.

ner of the gentleman's question forbid me thus to interpret
it, Tam not at liberty to consider it as nothing more than a
tivility to his friend, It had an air of taunt and disparagement,
something of the loftiness of asserted superiority, which does not
allow me to pass it over withont notice. It was put as a ques-
tion for me to answer, and so pnt as if it were difficult for me
to answer, whether I deemed the member from Missouri an
overmatch for myself, in debate here. It seems to me, Sir, that
this is extraordinary language, and an extraordinary tone, for
‘the discussions of this body.

Matches and overmatches! Those terms are more applicable
elsewhere than here, and fitter for other assemblies than this.
Sir, the gentleman seems to forget where and what we are.
‘This is a Senate, a Senate of equals, of men of individual honor
aud personal character, and of absolute independence, We
know no masters, we acknowledge no dictators. This ie a hall
for mutual consultation and discussion; not an arena for the
exhibition of champions. I offer myself, Sir, ax a mateh for no
man; 1 throw the challenge of debate at no man's feet, But
then, Sir, since the honorable member has put the question in a
manner that calls for an answer, 1 will give him an answer;
and I tell him, that, holding myself to be the hamblest of the
members here, J yet know nothing in the arm of bis friend from
Missouri, either alone or when nided by the arm of Ais friend
from South Carolina, that need deter even me from espousing
whatever opinions I may choose to espouse, from debating
whenever ] may choose to debate, or from speaking whatever I
may see fit to eay, on the floor of the Senate, Sir, when ut-
tered as matter of commendation or compliment, I should dis-
sent from nothing which the honorable member might say of
his friend. Still lew do T put forth any pretensions of my own.
But when put to me as matter of taunt, I throw it back, and
say to the gentleman, that he could possibly sny nothing less
likely than such a comparison to wound my pride of personal
character. The anger of its tone rescued the remark from in-
tentional irony, which otherwise, probably, would have been its
general acceptation. But, Sir, if it be imagined that by this
rautual quotation and commendation ; if it be supposed that, by
vasting the characters of the drama, assigning to each his part,
to one the attack, to another the ay of onset; ar if it be

SECOND SPEECH UN FOOT'S RESOLUTION, 278

thought that, by « loud and empty vaunt of anticipated vie-
tory, any laurels are to be won here; if it be imagined, espe-
cially, that any, or all these things will shake any purpose of
mine, I can tell the honorable member, once for all, that he ix
greatly mistaken, and that he is dealing with one of whose ter+
per and character he has yet much to learn. Sir, I shall not
allow myself, on this occasion, I hope on no occasion, to be be-
trayed into uny loss of temper; but if provoked, as I trust I
never shall be, into crimination and recrimination, the honorable
member may perhaps find that, in that contest, there will be
blows to take as well as blows to give; that others can state
comparisons as significant, at least, as his own, and that his
impunity may possibly demand of him whatever powers of
taunt and sarcasm he may possess, I commend him to a pro-
dent husbandry of his resources.

But, Sir, the Coalition! ‘The Coalition! Ay, “the murdered
Coalition!” ‘The gentleman asks, if T were led or frighted into
this debate by the spectre of the Coalition. “Was it the ghost
of the murdered Coalition,” he exclaims, “which haunted the
member from Massachusetts; and which, like the ghost of Ban-
quo, would never down?” “The murdered Coalition!” Sir,
this charge of a coalition, in reference to the late administration,
is not original with the honorable member. Tt did not spring up
in the Senate, Whether asa fact, as an argument, or as an
embellishment, it is all borrowed. He adopts it, indeed, from a
very low origin, and a still lower present condition. It is one
of the thousand calumnies with which the press teemed, during
an exeited political canvass. It was a charge, of which there
‘was not only no proof or probability, but which was in itself
wholly impossible to be trae. No man of common information
ever belicved a syllable of it. Yet it was of that class of false-
hoods, which, by continued repetition, through all the organs of
detraction and abuse, are capable of mizleading those who are
already far misted, and of further fanning passion already kin-
dling into flame. Doubtless it served in its day, and in greater
or less degree, the end designed by it. Having done that, it has
sunk into the general mass of stale and loathed calumnics. It
is the very cast-off slough of a polluted and shameless press
Incapable of further mischief, it lies in the «wer, lifeiess and
despised. It is not now, Sir, in the power f the honorable

276 SECOND SPEECH ON FoOT"S RESOLUTION.

member to give it dignity or decency, by attempting to elevate
it, and to introduce it into the Senate. He cannot change it
from what it is, an object of general disgust and scorn. On the
contrary, the contact, if he choose to touch it, is more likely to
drag him down, down, to the place where it lies itself.

But, Sir, the honorable member was not, for other reasons,

ing« the English classics, and can put me right if ] am wrong;
but, according to my poor recollection, it was at those who had
begun with curesses and ended with fonl and treacherous mur-
der that the gory locks were shaken. The ghost of Banquo,
like that of Hamlet, was an honest ghost, It disturbed no inno-
cent man. It knew where its appearance would strike terror,
and who would cry out, A ghost! It made itself visible in the
right quarter, and comprlled the guilty and the conscience-
smitten, and none others, to start, with,

“Peyton, see there! behold! —look | le
Te U stand there, f rexw brim | "”

‘Tae eyeballs were eeured (was it not so, Sir?) who had
thought to shield themselves by concealing their own hand, and
laying the imputation of the crime on a low and hireling ageney
in wickedness; who had vainly attempted to stifle the workings
of their own coward consciences by ejaculating through white
lips and chattering teeth, “Thon canst not say I did it!" I
have misread the great poet if those who had no way partaken
in the deed of the death, either found that they were, or feored
that they should be, pushed from their stools by the ghost of the
slain, or exclaimed to a spectre created by their own fears and
their own remorse, “ Avaunt! and quit our sight!”

There is another particular, Sir, in which the honorable mermn-
ber’s quick perception of resemblances might, I should think,
have seen something in the story of Banquo, making it not alto-
gether a subject of the most pleasant contemplation. ‘Those
who murdered Banquo, what did they win by it? Substantial
good? Permanent power? Or disappointment, mther, and sore
mortification; dust and ashes, the common fate of vaulting

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION. mm

ambition overleaping itself? Did not even-handed justice ere
long commend the poisoned ehalice to their own lips? Did they
not soon find that for another they had “filed their mind"? that
their ambition, though apparently for the moment successful, had
but put a barren seepire in their grasp? Ay, Sir,
“a barren seoptre in thair gripe,
Thence tobe renthed with tn unlined herd,
No son of theirs succeeding.”

Sir, I need pursue the allueion no further. I leave the honor
able gentleman to run it out at his leisure, and to derive from it
ull the gratification it is calculated to administer. If he finds
himself pleased with the associations, and prepared to be quite
satisfied, though the paralle) should be entirely completed, | had
almost said, 1 am satisfied also; but that I shall think of. Yea,
Sir, I will think of that,

In the course of my observations the other day, Mr. President,
I paid a passing tribute of respect to a very worthy man, Mr.
Dane of Massachusetts, It so happened that he drew the Ordi-
nance of 1787, for the government of the Northwestern ‘Terri
tory, A man of so much ability, and so little pretence; of so
great a capacity to do good, and so unmixed a disposition to do
it for its own sake; a gentleman who had acted an important
part, forty years ago, in a measure the influence of which is still
deeply felt in the very matter which was the subject of debate,
might, I thought, receive from me a commendatory recognition.
But the honorable member was inclined to be facetious on the
subject. He was rather disposed to make it matter of ridicule,
that I had introduced into the debate the name of one Nathan
Dane, of whom he assures us he had never before heard. Sir,
if the honorable member had never before heard of Mr. Dane, |
am sorry for it. It shows him less acquainted with the public
men of the country than J bad supposed. Let me tell bim,
however, that a sneer from him at the mention of the name of
Mr. Dane is in bad taste. It may well be a high mark of am-
bition, Sir, either with the honorable gentleman or myself, to
accomplish as much to make our names known to advantage,
and remembered with gratitude, as Mr. Dane has accomplished.
But the truth is, Sir, | suspect, that Mr, Dane lives a little too
far north. He is of Massachusetts, and too near the north star
to be reached by the honoradle gentleman's telescope, If hix

VoL. Hl. au

B SECOND SPEECH ON FOOTS RESOLUTION.

sphere had happened to range south of Mason and Dixon's line,
he might, probably, have come within the scope of his vision.
Tspoke, Sir, of the Ordinance of 1787, which prohibits slay-
ery, in all future times, northwest of the Ohio, as a measure of
great wisdom and foresight, and one whieh had been attended
with highly beneficial and permanent consequences. 1 sup.
posed that, on this point, no two gentlemen in the Senate could
entertain different opinions, But the simple expression of this
sentiment has led the gentleman, not only into a labored defence
of slavery, in the abstract, and on principle, but also into a
warm accusation against me, as having attacked the system of
domestic slavery now existing in the Southern States. For all
this, there was not the slightest foundation, in any thing said or
intimated by me. I did not utter a single word which any inge-
nuity could torture into an attack on the slavery of the South.
I said, only, that it wae highly wise and useful, in legislating for
the Northwestern country while it was yet a wilderness, to pro-
hibit the introduction of slaves; and I added, that I presumed
there was no reflecting and intelligent person, in the neigh
boring State of Kentucky, who would doubt that, if the same
prohibition had been extended, at the same early period, over
that commonwealth, her strength and population would, at this
day, have been far greater than they are. If these opinions be
thought doubtful, they are nevertheless, 1 trast, neither extras
ordinary nor disrespectful. They attack nobody and menace
nobody. And yet, Sir, the gentleman's optics have discovered,
even in the mere expression of this sentiment, what he calla the
‘very spirit of the Missouri question! He represents me as mak-
ing an onset on the whole South, and manifesting a spirit which
would interfere with, and disturb, their domestic condition!
Sir, this injustice no otherwise surprises me, than as it is com>
aitted her, and committed without the slightest pretence of
ground for it. 1 say it only surprises me ae being done here;
for I know full well, that it is, and has been, the settled policy
of some p:rsons in the South, for years, to represent the people
of the North ax disposed to interfere with them in their own
exclusive and peculiar concerns, ‘This is a delicate and sensi-
tive point in Southern feeling; and of late yenrs it hus always
been touched, and generally with effect, whenever the object
has been to unite the whole South against Northern men or

2

Northern measures, aT eat eR SORTED Seep
and maintained at too intense a heat to admit discrimination or
reflection, is a lever of great power in our political machine. It |
moves vast bodies, and gives to them one and the same direc-
tion, But it is without adequate cause, and the suspicion which
exists is wholly groundless. here is not, and never has been,
a disposition in the North to interfere with these interests of
the South. Such interference has never been supposed to be
within the power of government; nor has it been in any way
attempted. ‘The slavery of the South has always been regarded
44 @ matter of domestic policy, left with the States themselvex,
and with which the federal government had nothing to do. Cer
tainly, Sir, 1 am, and ever have been, of that opinion. The
gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery, in the abstract, is no
evil. Most assuredly 1 need not say 1 differ with him, altogether
and most widely, on that point, I regard domestic slavery as
one of the greatest evils, both moral and political. But whether
it be a malady, and whether it be curable, and if so, by what
means; or, on the other hand, whether it be the vulus immedi-
cabile of the social system, I leave it to those whose right and
duty it is to inquire and to decide. And this I believe, Six, is,
and uniformly hus been, the sentiment of the North. Let us
look a little at the history of this matter.

When the present Constitution was submitted for the ratifica-
tion of the people, there were those who imagined that the
powers of the government which it proposed to establish might,
in some possible mode, be exerted in measures tending to the
abolition of slavery. ‘This suggestion would of course attract
much attention in the Southern conventions. In that of Vir
ginia, Governor Randolph said:—

“Yhope there is none here, who, considering the subject in
the calm light of philosophy, will make an objection dishonorable
to Virginin; that, at the moment they are securing the rights
of their citizens, an objection is started, that there is n spark of
hope that those unfortunate men now held in bondage may, by
the operation of the general government, be made free,”

At the very first Congress, petitions on the subject were pre
vented, if I mistake not, from different States. The Pennsyl
vania society for promoting the abolition of slavery took a lead,
and laid before Congress a memorial, praying Congress to pro

<a

280 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLITION.

mote the abolition by such powers as it possessed. This me-
morial was referred, in the House of Representatives, to a seleet

Massachusetts,

Lawrence of New York, Mr. Sinnickson of New Jersey, Mr.
Hartley of Penssylvania, and Mr. Parker of Virginia; all of
thetn, Sir, as you will observe, Northern men but the last. This
committee made a report, which was referred to a committee
of the whole House, and there considered and discussed for
several days; and being amended, although without material
alteration, it was made to express three distinct propositions, on
the subject of slavery and the slave-trade. First, in the words
of the Constitution, that Congress could not, prior to the year
1808, prohibit the migration or importation of such persons as
any of the States then existing should think proper to admit;
and secondly, that Congress had authority to restrain the citizens
of the United States from carrying on the African

for the purpose of supplying foreign countries, On this propo-
sition, our early laws against those who engage in that traffic
are founded. ‘The third proposition, and that which bears on
the present question, was expressed in the following terms;—

“ Resolved, That Congress have no authority to interfere in the
emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of ther in any of the
Btates; it remaining with the several States alone to provide
ules and regulations therein which hamanity and trae policy
may require,”

‘This resolution received the eanction of the House of Repre-
sentatives 20 early as March, 1790. And now, Sir, the honor-
able member will allow me to remind him, that not only were
the select committee who reported the resolution, with a single
exception, all Northern men, but also that, of the members then
composing the House of Representatives, a large majority, 1 bes
lieve nearly two thirds, were Northern men also.

The House agreed to insert these resolutions in its journal
and from that day to this it has never been maintained or eon-
waded at the North, that Congress had any authority to regulate
or interfere with the condition of slaves in the several States.
No Northern gentleman, to my knowledge, has moved any such
question in either House of Congress.

‘The fears of the South, whatever fears they might have enter+

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 28

tained, were allayed and quieted by this early decision; and so
remnined till they were excited afresh, without cause, but for
collateral and indirect purposes. When it became necessary, or
“was thought 80, by some political persons, to find an unvarying

for the exclusion of Northern men from confidence and
from lead in the affairs of the republic, then, and not till then,
the cry was raised, and the feeling industriously excited, that the
inflacnce of Northern men in the public counsels would endan-
ger the relation of master and lave, For myself, I claim no
other merit than that this gross and enormous injustice towerds
the whole North has not wrought upon me to change my opin=
fons of my political conduct, I hope 1 am above violating my
principles, even under the smart of injury and false imputations.
Unjust suspicions and undeserved reproach, whatever pain I
may experience from them, will not induce me, 1 trast, to over-
step the limits of constitutional duty, or to encroach on the
rights of others. The domestic slavery of the Southern States I
leave where T find it,—in the hands of their own governments.
It is their affair, not mine. Nor do 1 complain of the peculiar
effect which the magnitude of that population has had in the dis-
tribution of power under this federal government, We know,
Sir, that the representation of the States in the other house
is not equal. We know that great advantage in that respect is
enjoyed by the slave-holding States; and we know, too, that
the intended equivalent for that advantage, that is to say, the
imposition of direct taxes in the same ratio, has become merely
nominal, the habit of the government being almost invariably to
collect its revenue from other sources and in other modes
Nevertheless, I do not complain; nor would J countenance any
movement to alter this arrangernent of representation, It is the
original bargain, the compact; let it stand; let the advantage of
it be fally enjoyed. The Union itself is too full of benefit to be
hazarded in propositions for changing ite original basis, 1 go for
the Constitution as it is, and for the Union as it is. But I am
tesolved not to submit in silence to accusations, either agalust
myself individually or against the North, wholly unfounded and
unjust; uccusations which impute to ns a disposition to evade
the constitutional compact, and to extend the power of the
government over the internal laws and domestic condition of the
States, All such accusations, wherever and whenever made, all

a4

= $<
oe SECOND SPEECH ON FOUT’S RESOLUTION.

insinuations of the existence of any such purposes, | know and

feel to be groundless and injurious. And we must confide in

‘Southern gentlemen themselves; we must trust to those whose
integrity of heart and magnanimity of feeling will lead them to”
a desire to maintain and disseminate trath, and who possess

the means of ita diffusion with the Southern public; we must

leave it to them to disabuse that public of its prejudices, But

in the mean time, for my own part, I shall continue to act

justly, whether those towards whom justice is exercised receive

it with candor or with contumely.

Having had occasion to recar to the Ordinance of 1787, in
order to defend myself against the inferences which the honor-
able member has chosen to draw from my former observations
on that subject, I am not willing now entirely to take leave of it
without another remark. It need hardly be said, that that paper
expresses just sentiments on the great subject of civil and relige
ious liberty, Such sentiments were common, and abound in all
our state papers of that day. But this Ordinance did that
which wae not so common, and which is not even now univer-
sal; that is, it set forth and declared it to be a high and binding
duty of government itself to support schools and advance the
means of education, on the phtin reason thut religion, morality,
and knowledge are necessary to good government, and to the
happiness of mankind, One observation further. The impor-
tant provision incorporated into the Constitution of the United
‘States, and into several of those of the States, and recently, as
we have seen, adopted into the reformed constitution of
restraining legislative power in questions of private right, and
from impuiring the obligation of contmets, is first introduced
and established, as far as I am informed, as matter of express
written constitutional law, in this Ordinance of 1787. And
I must add, also, in regard to the author of the Ordinance, who
has not had the happiness to attract the gentleman's notice
heretofore, nor to avoid his sareasm now, that he was chair
man of that select committee of the old Congress, whose report
first expressed the strong sense of that body, that the old Con-
federation was not adequate to the exigencies of the country and
recommended to the States to send delegates to the convention
which formed the present Constitution.”

* Seo Now A, at the end of the speach,

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 283

An attempt has been made to transfer from the North to the
South the honor of this exclusion of slavery from the North+
western Territory. The journal, without argument or comment,
refutes such attempts. The cession by Virginia was made in
March, 1784. On the 19th of April following, a committee,
consisting of Messrs. Jefferson, Chase, and Howell, reported a
plan fora temporary government of the territory, in which was
this article: “That, after the year 1800, there shall be neither
slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said States, oth
erwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall
have been convicted.” Mr. Spaight of North Carolina moved
to strike out this paragraph. The queation was put, according
to the form then practised, “Shall these words stand as a
part of the plan?” New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania,
seven States, voted in the affirmative; Maryland, Virginia,
and South Carolina, in the negative. North Carolina was di-
vided. As the consent of nine States was necessary, the words
could not stand, and were strack out accordingly. Mr. Jefferson
voted for the clause, but was overruled by his colleagues.

In March of the next year (1785), Mr. King of Massachu-
setts, seconded by Mr. Ellery of Rhode Island, proposed the
formerly rejected article, with this addition: “ And that thie rege
ulation shall be an article of compact, and remain a fandamen-
tal principle of the constitutions between the thirteen original
States, and each of the States described in the resolve!’ On
this clause, which provided the adequate and thorough security,
the eight Northern States at that time voted affirmatively, and
the four Southern States negatively. The votes of nine States
were not yet obtained, and thus the provision was again re-
jected by the Southern States. The perseverance of the North
held out, and two years afterwards the object was attained. It
ia no derogation from the credit, whatever that may be, of draw-
ing the Ordinance, that its principles had before been prepared
and discussed, in the form of resolutions, If one should reason
in that way, what would become of the distinguished honor uf
the author of the Declaration of Independence? There is not
a sentimentin that paper which had not been voted and resolved
in the assemblies, and other popular bodies in the country, ovea
and over again.

284 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION.

But the honorable member has now found out that this gen-
tleman, Mr. Dane, was a member of the Hartford Convention,
However uninformed the honorable member may be of characters
and ocvurrences at the North, it would seem that he has at his
elbow, on this oceasion, some high-minded and lofty spirit, some
magnanimous and trae-hearted monitor, possessing the means
of local knowledge, and ready to supply the honorable member
with every thing, down even to forgotten and moth-eaten two-
penny pamphlets, which may be used to the disadvantage of his
own country. But as to the Hartford Convention, Sir, allow me
to say, that the proceedings of that body seem now to be less read.
and studied in New than farther South, They appear
to be looked to, not in New England, but elsewhere, for the pur-
pove of seeing how far they may serve as a precedent, But they
will not answer the purpose, they are quite too tame, The lati-
tude in which they originated was too cold. Other conventions,
of more recent existence, huve gone a whole bar's length beyond
it The learned doctors of Colleton and Abbeville have pushed
their cormmentarics on the Hartford collect so far, that the orige
inal text-writers are thrown entirely into the shade. 1 have
nothing to do, Sir, with the Hartford Convention. Its journal,
which the gentleman has quoted, I never read, So far as the
honorable member may discover in its proceedings a spirit in any
degree resembling that which was avowed and justified in those
other conventions to which I have alluded, or so far as those
proceedings can be shown to be disloyal to the Constitution, or
tending to disunion, 20 far I shall be as ready as any one to
bestow on them reprehension and censure,

Having dwelt long on this convention, and other occurrences
of that day, in the hope, probably, (which will not be gratified,)
that I should leave the course of this debate to follow him at
length in those excursions, the honorable member returned, and
attempted another object. He referred to a speeeh of mine in
the other house, the same which I bad occasion to allude to
myself, the other day; and has quoted a passage or two from it,
with a bold, though uneasy and laboring, air of confidence, as
if he had detected in mean inconsistency. Judging from the
gentleman's manner, a stranger to the course of the debate
and to the point in discussion would have imagined, from so
triumphant a tone, that the honorable member was about to

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 235

overwhelm me with a manifest contradiction, Any one why
heard him, and who had not heard what I bad, in fact, previ-
ously said, must have thought me routed and discomfited, as the
gentleman had promised. Sir, a breath blows all this triumph )
away. There is not the slightest difference in the pi
of my remarks on the two occasions. What J said here on
Wednesday is in exact accordance with the opinion expressed
by me in the other house in 1825. Though the gentleman had
the metaphyeics of Hudibras, though he were able
“to sever and divide:
A hair ‘twixt north and northwest sido,”

he yet could not insert his metaphysical scissors between the
fair reading of my remarks in 1825, and what I said here last
week. ‘There is not only no contradiction, no difference, but, in
trath, too exact @ similarity, both in thought and language, to
be entirely in just taste. I had myself quoted the same speech;
had recurred to it, and spoke with it open before me; and much
of what I said was little more than a repetition from it. In
order to make finishing work with this alleged contradiction,
permit me to recur to the origin of this debate, and review its
course, This seems expedient, and may be done as well now as
at any time.

Well, then, its history is this. The honorable member from
Connecticut moved 4 resolution, which constitutes the first
branch of that which is now before us; that is to say, a reso-
lution, instructing the committee on public Jands to inquire into
the expediency of limiting, for a certain period, the sales of the
public lands, to such as have heretofore been offered for sale;
and whether sundry offices connected with the sales of the lands
might not be abolished without detriment to the public service.
In the progress of the discussion which arose on this resolution,
an honorable member from New Hampshire moved to amend
the resolution, so as entirely to reverse its object; that is, to
strike it all out, and insert a direction to the committee to in-
quire into the expediency of adopting measures to hasten the
sales, and extend more rapidly the surveys, of the lands,

The honorable member from Maine* suggested that both

© Mr. Sprague.

286 SRCOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION.

those propositions might well enough go for consideration to the
committee; and in this state of the question, the member from
South Carolina addressed the Senate in his first speech. He
Tose, he said, to yive us his own free thoughts on the public
lands, I saw him rise with pleasure, and listened with expecta-
tion, though before he coneluded I was filled with surprise,
Certainly, { was never more surprised, than to find him follow-
ing up, to the extent he did, the sentiments and opinions which
the gentleman from Missonri had pnt forth, and which it ix
known he has long entertained.

J need not repeat at large the general topics of the honorable
gentleman's speech. When he snid yesterday that he did not
attack the Eastern States, he certainly must have forgotten, not
only particular remarks, but the whole drift and tenor of his
speech ; unless he means by not attacking, that he did not com-
mence hostilities, but that another had preceded him in the at-
tack. He, in the first place, disapproved of the whole coume of
the government, for forty years, in regard to its disposition of
the public lands; and then, taming northward and eastward, and
faneying he had found a canse for alleged narrowness and nig-
gurdliness in the “accursed policy” of the tariff, to which he rep-
Tesented the people of New England as wedded, he went on for
a full hour with remarks, the whole scope of which was to ex-
hibit the results of this policy, in feelings and in measures on-
favorable to the West. 1 thought his opinions unfounded and
erroneous, as to the general course of the government, and ven-
tured to reply to them.

‘The gentleman had remarked on the analogy of other cases,
and quoted the conduct of European governments towards their
own subjects acttling on this continent, as in point, to show
that we had been harsh and rigid in selling, when we should
have given the public lands to settlers without price. 1 thonght
the honorable member had suffered his judgment to be betrayed
by a false analogy; that he was strack with an appearance of
resemblance where there was no real similitude. 1 think so still,
The first settlers of North America were enterprising spirita,
engnged in private adventure, or fleeing frotn tyranny at home,
‘When arrived here, they were forgotten by the mother country,
or remembered only to be oppressed. Carried away again by
the appearance of analogy, or struck with the eloquence of the

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 287

passage, the honorable member yesterday observed, that the
conduct of government towards the Western emigrants, or my
representation of it, brought to his mind a celebrated speech in
the British Parliament. It was, Sir, the speech of Colonel
Barre, On the question of the stamp act, or tea tax, I forget
which, Colonel Barre had heard a tember on the treasury bench
argue, that the people of the United States, being British colo
nists, planted by the maternal care, nourished by the indulgence,
and protected by the arms of England, would not grudge their
mite to relieve the mother country from the heavy burden under
which she groaned. ‘The language of Colonel Barre, in reply to
this, was,—*“ They planted by your eare? Your oppression
planted them in America. They fled from your tyranny, and
grew by your neglect of them. So soon as you began to care
for them, you showed your care by sending persons to apy out
their liberties, misrepresent their character, prey upon them, and
eat out their substance.”

And how does the honorable gentleman mean to maintain,
that language like this is applicable to the conduct of the gov-
ernment of the United States towards the Western emigrants,
or to any representation given by me of that conduct? Were
the settlers in the West driven thither by our oppression? Have
they flourished only by our neglect of them? Has the gov-
ernment done nothing but prey upon them, and eat out their
substance? Sir, this fervid eloquence of the British speaker,
just when and where it was uttered, and fit to remain an exer
cise for the schools, is not a little out of place, when it is brought
thence to be applied here, to the conduct of our own country
towards her own citizens. From America to England, it may
be true; from Americans to their own goverament, it would be
strange language. Let us leave it, to be recited and declaimed
by our boys against a foreign nation; not introduce it here, to
recite and declaim ourselves against our own.

But J come to the point of the alleged contradiction. In my
remarks on Wednesday, I contended that we could not give
awny gratuitonsly all the public lands; that we held them in
trast; that the government had solemnly pledged itself to dis-
pose of them as a common fund for the cornmon benefit, and to
sell and settle them as its discretion should dictate, Now, Sir,
‘vhat contradiction does the gentleman find to this sentiment in

289 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION.

the speech of 18252 He quotes me as having then said, that
we ought not to hug these lands as u very great treasure. Very
well, Sir, supposing me to be accurately reported in that expres:
sion, what is the contradiction? I have not now said, that we
should hng these lands as a favorite source of pecuniary income,
No such thing. It is not my view. What I have snid, and
what I do say, is, that they are a common fund, to be disposed
of for the common benefit, to be sold at low prices for the necom-
modation of settlers, keeping the object of settling the lands as
much in view as that of raising money from them. ‘This I say
now, and this I haye always said. Is this hugging them as a
favorite treasure? Je there no difference between bugging and
hoarding this fond, on the one hand, as a great treasure, and, on
the other, of disposing of it at low prices, placing the proceeds
in the general treasury of the Union? My opinion ix, that as
much is to be made of the land as fairly and reasonably may
be, selling it all the while at such rates as to give the fullest effect
to settlement. This ia not giving it all away to the States, as
the gentleman would propose; nor is it hugging the fund closely
and tenaciously, as a favorite treasure; but it is, in my judg.
ment, a just and wise policy, perfectly according with all the
various duties which rest on government. So much for my con-
tradiction, And what is it? Where is the ground of the geatle-
man’s triumph? What inconsistency in word or doctrine has
he been able to detect? Sir, if this be a sample of that diseom-
fiture with which the honorable gentleman threatened me, com-
mend me to the word discomfiture for the rest of my life.

But, after all, this is not the point of the debate; and T must
now bring the gentleman back to what is the point,

The real question between me and hin is, Has the doottine.
been advanced af the South or the East, that the
the West Should be retarded, or at least need not be ei)
on account of its effect to drain off the people from the Atlantic
States? Is this doctrine, as has been alleged, of Eastern ori-
gin? That is the question. Has the gentleman found any
thing by which he can make good his accusation? I submit to
the Senate, that he hag entirely failed; and, aa far as this debate
has shown, the only person who has advanised sach sentiments
isa gentleman from South Curolina, and a friend of the honor:
able member himself. The honorable gentleman has given no

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 289

answer to this; there is none which ean be given. The simple
fact, while it requires no comment to enforce it, defies all argue
ment to refute it, I could refer to the speeches of another
Southern gentleman, in years before, of the eame general char-
acter, and to the same effect, as that which has been quoted:
but Iwill not consume the time of the Senate by the reading
of them,

So then, Sir, New England is guiltless of the policy of retard-
ing Western population, and of all envy and jealousy of the
growth of the new States. Whatever there be of that policy in
the country, no part of itis hers. If it has « local habitation,
the honorable member has probably seen by this time where to
look for it; and if it now has received a name, he has himself
christened it.

We approach, at length, Sir, to a more important part of the
honorable gentlernan’s observations. Since it does not accord
with my views of justice and policy to give away the public
lands altogether, as a mere matter of gratuity, 1 am asked by
the honorable gentleman on what ground it ia that J conzent to
vote them away in particular instances. How, he inquires, do
Treconcile with these professed sentiments, my support of meas-
ures appropriating portions of the lands to particular roads, par-
ticular canals, particular rivers, and particular institutions of
education in the West? This leads, Sir, to the real and wide
difference in political opinion between the honorable gentleman
and myself. On my part, I look upon all these objects as con- |
neeted with the common good, fairly embraced in its object and |
its terms; he, on the contrary, deems them all, if good at all, |
only local good. ‘This i our difference. The in
which he proceeded to put, at once explains this difference,
* What interest," asks he, “has South Carolina in « canal in
Ohio?” Sir, this very question is full of significance. It dex
velops the gentleman's whole political system ; and its answer
expounds mine, Here we differ. I look upona mad over the
Alleghanies, a canal round the falls of the Ohio, or a canal or
railway from the Atlantic to the Western waters, as being an
object large and extensive enough to be fairly said to be for
common benefit. The gentleman thinks otherwise, and
is the key to his construction of the powers of the
ment. He may well ask what interest has South Carolina in a

vou. 1 25

a

290 SECUND SPEECH ON FOUT’S RESOLUTION. _
canal in Ohio. On his system, it is true, she has no imerest.
governments,

and ill-defined bond of union, but in all main separate
and diverse. On that system, Carolina has no more interest in
acanal in Ohio than in Mexico. The gentleman, therefore,

_ only follows out his own principles; he does no more than arrive

at the nataral conclusions of his own doctrines; he only an-
nounces the true results of that creed which he Sas adopted
himself, and would persuade others to adopt, when he thus de-
clares that South Carolina has no interest in a public work in
Ohio.

Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England do not reason
thus. Our nofion of things is entirely different. We look upon
the States, not as separated, but a united. We love to dwell
von that union, and on the mutual happiness which it has so
mach promoted, and the common renown which it has so great
ly contributed to acquire. In our contemplation, Carolina and
Ohio are parts of the same country; States, united under the
| same general government, having interests, common, associated,

| intermingled. In whatever is within the proper sphere of the
constitutional power of this government, we look upon the
States us one. We do not impose geographical limits to our
patriotic feeling or regnrd ; we do not follow rivers and moun-
tains, and lines of latitude, to find boundaries, beyond which
public improvements do not benefit us. We who come here,
ag agents and representatives of these narrow-minded and self.
ish men of New England, consider ourselves as bound to re
gard with an equal eye the good of the whole, in whatever is
within our powers of legislation. Sir, if a railroad or canal,
beginning in South Carolina and ending in South Carolina,
‘appeared to me to be of national importance and national mag-
nitude, believing, as I do, that the power of government extends
to the encouragement of works of that description, if I were to
etand up here and ask, What interest has Massachusetts in a
railroad in South Carolina? I should not be willing to face my
constituents, These same narrow-minded men would tell me,
that they had sent me to act for the whole country, and that
one who possessed too little comprehension, either of intellect or
feeling, one who was act large enough, both in mind and in

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 991

heart, to embrace the whole, was not fit to be intrasted with the
Interest of any part.
Sir, I do not desire to enlarge the powers of the government ~
Pee ack tal apart Meals

fair interpretation. But when it is believed that a power does
exist, then it is, in my judgment, to be exercised for the general
benefit of the whole, So far as respects the exercise of such a
power, the States are one. It was the very object of the Con-
stitution to create unity of interests to the extent of the powers
of the general government. In war and peace we are one; in
commerce, one; because the authority of the general government
reaches to war and pence, and to the regulation of ecommerce.
T have never seen any more difficulty in erecting lighthouses on
the lakes, than on the ocean; in improving the harbors of inland
seas, than if they were within the ebb and flow of the tide; or
in removing obstructions in the vast streams of the West, more
than in any work to facilitate commerce on the Atlantic const.
Tf there be any power for one, there is power also for the other;
and they are all and equally for the common good of the
country.

‘There are other objects, apparently more local, or the benefit
of which is less general, towards which, nevertheless, [ have con-
curred with others, to give aid by donations of Innd. It is pro-
posed to construct a road, in or through one of the new States,
in which thix government possesses large quantities of land,
Have the United States no right, or, as a great and ontaxed
proprictor, are they under no obligation to contribute to an
object thus calculated to promote the common good of all the

fi themselves included? And even with respect to
education, which is the extreme case, let the question be con-
sidered. In the first place, as we have seen, it was made mat-
ter of compact with these States, that they should do their part
to promote education. In the next place, our whole system of
land laws proceeds on the idea that education is for the common
good; because, in every division, a certain portion is aniformly
reserved and appropriated for the use of schools. And, finally,
have not these new States singularly strong elairas, founded on
the ground already stated, that the government is a great une
taxed proprictor, in the ownership of tne soil? It is a conrider-
ution of great importance, that probably there is in no part of

292 SECOND SPELCH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION.

the country, or of the world, so great call for the means of edu-
cation, as in these new States, owing to the vast numbers of
persons within those ages in which education and instruction
are usually received, if received at all. This is the natural con-
sequence of recency of settlement and rapid increase. The
census of these States shows how great a proportion of the
whole population occupies the classes between infancy and
manhood. These are the wide fields, and here is the deep and
quick soil for the seeds of knowledge and virtue; and this is the
favored season, the very spring-time for sowing them. Let them
be disseminated withont stint. Let them be scattered with a
bountiful hand, broadcast. Whatever the government can fairly
do towards these objects, in my opinion, ought to be done.
These, Sir, are the grounds, succinctly stated, on which my
votes for grants of lands for particular objects rest; while I
majntain, at the same time, that it is all a common fund, for
the common benefit, And reasons like these, I presume, have
influenced the votes of other gentlemen from New England,
Those who have a different view of the powers of the govern-
ment, of course, come to different conclusions, on these, as on
other questions. I observed, when speaking on this subject be-
fore, that if we looked to any measure, whether for a rond, a
canal, or any thing else, intended for the improvement of the
West, it would be found that, if the New England ayes were
struck out of the lists of votes, the Southern noes would always
have rejected the measure. The truth of this has not been
denied, and cannot be denied. In stating this, 1 thought it
just to ascribe it to the constitutional scruples of the South,
rather than to any other less favorable or less churitable cause.
But no sooner had 1 done this, than the honorable gentleman
asks if T reproach him and his friends with their constitutional
scruples. Sir, [ reproach nobody, I stated a fact, and gave the
most respectful reason for it that occurred to me. The gentle-
man cannot deny the fact; he may, if he choose, disclaim the
reason, It is not long since I had occasion, in presenting a
petition from his own State, to account for its being intrusted
to my hands, by saying, that the constitutional opinions of the
gentleman and his worthy colleague prevented them from sup-
porting it. Sir, did I state this as matter of reproach? Fur
from it. Did T attempt to find any other cause than an honeat

45

at

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOl"S RESOLUTION. 293

me for these scruples? Sir, I did not. It did not become me
to doubt or to insinuate that the gentleman had either changed
his sentiments, or that he had made ie outa ee)
jons accommodated to any particular combination of

Es premiers Had I done so, 1 sol tv th wis
I was entitled to little credit in thus questioning other people's _
motives, I justified the whole world in suspecting my own, But
how has the gentleman returned this respect for others’ opin-
jons? His own candor and justice, how have they been ex+
hibited towards the motives of others, while be has been at so
much pains to maintain, what nobody has disputed, the purity
of his own? Why, Sir, he has asked when, and how, and why
New England votes were found going for measures favorable to
the West. He has demanded to be informed whether all this
did not begin in 1825, and while the election of President was
still pending.

Sir, to these questions retort would be justified ; and it is both
cogent and at hand. Nevertheless, I will answer the inquiry,
not by retort, but by facts. 1 will tell the gentleman when, and
how, and why New England has supported measures favorable
to the West. I have already referred to the early history of the
government, to the first acquisition of the lands, to the original
Jaws for disposing of them, and for governing the territories
whore they lie; and have shown the influence of New England
men and New England principles in all these leading measures,
Tshould not be pardoned were Ito go over that ground again.
Coming to more recent times, and to measures of a less general
character, I have endeavored to prove that every thing of this
kind, designed for Western improvement, has depended on the
yotes of New England; all this is trae beyond the power of
contradiction, And now, Sir, there are two measures to which
I will refer, not so ancient as to belong to the early history of
the public lands, and not so recent as to be on this side of the
period when the gentleman charitably imagines a new direction
may have been given to New England feeling and New Eng-
Jand votes. These measures, and the New England votes in
support of them, may be taken as samples and specimens of all
the rest.

In 1820 (observe, Mr. President, in 1820) the people of the
West besought Congress for a reduction in the price of lauds.

25°

2 SHOOND SPEECH ON FOUrS RESOLUTION.

Tn favor of that reduction, New England, with a delegation of
forty members in the other house, gave thirty-three votes, and one
Su aie The four Southern Ries i ee
gave thirty-two votes for it, and seven

Ge (observe again, Sir, the time), ie eneetie
the relief of the purchasers of the public lands. This was a
measure of vital importance to the West, and more especially to
the Southwest. It authorized the relinquishment of contracts
for lands which had been entered into at high prices, and a re-
duction in other cases of not less than thirty-seven and # half per
vent. on the purchase-money. Many millions of dollars, six or
even, I believe, probably much more, were relinquished by this
law. On this bill, New England, with her forty members, gave
more affirmative votes than the four Southern States, with their
fifty-two or fifty-three members, These two are far the most
important general measures respecting the public lands whieh
have been adopted within the last twenty years, They took
place in 1820 and 1821. ‘That is the time when.

As to the manner how, the gentleman already sees that it was
by voting in solid column for the required relief; and, lastly, aw
to the canse why, I tell the gentleman it was because the mem-
bers from New England thought the measures just and salutary;
becanse they entertained towards the West neither envy, hatred,
nor malice; because they deemed it becoming them, aa juat and
enlightened public men, to meet the exigency which had arisen
in the West with the appropriate measure of relief; because
they felt it due to their own characters, and the characters of
their New England predecessors in this government, to act to-
wards the new States in the spirit of a liberal, patronizing, mag-
nanimous policy. So much, Sir, for the cause why; and I hope
that by this time, Six, the honorable gentlernan is satisfied; if
not, Ido not know when, or how, or why he ever will be.

Having recurred to these two important measures, in answer
to the gentleman's inquiries, I must now beg permission to
go back to a period somewhat earlier, for the purpose of stin
forther showing how much, or rather how little, reason there is
for the gentleman's insinnation that political hopes or fears, or
party associations, were the grounds of these New England
votes. And after what has been snid, I hope it may be forgiven
me if I allude to some political opinions and votes of my own.

SS

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 295.

‘ot very little public importance certainly, but which, from the
time at which they were given and expressed, may puss for good
‘witnesses on this occasion.

This government, Mr, President, from its origin to the peace
of 1815, had been too much engrossed with various other im-

concerns to be able to turn its thoughts inward, and look
to the development of its vast internal resources. In the early
part of President Washington's administration, it was fully oc-
cupied with completing its own organization, providing for the
public debt, defending the frontiers, and maintaining domeatic

Before the termination of that administration, the fires |
of the French Revolntion blazed forth, as from a new-opened
voleano, and the whole breadth of the ocean did not secure us
from Its effects. ‘The smoke and the cinders reached us, though i
not the burning lava. Difficult and agitating questions, embar.
rusging to government and dividing public opinion, sprang out ‘
of the new state of our foreign tions, and were succeeded by
others, and yet again by others, equally embarrassing and
equally exciting division and diseord, through the long series of
twenty years; till they finally issued in the war with Ej
Down to the close of that war, no distinct, marked, and deliber-
ate attention had been given, or could have been given, to the
internal condition of the country, its capacities of improvement,
or the constitutional power of the government in regard to ob-
jects connected with such improvement.

‘The peace, Mr. President, brought about an entirely new and
a most interesting state of things; it opened to us other pros-
pects and suggested other duties. We ourselves were changed,
and the whole world was changed. ‘The pacification of Europe,
after Jane, 1815, assumed a firm and permanent aspect. The
nations evidently manifested that they were disposed for peace,
Some agitation of the waves might be expected, even after the
storm had subsided, but the tendency was, strongly and rapidly,
towards settled repose,

It eo happened, Sir, that I was at that time a member of Con-
grees, and, like others, naturally tamed my thoughts to the con-
templation of the recently altered condition of the country and
of the world. It appeared plainly enough to me, as well as to
wiser and more experienced men, that the policy of the govern-
ment would naturally take a start in a new direction; because

296 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION.

new directions would necessarily be given to the porsusts and
occupations of the people. We had pushed our commerce far
and fast, under the advantage of a neutral flag. But there were
now no longer fags, cither neutral or belligerent. ‘The harvest
of neutrality had been great, bat we had gathered it all. With
the peace of Enrope, it was obvious there would spring up in
her circle of nations a revived and invigorated spirit of trade, and
a new activity in all the business and objects of civilized life.
Hereafter, our commercial gains were to be earned only by suc-
ceas in a close and intense competition. Other nations would
produce for themselves, and carry for themselves, and manufac-
ture for themselves, to the full extent of their abilities, The
crops of our plains would no longer sustain European armies,
wor our ships longer supply those whom war had rendered un-
able to supply themselves. It was obvious, that, under these
circamstances, the country would begin to survey itself, and to
estimate its own capacity of improvement,

And this improvement, — how was it to be accomplished, and
Who was to accomplish it? We were ten or twelve millions of
people, sprend over almost balf a world. We were more than
twenty States, some stretching along the same seaboard, some
along the same linc of inland frontier, and others on opposite
banks of the same vast rivers. ‘I'wo considerations at once pre-
sented themselves with great force, in looking at this state of
things. One was, that that great branch of improvement whieh
consisted in furnishing new facilities of intercourse necessarily
ran into different States in every leading instance, and would
benefit the citizens of all such States. No one State, therefore,
in such cases, would assume the whole expense, nor was the
codperation of several States to be expected. Take the instance
of the Delaware breakwater. It will cost several millions of
money. Would Pennsylvania alone ever have constructed it?
Certainly never, while this Union lasts, because it is not for her
sole benefit. Would Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware
have united to accomplish it at their joint expense? Certainly
not, for the same reason. It could not be done, therefore, but
by the general government. ‘The same may be said of the large
inland undertakings, except that, in them, government, instead
of bearing the whole expense, cotiperates with others who bear a
port. ‘The other conzideration is, that the United States have the

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 27

means. They enjoy the revenues derived from commerce, and
the States have no abundant and easy sources of public in-
come. The custom-houses fill the general treasury, while the
‘States have scanty resources, except by reort to heavy direct
taxes.

Under this view of things, T thought it necessary to settle, at
least for myself, some definite notions with respect to the powers
of the government in regard to internal affairs, It may not sa-
vor too much of self-commendation to remark, that, with this
object, I considered the Constitution, its judicial construction, its
contemporaneous exposition, and the whole history of the legis-
lation of Congress under it; and T arrived at the conclusion, that
government bad power to accomplish sundry objects, or aid in
their uccomplishment, which are now commonly spoken of as
Inreanat Imrrovements, ‘That conclusion, Sir, may have been
right, or it may have been wrong, Tam not about to argue the
grounds of it at large. I say only, that it was adopted and
acted on even so carly asin 1816. Yes, Mr. President, I made
up my opinion, and determined on my intended course of polit«
ical conduct, on these subjects, in the Fourteenth Congress, in
1816. And now, Mr. President, I have further to say, that I
made up these opinions, and entered on this course of political
conduct, Tevero duce.” Yes, Sir, I pursued in all this a South
Carolina track on the doctrines of internal improvernent. South
Carolina, as she was then represented in the other house, set
forth in 1816 under a fresh and leading breeze, and I was among
the followers. But if my leader sees new lights and turna a
sharp corner, unless I see new lights also, I keep straight on in
the same path, I repeat, that leading gentlemen from South
Carolina were first and foremost in behalf of the doctrines of
internal improvements, when those doctrines came first to be
considered and acted upon in Congress. The debate on the
bank question, on the tariff of 1816, and on the direct tax, will
show who was who, and what was what, at that time,

The tariff of 1816, (one of the plain cases of oppression and
usurpation, from which, if the government does not recede, indi-
vidual Stites may justly secede from the government,) is, Sir, in
trath, a South Carolina tariff, supported by South Carolina

* Mr. Calhoun, when thi apesch was mado, wan Provident af the Sonate, and
Vice-President of the United States.

298 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S KESOLUTION-

votes. But for those votes, it could not have passed in the forra
in which it did pass; whereas, if it had depended on Massachu-
setts votes, it would have been lost. Docs not the honorable

an well know all this? ‘There are certainly those who
do, full well, know it all. Ido not say this to reproach South
Carolina. 1 only state the fact; and I think it will appear to be
true, that among the earliest and boldest advocates of the tariff,
a8 8 measure of protection, and on the express ground of protec-
tion, were leading gentlemen of South Carolina in Congress
I did not then, and cannot now, understand their language in
any other sense. While this tariff of 1816 was under discus-
sion in the House of Representatives, an honorable gentleman
from Georgia, now of this house,* moved to reduce the proposed
duty on cotton. He failed, by four yotes, South Carolina giving
three votes (enough to have turned the scale) against bie motion.
‘The act, Sir, then passed, and received on its passage the sup-
port of a majority of the Representatives of South Carolina
present and voting. This act is the first in the order of those
now denounced as plain usurpations, We sec it daily in the
list, by the side of those of 1824 and 1828, as a case of manifest
oppression, justifying disunion. I put it home to the honorable
member from South Carolina, that his own State was not only
“art and part” in this measure, but the causa cawsans. With+
ont her aid, this seminal principle of mischief, this xoot of Upas,
could not have been planted. I have already said, and it is true,
that this act proceeded on the ground of protection. It inter-
fored directly with existing interests of great value and amount.
It cut up the Calcutta cotton trade by the roots, but it passed,
nevertheless, and it passed on the principle of protecting manu-
factures, on the principle against free trade, on the principle
opposed to that which lets us alone}

Sach, Mr. President, were the opinions of important and lead-
ing gentlemen from South Carolina, on the subject of internal
improvement, in 1816. I went out of Congress the next year,
and, returning again in 1823, thought I found South Carolina
where I had left her. 1 really supposed that ull things remained
as they were, and that the South Carolina doctrine of intemal
improvements would be defended by the same cloquent voices,

© Ma, Forayth, + Soo Note B, at the end of the spocch.

SECOND SPEECH'ON FOOT'S RESOLL LION. 299

South hostile to the doctrine of internal improvements, Anti-
consolidation was the flag under which this party fought; and
its supporters inveighed against internal improvements, much
after the manner in which the honorable gentleman has now
inveighed against them, as part and parcel of the aystem of con-
eolidation. Whether this party arose in South Carolina itself,
or in the neighborhood, is more than I know. I think the latter
However that may hye been, there were those found in South
Carolina ready to make war upon it, and who did make intrepid
war upon it, Names being regarded as things in such contro-
versies, they bestowed on the anti-improvement gentlemen the
appellation of Radicala, Yes, Sir, the appellation of Radicals, as
a term of distinction applicable and applied to those who de-
nied the liberal doctrines of internal improvement, originated,
according to the best of my recollection, somewhere between
North Carolina and Georgin. Well, Sir, these mischievous Rad-
icals were to be put down, and the strong arm of South Caro-
lina was stretched out to put them down. About this time
Treturned to Congress. The battle with the Radicals had been
fought, and our South Carolina champions of the doctrines of
internal improvernent had nobly maintained their ground, and
were understood to have achieved a victory. We looked upon
them as conquerors. ‘They had driven back the enemy with dia-
comfiture, a thing, by the way, Sir, which is not always per-
formed when it is promised. A gentleman to whom I have
alfendy referred in this debate had come into Congress, during
my absence from it, from South Carolina, and had brought with
him a high reputation for ability. He came from a school with
which we had been acquainted, et noscitur a socits, I hold in
my hand, Sir, a printed speech of this distinguished gentleman,*
“on Ivrernat Inerovemenrs,” delivered about the period to
whieh I now refer, and printed with a few introductory remarks
upon consolidation; in which, Sir, 1 think he quite consolidated
the arguments of his opponents, the Radicals, if to crush be to
consolidate. 1 give you @ short but significant quotation from

* Mr. McDuffie.

300 SECOND SPEECH ON FOUT'S RESOLUTION.

these remarks He is speaking of a pamphlet, then recently
publisied, entitled “ Consolidation”; and having alluded to the
question of renewing the charter of the former Bank of the
United States, he says: —

“Moreover, im the early histury of partics, and when Mr, Crawford
advocated a renewal of the old charter, it was considered a Federal
measure; which internal improvement never was, a8 this author errone-
ously states. This later measure originated in the administration of
Mr, Jefferson, with the appropriation for the Cumberland Road ;

(ie fhoun, and carried thi the

fouse of Repreacotatives by a largo ‘ity of the Republicans, in-
eluding almost every one of the leading men who carried us through the
late war.”

So, then, internal improvement is not one of the Federal here-
siea, One paragraph more, Sir: —

“The author in question, not content with denouncing as Pederaliata,
General Jackson, Mr. Adams, Mr. Calhoun, and the majority of the
South Carolina delegation in Congress, modestly extends the denuncia-
tion to Mr. Monroe and the whole Republican party. Hero are his
words: —* During the administration of Mr. Monroe much hns passed
which the Republican party would be glad to approve if they could!
But the principal feature, and that which has chiefly elicited these ob-
servations, is the renewal of the System oF [xrenwax Derrovewents.”
Now this meusure wus adopted by a vote of 115 to 86 of a Republican
Congress, and sanctioned by a Republican President. Who, then, is this
author, who axsumes the high prerogative of denouncing, in the name
of the Republican party, the Republican administration of the country ?
‘A denunciation including within its eweop Calhoun, Lowndes, ond
Chevez, nen who will be regarded as the brightest ornaments of South
Carolina, and the strongest pillars of the Republican party, as long as
the ate war shall be remembered, and talents and patriotism shall be
regarded a8 the proper objects of the admiration and gratitude of a free
people 1!"

Such are the opinions, Sir, which were maintained by South
Carolina gentlemen, in the House of Representatives, on the
subject of internal improvements, when I took my seat there
asa member from Massachusetts in 1823. But this ix not all.
We had a bill before us, and passed it in that house, entitled,
“An Act to procure the necessary surveys, plans, and estimates
upon the subject of rouds and canals” It authorized the Pros-

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 301

ident to cause surveys and estimates to be made of the routes
of such roads and canals as he might deem of national !mpor-
tance in a commercial or military point of view, or for the
transportation of the mail, and appropriated thirty thousand
dollars out of the trensury to defniy the expense. ‘This act,
though preliminary in its nature, covered the whole ground. It
took for granted the complete power of internal im,

aa far as any of its advocates had ever contended for it. Having
passed the other house, the bill came up to the Senate, and was
here considered and debated in April, 1824. The honorable
member from South Carolina was a member of the Senate at
that time, While the bill was under consideration here, a mo-
tion was made to add the following proviso: —* Provided,
That nothing herein contained shall be construed to affirm or
admit a power in Congress, on their own authority, to make
roads or canals within any of the States of the Union.” The
yeas and nays were taken on this proviso, and the honorable
member voted in the negative! The proviso failed.

‘ A motion was then made to add this proviso, viz.: —“ Pro-
» vided, That the faith of the United States is hereby pledged,
that no money shall ever be expended for ronds or canals, ex-
cept it shall be among the several States, and in the eame pro-
portion as direct taxes are laid and assessed by the provisions
of the Constitution” The honorable member voted against
this proviso also, and it failed. The bill was then put on its
passage, and the honorable member voted for it, and it passed,
and became a law.

Now, it strikes me, Sir, that there is no maintaining these votes,
but upon the power of internal improvement, in ite broadest
sense. In troth, these bills for surveys and estimates have always
been considered as test. questions; they show who is for nnd who
against internal improvement. This law itself went the whole
length, and assumed the full and complete power. ‘I'he gentle-
man’s yotes sustained that power, in every form in which the
various propositions to amend presented it. He went for the
entire and unrestrained authority, without consulting the States,
and without agreeing to any proportionate distribution. And
now suffer me to remind you, Mr. President, that it is this very
same power, thus sanctioned, in every form, by the gentleman’>
own opinion, which is so plain and manifest a usurpation, that

VO. it 26

302 SECOND SPEECH ON FUOT'S RESOLUTION,

the State of South Carolina is supposed to be justified in re
fusing submission to any laws carrying the power into effect.
‘Truly, Sir, is not this a little too hard? May we not crave
#ome mercy, under favor and protection of the gentleman's own
trae Admitting that a road, or a canal, must be written
down flat nsurpation as was ever committed, may we find no
mitigation in our respect for his place, and his vote, as one that
knows the law?

‘The tariff, which South Carolina had an efficient hand in es-
ftablizhing, in 1816, and this aseerted power of internal improve-
ment, advanced by her in the same year, and, a8 we have seen,
approved and sanctioned by her Representatives in 1824, these
two measures are the great grounds on which she is now
thought to be justified in breaking up the Union, if she sees fit
to break it up!

I may now safely say, I think, that we have had the authority
of leading and distinguished gentlemen from South Caroline

_ in support of the doctrine of internal improvement. I

repeat,
that, up to 1824, I for one followed South Carolina; but when
that star, in its ascension, veered off in an unexpected direction,
T relied on its light no longer.

Here the Vice-President said, “ Does the chair understand the gentie-
man from Massachusetts to say that the person now occupying the chair
of the Senate has changed his opinions on the subject of internal im.
provements?"

From nothing ever said to me, Sir, have I had reason to know
of any change in the opinions of the person filling the chair
of the Senate. If such change has taken place, I regret it. I
speak generally of the State of South Carolina. Individuals
we know there are, who hold opinions favorable to the power.
An application for its exercise, in behalf of a public work in
South Carolina itself, is now pending, I believe, in the other
house, presented by members from that State,

I have thus, Sir, perhaps not without some tediousness of
detail, shown, if J am in error on the subject of internal im-
provement, how, and in what company, I fell into that error. If
Tam wrong, it is apparent who misled me.

I go to other remarks of the honorable member; and I have
to corrplain of an entire misapprehension of what [ said on the

a aii» |

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION, aos

subject of the national debt, though I ean hardly perceive how
any one could misunderstand me. What I said wns, not that 1
wished to put off the payment of the debt, but, on the contrary,
that I had always voted for every measure for its reduction, as
uniformly as the gentleman himeelf, He seems to claim the ex-
elusive merit of a disposition to reduce the public charge. Ido
not allow it to him. As a debt, 1 was, 1 am for paying it, be-
cause it is a charge on our finances, and on the industry of the
country. But T observed, that T thought I perceived a morbid
fervor on that subject, an excessive anxiety to pay off the debt,
not so much because it is a debt simply, as because, while it
lasts, it furnishes one objection to disunion. It ix, while it con-
tinues, a tie of common interest. I did not impute such motives
to the honorable member himself, but that there is such a feeling
in existence T have not a particle of doubt. ‘The most I suid
was, that if one effect of the debt was to strengthen our Union,
that effect itself was not regretted by me, however much others
might regret it. The gentleman has not seen how to reply to
this, otherwise than by supposing me to have advanced the doe-
trine that a national debt is a national blessing. Others, [ must
hope, will find much less difficulty in understanding me. [dix
tinctly and pointedly cautioned the honorable member not to
understand me as expressing an opinion favorable to the contin-
uance of the debt, I repeated this caution, and repeated it more
than once; but it was thrown away.

On yet another point, I was still more unaccountably misun-
derstood. The gentleman had barangued against, *consolidae
tion.” [told him, in reply, that there was one kind of consoli-
dation to which I was attached, and that was the consolidation
of our Union; that this was precisely that consolidation to
which I feared others were not attached, and that such consoli-
dation was the very end of the Constitution, the leading object,
ws they had informed us themselves, which its framers had kept
in view. 1 tumed to their communication,* und read their very
words, “the consolidation of the Union,” and expressed my
devotion to this sort of consolidation. 1 said, in terms, that 1
wiehed not in the glightest degree to augment the powers of this
government; that my object wus to preserve, not to enlarge;

* The letter of the Federal Convention to the Congress of the Confeder ntiva
Atsnmmitting the plan of the Constitution,

204 SEOOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION.

_ and that by consolidating the Union 1 understood no more than
_ the strengthening of the Union, and perpetuating it, Having
| een thus explicit, having thna read from the printed book the
precise words which I adopted, as expressing my own senti-
ments, it passes comprehension how any man could understand
me as contending for an extension of the powers of the gov-
ernment, or for consolidation in that odious sense in which it
means an accumulation, in the federal government, of the pow-
ers properly belonging to the States,

I repeat, Sir, that, in adopting the sentiment of the framers
of the Constitution, I read their language audibly, and word for
word; and I pointed out the distinction, just as fully as T have
now done, between the consolidation of the Union and that
other obnoxions consolidation which J disclaimed. And yet the
honorable member misunderstood me, The gentleman had said
that he wished for no fixed revenue,—not a shilling. If by a
word he could convert the Capitol into gold, he would not do it,
Why all this fear of revenue? Why, Sir, becanse, as the gen-
fleman told us, it tends to consolidation. Now this can mean
neither more nor less than that a common revenue is a common
interest, and that all common interests tend to preserve the
union of the Statea. I confese I like that tendency; if the
gentleman dislikes it, he is right in deprecating a shilling of
fixed revenne. So much, Sir, for consolidation.

As well as T recollect the course of his remarks, the honorable
gentleman next recurred to the subject of the tariff. He did not
doubt the word must be of unpleasant sound to me, and proceed-
ed, with an effort neither new nor attended with new success, to
involve me and my votes in inconsistency and contradiction. I
am happy the honorable gentleman has furnished me an oppor-
tunity of a timely remark or two on that subject. 1 was glad
he approached it, for it is a question I enter upon without fear
from any body. ‘The strenuous toil of the gentleman bas been
to mise an inconsistency between my dissent to the tariff in
1824, and my vote in 1828, It is labor lost. He pays unde-
served compliment to my speech in 1824; but this is to raise
me high, that my fall, as he would have it, in 1828, may be more
signal. Sir, there was no fall, Between the ground I stood on
in 1824 and that I took in 1928, there was not only no preci
pice, but no declivity. It was a change of position to meet now

"

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 305

circumstances, but on the same level. A plain tale explains the
whole matter, In 1816 Thad not acquiesced in the tariff, then
smpported by South Carolina. To some parts of it, expreially, I
(ult and expressed great repugnanee, I held the same opinions
in 1820, at the meeting in Faneuil Hall, to which the gentleman
has alluded. 1 said then, and say now, that, as an original
question, the authority of Congress to exercise the revenue pow-
er, with direct reference to the protection of manufactures, is a
questionable authority, far more questionable, in my judgment,
than the power of internal improvements. 1 must confess, Sir,
that in one respect some impression has been made on my opin-
ions lately, Mr, Madison’s publication has put the power ina
very strong light. He has placed it, I must acknowledge, upon
grounds of construction and argument which seem impregnable.
But even if the power were doubtful, on the face of the Consti-
tution itself, it had been assamed and asserted in the first reve-
nue Inw ever passed under that same Constitution; and on this
ground, as 4 matter settled by contemporaneous practice, I had
refrained from expressing the opinion that the tariff laws tran?
sxcended constitutional limits, as the gentleman supposes. What
Tdid say at Faneuil Hall, as far as I now remember, was, that
this was originally matter of doubtful construction, The gen-
tleman himself, I suppose, thinks there is no doubt about it, and
that the laws are plainly against the Constitution. Mr, Madi-
son’s letters, already referred to, eontain, in my judgment, by far
the most able exposition extant of this part of the Constitution,
He has satisfied me, so far as the practice of the government
had left it an open question,

With a great majority of the Representatives of Massachu-
setts, ] voted against the tariff of 1824. My reasons were then
given, and J will not now repeat them. But, notwithstanding
our diswnt, the great States of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
and Kentucky went for the bill, in almost unbroken column,
and it passed. Congress and the President sanctioned it, and it
became the law of the land. What, then, were we todo? Our
only option was, either to fall in with thie settled course of pub-
lie policy, and accommodate ourselves to it as well as we could,
or to embrace the South Carolina doctrine, and talk of nullify.
ing the statute by State interference.

‘This last alternative did not suit our principtes, and of course

26°

U8 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION.

we adopted the former. In 1827, the subject came again before
Congress, on a proposition to afford some relief to the branch of
wool and woollens. We looked upon the system of protection
as being fixed and settled. The law of 1824 remained. It had
gone into full operation, and, in regard to some objects intended
by it, perhaps most of them, had produced all its expected
effects. No man proposed to repeal it; no man attempted to
renew the general contest on its principle. But, owing to sub-
sequent and unforeseen occurrences, the benefit intended by it
to wool and woollen fabrica had not been realized. Events not
known here when the law passed had taken place, which de-
feated its object in that particular respect. A measure was
accordingly broughi forward to mect this precise deficiency, to
remedy this particular defect. It was limited to wool and wool:
lens, Was ever any thing more reasonable? If the policy of
the tariff laws had become established in principle, as the per-
manent policy of the government, should they not be revised
and amended, and made equal, like other laws, as exigencies
should arixe, or justice require? Because we had doubted about
adopting the system, were we to refuse to cure ite manifest
‘lefects, after it had been adopted, and when no one attempted
its repeal? And this, Sir, is the inconsistency so much braited.
T had voted against the tariff of 1824, but it passed; and in
1827 nnd 1828, I voted to amend it, in a point essential to the
interest of my constituents. Where is the inconsistency?
Could I do otherwise? Sir, does political consistency consist
in always giving negative votes? Does it require of a pub-
lic man to refuse to concur in amending laws, because they
passed against his consent? Having voted against the tariff
originally, does consistency demand that 1 should do all in
my power to maintain an unequal tariff, burdensome to my
ows constituents in many respects, favorable in none? To
consistency of that sort, I lay no claim. And there is an-
other sort to which I lay as little, and that is, a kind of con-
sistency by which persons feel themselves as much bound to
oppose a proposition after it has become a law of the land as
before.

The bill of 1827, limited, as I have said, to the single object
in which the tariff of 1824 had manifestly failed in its effect,
passed the House of Representatives, but was lost here. We

\

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLISTION. 307

had then the act of 1828. T need not recur to the history of a
measure so recent. Its enemies spiced it with whatsoever they
thought would render it distasteful; ite friends took it,

as it was. Vast amounts of property, many millions, had been
invested in manufactures, under the inducements of the act of
1824. Events called loudly, as 1 thought, for farther regulation
to secure the degree of protection intended by that act, I was
disposed to vote for such regulation, and desired nothing more;
but certainly was not to be bantered out of my purpose by a
threatened angmentation of duty on molasses, put into the bill
for the avowed purpose of making it obnoxious. ‘The vote may
have been right or wrong, wise or unwise; but it is little less
than absurd to allege against it an inconsistency with opposition
to the former law.

Sir, as to the general subject of the tariff, I have little now to
say. Another opportunity may be presented. I remarked the
other day, that this policy did not begin with us in New Eng-
land; and yet, Sir, New England is charged with vehemence
‘as being favorable, or charged with equal vehomence as being
unfavorable, to the tariff policy, just as best suits the time, place,
and oceasion for making some charge against her. The credu-
lity of the public has been put to its extreme capacity of false
impression relative to her conduct in this particular. Through
all the South, during the late contest, it was New England pol-
icy and a New England administration that were afflicting the
country with a tariff beyond all endurance; while on the other
side of the Alleghanies even the act of 1828 itself, the very sub-
limated essence of oppression, according to Southern opinions,
was pronounced to be one of those blessings for which the
‘Weat was indebted to the “ generous South.”

With large investments in manufacturing establishments, and
many and various interests connected with and dependent on
them, it is not to be expected that New England, any more
than other portions of the country, will now consent to any
measure destructive or highly dangerous. The daty of the gov-
ernment, at the preeent moment, would seem to be to preserve,
not to destroy; to maintain the position whieh it has assumed ;
and, for one, T shall feel it an indispensable obligation to hald
it steady, as far asin my power, to that degree of protection
which it has undertaken to bestow. No more of the tariff

308 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION

Professing to be provoked by what he chose to consider a
charge made by me against South Carolina, the hanorable mem-
ber, Mr. President, has taken up a new crusade against New
England, Leaving altogether the subject of the public Jands, in
which his snceess, perhaps, had been neither distinguished nor
satisfactory, and letting go, also, of the topic of the tariff, be
sallied forth in a general assault on the opinions, politics, and
partica of New England, as thoy have been exhibited in the last
thirty years, This is natural. The “narrow policy” of the pab-
lie lands had proved a legal settlement in South Carolina, and
was not to be removed. The “accursed policy” of the tariff,
also, had established the fact of its birth and parentage in the
same State. No wonder, therefore, the gentlernan wiehed to
carry the war, a¥ he expressed it, into the enemy’s country.
Prudently willing to quit these subjects, he was, doubtless, de-
sirous of fastening on others, which could not be transferred
south of Mason and Dixon’s line. The politics of New England
became his theme; and it was in this part of his speech, I think,
that he menaced me with such sore discomfiture. Discomfit-
ure! Why, Sir, when he attacks any thing which I maintain,
and overthrows it, when he turns the right or left of any posi
tion which I take up, when he drives me from any ground T
choose to occupy, he may then talk of discomfiture, but not till
that distant diy. What has he done? Has he maintained his
own charges? Has he proved what he alleged? Ha he sus-
tained himself in his attack on the government, and on the his-
tory of the North, in the matter of the public lands? Has he
disproved a fact, refuted a proposition, weakened an argument,
maintained by me? Has he come within beat of drum of any
position of mine? ©, no; but he has “carried the war into
the enemy's country”! Carried the war into the enemy's coun-
ie Yes, Sir, and what sort of a war has he made of it?

'y; Sir, he has stretched a drag-net over the whole surface of
perished pamphlets, indiscreet sermons, frothy paragraphs, and
faming popular addresses; over whatever the pulpit in its mo-
ments of alarm, the preea in ite heats, and parties in their extray-
agance, have severally thrown off in times of general excitement
and violence. He has thus swept together a mass of such things
as, but that they are now old and cold, the public health would
have required him rather to lenve in their state of dispersion.

For 2 good long hour or two, we had the unbroken pleasure of
listening to the honorable member, while he recited with his
usual grace and spirit, and with evident high gusto, speeches,
addresses, and all the ct cateras of the political press,

stich as warm Shoads) prodace. in wars. megs) and) Fast ex) te
would be “discomfiture” indeed for any one, whose taste did
not delight in that sort of reading, to be obliged to peruse. This
is his war. . This it is to carry war into the enemy's country. It
is in an invasion of this sort, that he flatters himself with the ex-
pectation of gaining lwurcle fit to adorn a Senator's brow!

Mr. President, I shall not, it will not, I trust, be expected that
I should, either now or at any time, separate this fi
parts, and answer and examine its components, T shall barely
‘bestow upon it all a general remark or two. In the run of forty
years, Sir, under this Constitution, we have experienced sundry
successive violent party contests, Party arose, indeed, with the
Constitation itself, and, in some form or other, has attended it
through the greater part of its history. Whether any other con-—
stitution than the old Articles of Confederation was desimble,
was itself a question on which parties divided; if a new consti-
tution were framed, what powers should be given to it was
another question; and when it had been formed, what was, in
fact, the just extent of the powers actually conferred was a
third. Parties, as we know, existed under the first administra.
tion, a distinctly marked as those which have manifested them-
selves at any subsequent period. The contest immediately pre«
ceding the political change in 1801, and that, again, which
existed at the commencement of the late war, are other in-
stances of party excitement, of something more than usual
strength and intensity, In all these conflicts there was, no
doubt, much of violence on both and all sides. It would be
impossible, if one had a fancy for such employment, to adjust
‘the relative quantum of violence between these contending par-
ties. There was enough in each, as must always be expected
in popular governments. With a great deal of popular and
decorous discussion, thers was mingled m grent deal, also, af
declamation, virulence, crimination, and abuse. In regard to
any party, probably, at one of the leading” epochs in the history
of parties, enough may be found to make out another inflamed
exhibition, not unlike that with which the honorable member

B1U SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION.

has edified us. For myself, Sir, I shall not rake among tue ral»
bish of bygone times, to see what J can find, or whether I cannot
find something by which Tean fix a blot on the eseutcheon of
any State, any party, or any part of the country. General
Washington's administration was steadily and zealously main-
tained, as we all know, by New England. It was violently
elsewhere. We know in what quarter he bad the most
earnest, constant, and persevering support, in all his great and
leading measures. We know where his private and personal
character was held in the highest degree of attachment and
veneration; and we know, too, where his measures were op-
posed, his services slighted, and his character vilified. We know,
or we might know, if we turned to the journals, who expressed
respect, gratitude, and regret, when he retired from the chief
magistracy, and who refused to express either respect, gratitude,
or regret. leball not open those journals. Pablications more
abusive or ecurrilous never eaw the light, than were sent forth
against Washington, and all his leading measures, from presses
south of New England. Bat TI shall not look them op. Tem.
ploy no scavengers, no one is in attendance on me, furnishing
such means of retaliation; and if there were, with an ass's
load of them, with a bulk as huge os that which the
himself has produced, I would not touch one of them. I see
enough of the violence of our own times, to be no way anxious
to resene from forgetfulness the extravagances of times past.
Besides, what is all this to the present purpose? [t has noth-
ing to do with the public lands, in regard to which the attack
was begun; and it has nothing to do with those sentiments and
opinions which, I have thought, tend to disunion, and all of
which the honorable member seems to have adopted himself,
and undertaken to defend. New England has, at times, so
argues the gentleman, held opinions as dangerous as those
which he now holds, Suppose this were 20; why should ke
therefore abuse New England? If he finds himeelf counte-
nanced by acts of hers, how is it that, while he relies on these
acts, he covers, or secks to cover, their authors with reproach?
But, Sir, if, in the course of forty years, there have been undue
effervescencee of party in New England, bas the same thing
happened nowhere else? Party animosity and party outrage,
not in New England, but elsewhere, denounced President Wash

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 3u

ington, ot only asa Federalist, but as a Tory, British agent, «
‘man who in his high office sanctioned corruption. But does the
honorable member suppose, if I had a tender here who should
put such an effusion of wickedness and folly into my hand,
that IT would stand up and mad it against the South? Parties
ran into great heats again in 1799 and 1800, What was said,
Sir, or rather what was not said, in those years, against John
Adams, one of the committee that drafted the Declaration of
Independence, and its admitted ableet defender on the floor of
Congress? If the gentlernan wishes to increase his stores of
party abuse and frothy violence, if he has a determined procliy-
ity to such pursuits, there are treasures of that sort south of the
Potomac, much to bis taste, yet untouched. I shall not touch
them,

‘The parties which divided the country at the commencement
of the late war were violent. But then there was violence on
both sides, and violence in every State. Minorities and majori-
ties were equally violent. There was no more violence against
the war in New England, than in other States; nor any more

of violence, except that, owing to a dense population,
greater facility of assembling, and more presses, there may have
been more in quantity spoken and printed there than in some
other places. In the article of sermons, too, New England is
somewhat more abundant than Sonth Carolina; and for that
reason the chance of finding here and there an exceptionable
one may be greater, 1 hope, too, there are more good ones.
Opposition may have been more formidable in New England,
as it embraced a larger portion of the whole population; but it
was no more unrestrained in principle, or violent in manner,
‘The minorities dealt quite as harahly with their own State gow-
ernments as the majorities dealt with the administration here,
‘There were presses on both sides, popular meetings on both
sides, ay, and pulpits on both sides also. The gentleman's pur
veyors have only catered for him among the productions of one
side. I certainly shall not supply the deficiency by furnishing
samples of the other, [leave to him, and to them, the whole
eoncern.

It is enough for me to say, that if, in any part of this their
grateful occupation, if, in all their researches, they find any
thing in the history of Massachusetts, or New England, or ir

312 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION.
ss Uae eins spice Nese Otee Foes Beavis eee yon

gentleman's
expecting, however, that he will extend his buffetings in like
manner fo all similar proceedings, wherever else found.

The gentleman, Sir, has epoken at large of former parties,
now no longer in being, by their received appellations, and has
undertaken to instruct os, not only in the knowledge of their
principles, but of their respective pedigrees also. He has as-
cended to their origin, and run out their genealogies. With most
exemplary modesty, he speaks of the party to which he professes
to have himself belonged, as the trae Pure, the only honest, pa-
triotie party, derived by regular descent, from father to son, from
the time of the virtuous Romans! Spreading before as the fam-
ily tree of political parties, he takes especial care to show him-
self snugly perched on a popular bough! He is wakeful to the
expediency of adopting such rules of descent as shall bring him
in, to the exclusion of others, as an heir to the inheritance of all
public virtue and ull true political principle, His party and his
opinions are sure to be orthodox; heterodoxy is confined to his
opponents. He spoke, Sir, of the Federalists, and 1 thought I
saw some eyes begin to open and stare a little, when he ven-
tured on that ground. Lexpected he would draw his sketches
rather lightly, when he looked on the circle round him, and espe-
cially if he should cast his thoughts to the high places out of the
Senate. Nevertheless, he went back to Rome, ad annum urbis
condite, and found the fathers of the Federalists in the primeval
aristocrats of that renowned elty! He traced the flow of Fed-
eral blood down through successive ages and centuries, till be
brought it into the veins of the American Tories, af whom, by
the way, there were twenty in the Carolinas for one in Massachu-
setts. From the Tories he followed it to the Federalista; and,
as the Federal party was broken up, and there was no possibility
of transmitting it further on this side the Atlantic, he seems to
have discovered that it has gone off collaterally, thoagh against
all the canons of descer.t, into the Ultras of France, and finally
become extinguished, like exploded gas, among the adherents of
Don Miguel! This, Sir, is an abstract of the gentleman's his

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 313

tory of Federalism. Tam not about to controvert it. [tis not,
at present, worth the pains of refutation; becanse, Sir, if at this
day any one feels the sin of Federalism lying heavily on his con-
acionce, he can easily procure remission. He may even obtain
an indulgence, if he be desirous of repeating the same tranagres-
sion. It ix an affair of no difficulty to get into this same right
line of patriotic descent. A man now-a-days is at liberty to
choose his political parentage. He may elect his own father.
Federalist or not, he may, if he choose, claim to belong to the
favored stock, and his claim will be allowed. He may carry
back his pretensions just as fur as the honorable gentleman him-
self; nay, he may make himself out the honorable gentleman's
cousin, and prove, satisfactorily, that he is descended from the
same political great-grandfather. All this is allowable. We all
know a process, Sir, by which the whole Essex Junto could, in
one hour, be all washed white from their ancient Federalism,
and come out, every one of them, original Democrats, dyed in
the wool! Some of them have actually undergone the opera-
tion, and they say it is quite eaay. The only inconvenience it
oceazions, aa they tell us, is a slight tendency of the blood to the
face, a soft snffusion, which, however, is very transient, since
nothing is said by those whom they join calculated to deepen
the red on the cheek, but a pradent silence is observed in re-
gard to all the past. Indeed, Sir, some smiles of approbation
have been bestowed, and some crambs of comfort have fallen,
not a thousand miles from the door of the Hartford Convention
itself, And if the uuthor of the Ordinance of 1787 poswssed
the other requisite qualifications, there is no knowing, notwith=
standing his Federalism, to what heights of favor he might not
yet attain.

Mr. President, in carrying his warfare, such as it is, into New
England, the honorable gentleman all along professes to be acting
on the defensive. He chooses to consider me as having assailed
South Carolina, and insists that he comes forth only as her cham-
pion, and in her defence. Sir, 1 do not admit that I made any
attack whatever on South Carolina. Nothing like it, The hon-
orable member, in his first speech, expressed opinions, in regard
to revenue and some other topics, which | heard both with pain
and with surprise. 1 told the gentleman | was aware that such
sentiments were entertained owl of the government, but had

VOL. ik 7

34 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION.

not capected to find them advanced in it; that J knew there were
persons in the South who speak of our Union with indifference
or doubt, taking pains to magnify its evils, and to say nothing
of its benefits; that the honorable member himself, [ wax sure,
could never be one of these; and I regretted the expression of
such %pinions as he had avowed, because | thought their obvi
ous tendency was to encourage feelings of disrespect to the
Union, and to impair its strength. This, Sir, is the sum and
sabstance of all [ said on the subject. And this constitutes the
attack which called on the chivalry of the gentleman, in his own
opinion, to harry us with such a foray among the party pam-
phiets and party proceedings of Massachusetts! If he means
that I spoke with dissatisfaction or disrespect of the ebullitions
of individuals in South Carolina, it is trae. But if he means
that T assailed the chameter of the State, her honor, or patri-
otism, that I reflected on her history or her conduct, he has
not the slightest ground for any such nesumption, 1 did not
even refer, I think, in my observations, to any collection of in-
dividuals, I said nothing of the recent conventions. I ae
fn the most guarded and carefal manner, and only
regret for the publication of opinions, ShlailsperensAvie
honorable member disapproved as much as myself, In this, it
seeme, I was mistaken, I do not remember that the gentleman
has disclaimed any sentiment, or any opinion, of a supposed
anti-anion tendency, which on all or any of the recent occasions
has been expressed, The whole drift of his speech has been
rather to prove, that, in divers times and manners, sentiments
equally liable to my objection have been avowed in New Eng-
land. And one would suppose that his object, in this reference
to Massachusetts, was to find a precedent to justify proceedings
in the South, were it not for the reprouch and contumely with
which he labors, all along, to load these his own chosen

dents. By way of defending South Carolina from what he chooses
to think an attack on her, he first quotes the example of Massa-
chusetts, and then denounces that example in good set terms.
This twofold purpose, not. very consistent, one would think, with
itself, was exhibited more than once in the course of his speech.
He referred, for instance, to the Hartford Convention, Did he
do this for authority, or fora topic of reproach? Apparently for
both, for he told us that he should find no fault with the mere

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION, BS

fut of holding euch a convention, and considering and diseuss
ing such questions as he supposes were then and there dis
cussed ; but what rendered it obnoxious was its being held at the
time, and under the circumstances of the country then existing,
We were in a war, he said, and the country necded all our aid;
the hand of government required to be strengthened, not weak-
ened; and patriotism should have postponed such proceedings to
another day. The thing itself, then, is a precedent; the time
and manner of it only, a subject of censure.

Now, Sir, I go much further, on this point, than the honora-
ble member. Supposing, as the gentleman seems to do, that the
Hartford Convention assembled for any such purpose as break-
ing up the Union, because they thonght unconstitutional laws
had been passed, or to consult on that subject, or fo ealeulate
the value of the Union; supposing this to be their purpose, or
any part of it, then I say the meeting itself was disloyal, aud
was obnoxious to censure, whether held in time of peace or time
of war, or under whatever circumstances. The material ques-
tion is the object. Is dissolution the object? If it be, external
circumstances may make it a more or less aggravated case, but
eannot affect the principle. Ido not hold, therefore, Sir, that
the Hartford Convention was pardonable, even to the extent of
the gentleman’s admission, if its objects were really such as have
been imputed to it. Sir, there never was a time, under any de~
gree of excitement, in which the Hartford Convention, or any oth-
er convention, could have maintained itself one moment in New
England, if assembled for any such purpose as the gentleman
says would have been an allowable purpose. ‘To hold convens
tions to decide constitutional law! To try the binding validity
of statutes by votes in a convention! Sir, the Hartford Con-
vention, I presume, would not desire that the honorable gon-
teman should be their defender or udvocate, if he puts their
case upon such untenuble and extravagant grounds.

Then, Sir, the gentleman has no fault to find with these re-
cently promulgated South Carolina opinions. And certainly
he need have none; for his own sentiments, as now advanced,
and advanced on reflection, as far as I have been able to compre-
hend them, go the fall length of all these opinions. 1 propose,
Sir, to say something on these, and to consider how far they are
just and constitutional, Before doing that, however, let me »b-

316 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION,

serve that the eulogium pronounced by the honoratle gentleuian
on the character of the State of South Carolina, for he
La hel aa carers my hearty concurrence. / I shall
not acknowledge that the honorable member goes before me in
regard for whatever of distinguished talent, or ditiigalaie char
acter, South Carolina has produced. I claim part of the honor,
I partake in the pride, of her great names. I claim them for
countrymen, one and all, the Laurenees, the Rutledges, the
Pinckneys, the Sumptere, the Marione, Americans all, whose
fame is no more to be hemmed {in by State lines, than their
talents and patriotism were eapable of being circumscribed with-
in the same narrow limits, In their day and generation, they
served and honored the country,and the whole country; and
their renown is of the treasures of the whole country. Him whose
honored name the gentleman himself beare,—does he esteem
me less capable of gratitude for his patriotism, or sympathy for
his sufferings, than if his eyes had first opened upon the light
of Massachusetts, instead of South Carolina? Sir, does he sup-
pose it in his power to exhibit a Carolina name so bright, as to
produce envy in my bosom? No, Sir, increased gratification
‘and delight, rather. I thank God, that, if I am gifted with little
of the spirit which is able to raise mortals to the skies, 1 have
yet none, as I trast, of that other spirit, which would dmg angels
down, When I shall be found, Sir, in my place here in the Sen-
ate, or elsewhere, to sneer at public merit, because it happens
to spring up beyond the little limits of my own State or neigh-
borhood; when I refuse, for any such cause, or for any cause,
the homage due to American talent, to elevated patriotism, to
sincere devotion to liberty and the country; or, if T see an un-
common endowment of Heaven, if I see extraordinary capacity
and virtue, in any son of the South, and if, moved by local prej-
udice or gangrened by State jealousy, I get up here to abate
the tithe of a hair from his just character and just fume, may
my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!)

Sir, let me recur to pleasing recollections; let me indulge in
refreshing remembrance of the past; let me remind you that, in
early times, no States cherished greater harmony, both of princi-
ple and feeling, than Massachusctts and South Carolina. Would
to God that harmony might again return! Shoulder to shoul-
der they went through the Revolution, hand in hand they stood

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. a7

round the administration of Washington, and felt his own great
arm lean on them for support. Unkind feeling, if it exist, alien-
ation, and distrust are the growth, unnatural to such soils, of
false principles since sown. ‘They are weeds, the seeds of which
that same great arm never scattered.

Mr, President, I shall enter on no encomium upon Maeeachu-
setts; she needs none, There she is, Behold her, and judge for
yourselves. There is her history; the world knows it by heart.
The past, at least, is secure. There ix Boston, and Conconl,
and Lexington, and Bunker Hill; and there they will remain for
ever. The bones of her sons, falling in the great struggle for
Tndependerice, now lie mingled with the soil of every State from
New England to Georgia; and there they will lie for ever. And
Sir, where American Liberty raised its first voice, and where its
youth was nurtured and sustained, there it still lives, in the
strength of its manhood and full of its original spirit, If discord
and disunion shall wound it, if party strife and blind ambition
shall hawk at and tear it, if folly and madness, if uneasiness
under salutary and necessary restraint, shall suceced in sepa-
rating it from that Union, by which alone its existence is made
sure, it will stand, in the end, by the side of that cradle in which
its infancy was rocked; it will stretch forth its arm with what-
ever of vigor it may still retain over the friends who gather
round it; and it will fall at last, if fall it must, amidst the proud-
est monuments of its own glory, and on the very spot of its
origin.

‘There yet remains to be performed, Mr. President, by far the
most grave and important duty, which I feel to be devolved on
me by this occasion. It is to state, and to defend, what [con-
cvive to be the true principles of the Constitution under which
we are here assembled. I might well have desired that so
weighty a task should have fallen into other and abler hands. 1
could have wished that it should have been executed by those
whose character and experience give weight and influence to
their opinions, such os cannot possibly belong to mine. But,
Sir, I have met the occasion, not sought it; and I shall proceed
to stato my own sentiments, without challenging for them any
particular regard, with studied plainness, and as much precision
a8 possible,

a7

318 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION.

T understand the honorable gentleman from South Carolina
to maintain, that it is a right of the State legislatures to inter-
fere, whenever, in their judgment, this government transcends its
constitutioval limita, and to arrest the operation of its lawa

1 understand him to maintain this right, os aright existing
under the Constitution, not as a right to overthrow it on the
ground of extreme necessity, such as would justify violent revo-
lution.

J understand him to maintain an authority, on the part of the
States, thus to interfere, for the purpose of correeting the exer
else of power by the general government, of checking it, and of
compelling it to conform to their opinion of the extent of its

powers.

T understand him to maintain, that the ultimate power of
judging of the constitutional extent of its own authority is not
lodged exclusively in the general government, or any branch of
it; but that, on the contrary, the States may lawfully decide for
themselves, and each State for itself, whether, in a given case,
the act of the general government transcends its power.

T understand him to insist, that, if the exigency of the case, in
the opinion of any State government, require it, such State gov-
ernment may, by ite own sovereign authority, annul an act of
the general government which it deems plainly and palpably
‘unconatitational.

‘This is the sum of what I understand from him to be the
South Carolina doctrine, and the doctrine which he maintains,
I propose to consider it, and compare it with the Constitution.
Allow me to say, asa preliminary remark, that I call this the
South Carolina doctrine only because the gentleman himself has
80 denominated it. Ido not feel at liberty to say that South
Carolina, a a State, has ever advanced these sentiments. I
hope she bas not, and never may. ‘That a great majority of her
people are opposed to the tariff laws, is doubtless true. ‘That
majority, somewhat less than that just mentioned, conscieations-
ly believe these laws unconstitutional, may probably also be
true. But that any majority holds to the right of direct State
interference at State discretion, the right of nullifying acts of
Congress by acts of State legislation, is more than I know,
and what I shall be slow to believe.

That there are individuals besides the honorable gentleman

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 319

who do maintain these opinions, is quite certain. J recellect
the recent expression of a sentiment, which circumstances at-
tending its utterance and publication justify & . rere
was not unpremeditated. “The sovereignty of the State, —
never to be controlled, construed, or decided sles dria
feelings of honorable justice.”

Mr. Hayne here rove and said, that, for the purpose of being clear y
undorstood, he would state that his proposition was in the words of the
Virginia-resolution, as follows: — :

“That this azeembly doth explicitly and peromptorily declare, that it
views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the
compact to which the States are parties, as limited by the plain sense
and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, a9 no farther
valid than they are authorized by the grants enumernted in that com
pact; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exer-
ciae of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States who
are parties thereto have the right, and are in duty bound, te interpose,
for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their
respective limits the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to
them.”*

Mr. Webster resumed ; —

Tam quite aware, Mr. President, of the existence of the reso-
lution which the gentleman read, and has now repeated, and
that he relies on it as his authority. I know the source, too,
from which it is understood to have proceeded. I need not say
that Ihave much respect for the constitational opinions of Mr.
Madison ; they would weigh greatly with me always. But be-
fore the authority of his opinion be vouched for the gentleman's
proposition, it will be proper to consider what is the fair inter
pretation of thut resolution, to which Mr. Madison is understood
to have given his sanction. As the gentleman construcs it, it is
an authority for him. Possibly, he may not have adopted the
right construction, That resolution declares, that, in the case of
the dangerous exercise of powers not granted by the general grove
ernment, the States may interpose to arrest the progress of the
evil, But how interpose, and what does this declaration pure
port? Does it mean no more than that there may be extreme
cases, in which the people, in any mode of assembling, may re-
sist usurpation, and relieve themselves from a tyrannical govern-
ment? No ore will deny this, Such resistance ix not only

320 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION

acknowledged to be just in Ameriea, but in England also
Blackstone admits as much, in the theory, and practice, too, of
the English constitution. We, Sir, who oppose the Carolina
doctrine, do not deny that the people may, if they choose, throw
off any government when it becomes oppressive and intolerable,
and erect a better in its stead. We all know that civil instita-
tions are established for the public benefit, and that when they
cease to answer the ends of their existence they may be changed.
But I do not understand the doctrine now contended for to be
that, which, for the eake of distinction, we may call the right of
revolution. I understand the gentleman to maintain, that, with-
out revolution, without civil commotion, without rebellion, »
remedy for supposed abuse and transgression of the powers of
the general government lies in a direct appeal to the interfer
ence of the State governments,

‘Mr. Hayne here rose and said: He did not contend for the mere
right of revolution, but for the right of constitutional resistance. What
ho maintained was, that in case of a plain, palpable violation of the Con-
stitution by the general government, a State may interpose; and that
this interposition is constitutional.

Mr. Webster resumed : —

So, Sir, I understood the gentleman, and am happy to find
that I did not misunderstand him. What he contends for is,
that it is constitutional to interrupt the administration of the
Constitution {teelf,in the hands of those who are chosen and
sworn to administer it, by the direct interference, in form of law,
of the States, in virtue of their sovereign capacity. ‘The ine
herent right in the people to reform their government I do not
deny; and they have another right, and that is, to resist uncon
stitational laws, without overturning the government, It is no
doctrine of mine that unconstitutional laws bind the people.
‘The great question is, Whose prerogative is it to deeide on the
constitutionality or unconstitutionnlity of the laws? On that,
the main debate hinges. The proposition, that, in caxe of a
supposed violation of the Constitution by Congress, the States
have a constitutional right to interfere and annul the law of
Congress, is the proposition of the gentleman. 1 do not admit
it. If the gentleman had intended no more than to assert the
right of revolution for justifiable cause, he would have said only
what all agree to. But I cannot conceive that there can be a

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 32)

middle course, between submission to the laws, when regularly
pronounced constitutional, on the one hand, and open resistance,
which is revolution or rebellion, on the other, I say, the right
of @ State to annal a law of Congress cannot be maintained, but
on the ground of the inalionable right of man to resist oppres-
sion; that is to say, upon the ground of revolution. 1 admit
that there is an ultimate violent remedy, above the Constitution
and in defiance of the Constitution, which may be resorted to
when a revolution is to be justified, But I do not admit, that,
under the Constitution and in conformity with it, there is any
mode in which a State government, ae a member of the Union,
can interfere and stop the progrees of the general government,
by force of her own laws, under any circumstances whatever.
This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government
and the source of its power. Whose agent is it? Is it the
creature of the State legislatures, or the creature of the people?
If the government of the United States be the agent of the State
governments, then they may control it, provided they can agree
in the manner of controlling it; if it be the agent of the peaple,
then the people alone can control it, restrain it, modify, or re«
forrn it. It is observable enough, that the doctrine for which the
honomble gentleman contends leads him to the necessity of
maintaining, not only that this general government ia the crea~
ture of the States, but that it is the creature of each of the
States severally, so that each may assert the power for itself of
determining whether it acts within the limits of its authority,
It is the servant of four-and-twenty masters, of different wills
and different purposes, and yct bound to obey all. ‘This absurd-
ity (for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the

origin of this government and its true character. It is, Sir, the _

people's Constitution, the people’s government, made for the
people, made by the people, and answerable to the people. The
people of the United States have declared that this Constitution
shall be the supreme law. We must cither admit the proposi-
tion, or dispute their authority. The States are, unquestionably,
sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not affected by thie su-
preme law. But the State legislatures, as political bodies,
however sovereign, are yet not sovereign over the people. So
far as the people have given power to the general government,
40 far the grant is unquestionably good, and the government

yo
\ee

~

22 SECOND SPEECH ON FOU1"S RESOLUTION.

holds of the people, and not of the State governments We are
all agents of the same supreme power, the people. The general
government and the State governments derive their authority
from the same source. Neither can, in relation to the other, be
called primary, though one is definite and restricted, and the
‘other general and residuary, ‘The national government pos:
sesses those powers which it can be shown the people have con-
ferred on it, and no more. All the rest belongs to the State
governments, or to the people themselves. So far as the people
have restrained State sovereignty, by the expression of their will,
in the Constitution of the United States, so far, it must be ad-
mitted, State sovereignty is effectually controlled. I do not con-
tend that it is, or ought to be, controlled farther. The senti-
ment to which [ have referred propounds that State sovereignty
is only to be controlled by its own “feeling of justice”; that is
to say, it is not to be controlled at all, for one who is to follow
his own feelings is under no legal control. Now, however men
may think this ought to be, the fact is, that the people of the
United States have chosen to impose control on State so
ties. There are those, doubtless, who wish they had been left
without restraint; but the Constitution has ordered the matter
differently. ‘lo make war, for instance, is an exercise of sover-
vignty; but the Constitution declares that no State shall make
war To coin money is another exercise of sovereign power;
but no State is at liberty to coin money. Again, the Constitu-
tion says that no sovereign State shall be so sovercign as to
make a treaty. These prohibitions, it must be coufessed, are a
control on the State sovereignty of South Carolina, as well as
of the other States, which does not arise “from her own feelings
of honorable justice.” The opinion referred to, therefore, is in
defiance of the plainest provisions of the Constitution.

‘There are other proceedings of public bodies which have

already been alluded to, and to which I refer again, for the pur

pose of ascertaining more fully what ia the length and breadth
of that dvuctrine, denominated the Carolina doctrine, which the
honorable member has now stood up on this floor to maintain.
Tn one of them I find it resolved, that “the tariff of 1828, and
every other tariff designed to promote one branch of industry at
the exoense of others, is contrary to the meaning and intention
of the federal compact; and such a dangerous, palpable, and

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 823

deliberate usurpation of power, by a determined majority, wield-
ing the general government beyond the limits of its delegated
powers, as calls upon the States which compose the suffering
ininority, in their sovereign capacity, to exercise the powers
which, a3 sovervigne, necessarily devolye upon them, when their
compact is violated.”

Observe, Sir, that this resolution holds the tariff of 1828, and
every other tariff designed to promote one branch of industry
at the expense of another, to be such a dangerous, palpable, and
deliberate usurpation of power, as calls upon the States, in their
sovereign capacity, to interfere by their own authority. This
denunciation, Mr. President, you will please to observe, includes
our old tariff of 1816, ax well as all others; because that was
established to promote the interest of the manufacturers of cot-
ton, to the manifest and admitted injury of the Calcutta cotton
trade. Observe, again, that all the qualifications are here re-
hearsed and charged upon the tariff, which are necessary to bring
the case within the gentleman's proposition. The tariff is a
usurpation; it is a dangerous usurpation; it isa palpable usure
pation; it is a deliberate usurpation. It is such a usurpation, +4
therefore, ae calls upon the States to exercise their right of inter-
forence, Here is a case, then, within the gentleman's principles,
and all his qualifications of his principles. It is a case for action.
‘The Constitution is plainly, dangerously, palpably, and deliber-
ately violated; and the States must interpose their own au-
thority to arrest the law. Let us suppose the State of South
Carolina to express this same opinion, by the voice of her legis-
lature. That would be very imposing; but what then? Is the
voice of one State conclusive? It so happens that, at the very
moment when South Carolina resolves that the tariff laws are
unconstitutional, Pennsylvania and Kentucky resolve exactly
the reverse, They hold those laws to be both highly proper and
strictly constitutional. And now, Sir, how does the honorable
member propose to deal with this ease? How does he re-
lieve us from this difficulty, upon any principle of his? His
constractiun gets us into it; how does he propose to get us
out?

In Carolina, the tariff is a palpable, deliberate usurpation;
Carolina, therefore, may nullify it, and refuse to pay the duties,

In Pennsylvania, it is both clearly constitutional and highly ex

~

3 SECOND SPEECH ON FOU'T'S KESOLUTION.

pedient; and there the duties are to be paid. And yet we live
‘under a government of uniform laws, and under a Constitution
too, which contains an express provision, as it happens, that all
duties shall be equal in all the States. Does not this approach
absurdity ?

If there be no power to settle euch questions, independent of
either of the States, is not the whole Union a rope of sand?
Are we not thrown back again, precisely, upon the old Confeder.
ation?

It is too plain to be argued. Four-and-twenty interpreters of
constitutional law, each with a power to decide for iteelf, and
none with authority to bind any body else, and this constitutional
law the only bond of their union! What is such a state of
things but a mere connection during pleasure, or, to ose the
phraseology of the times, during feeling ? And that feeling,
too, not the feeling of the people, who established the Constita-
tion, but the feeling of the State governments.

In another of the South Carolina addresses, having premised
that the crisis requires * all the concentrated energy of passion,”
an attitude of open resistance to the laws of the Union ix advised.
Open resistance to the laws, then, is the constitutional remedy,
the conservative power of the State, which the South Carolina
doctrines teach for the redress of political evils, real or imagi-
nary, And its authors farther say, that, appealing with confi-
dence to the Constitution itself, to justify their opinions, they
cannot consent to try their accuracy by the courts of justice. In
one sense, indeed, Sir, this is assuming an attitude of open

_ sistance in favor of liberty, But what eort of liberty? The
/ Viberty of establishing their own opinions, in defiance of the
opinions of all others; the liberty of judging and of deciding
exelusively themselves, in a matter in which others have as
much right to judge and decide as they; the liberty of placing
their own opinions above the judgment of all others, above the
lwws, and above the Constitution. ‘This is their liberty, and
this is the fair result of the proposition contended for by the
honorable gentleman. Or, it may be more properly said, it is
§4entical with it, rather than a result from it

In the same publication we find the following: —“ Previously
to our Revolution, when the arm of oppreasion was stretched
over New England, where did our Northern brethren meet with

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION A256

a braver sympathy than that which sprung from the bosoms of
Carolinians? We bud no extortion, no oppression, no collision
with the king’s ministers, no navigation interests springing up,
in envious rivalyy of England.”

This seems extraordinary language. South Carolina no col.
Ision with the king’s ministers in 1775! No extortion! No
oppression! But, Sir, it is also most significant language.
Does any man doubt the purpose for which it was penned?
Can any one fail to see that it was designed to raise in the
reader's mind the question, whether, af (Ais time, —that is to
eay, in 1828, — South Carolina has any collision with the king’s
ministers, any oppression, or extortion, to fear from England?
whether, in short, England is not as naturally the friend of
South Carolina as New England, with her navigation interests
springing up in envious rivalry of England?

Is it not strange, Sir, that an intelligent man in South Caro-
lina, in 1828, should thus labor to prove that, in 1775, there was
no hostility, no cause of war, between South Carolina and Eng-
land? ‘That she had no occasion, in reference to hee own inter+
est, or from a regard to her own welfare, to fake up arms in the
Revolutionary contest? Can any one account for the expression
of such strange sentiments, and their circulation through the
‘State, otherwise than by supposing the object to be what [ have
already intimated, to raise the question, if they had no * collis-
fon” (mark the expression) with the ministers of King George
the Third, in 1775, what collision have they, in 1828, with the
ministers of King George the Fourth? What is there now in
the existing state of things, to separate Carolina from Old, more,
or rather, than from New England?

Resolutions, Sir, have been recently passed by the legislature
of South Carolina. 1 need not refer to them; they go no fur-
ther than the honorable gentleman himeelf has gone, and I hope
not #o far. 1 content myself, therefore, with debating the matter
with him.

And now, Sir, what I have first to say on this subject is,
that, at no time, and under no circumstances, has New Eng
land, or any State in New England, or any respectable body
of persons in New England, or any public man of standing
in New England, put forth such a doctrine as this Carolina
doctrine.

vou. ik 28

‘32h SECOND SPEECH ON FOUT'S RESOLUTION.

‘The gentleman has found no case, he can find none, to sup:
port his own opinions by New England authority. New Eng-
land has studied the Constitution in other schools, and ander
vther teachers. She looks upon it with other regards, and deems
more highly and reverently both of its just authority and its
utility and excellence. ‘The history of her legislative proceed-
‘ings may be traced. The ephemeral effusions of temporary bod-
ies, called together by the excitement of the occasion, may be
hunted up; they have been hunted ap, The opinions and votes
of her public men, in and out of Congress, may be explored.
Tt will all be in vain. The Carolina doctrine can derive from
her neither countenance nor support. She rejects it now; she
always did reject it; and till she loses her senses, she always
will reject it The honorable member hus referred to express
sions on the subject of the embargo law, made in this place,
by an honorable and venerable gentleman," now favoring us
with his presence. He quotes that distinguished Senator as
saying, that, in his judgrnent, the embargo law was unconsti-
tutional, and that therefore, in his opinion, the people were not
bound to obey it, That, Sir, is perfectly constitutional language.
An unconstitutional law is not binding; but then it does not rest
with a resolution or @ law of a State legislature to decide whether
an act of Congress be or be not constitutional. An unconsti-
tutional act of Congress would not bind the people of this Dis
trict, although they bave no legislature to interfere in their be-
half; and, on the other hand, a constitutional law of Congress
does bind the citizens of every State, although all their legiela~
tures should undertake to annul it by act or resolution. The
venerable Connecticut Senator is a constitutional lawyer, of
sound principles and enlarged knowledge; a statesman prac-
tised and experienced, bred in the company of Washington, and
holding just views upon the nature of our governments. He
believed the embargo unconstitutional, and so did others; but
what then? Who did he suppose was to decide that question?
The State legislatures? Certainly not. No such sentiment
ever escaped his lips.

Let us follow up, Sir, this New England opposition to the
embargo laws; let us trace it, till we discern the principle which

* Mr Hillhouse, of Connostiont.

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 32

controlled and governed New England throughout the whole
course of that opposition, We shall then see what similarity
there is between the New England school of constitutional opin-
ions, and this modern Carolina school. The gentleman, I think,
read a petition from some single individual addressed to the leg-
islature of Maswachusetts, asserting the Carolina doctrine; that
is, the right of State interference to arrest the laws of the Union.
‘The fate of that petition shows the sentiment of the legislature,
It wet no favor, The opinions of Massachusetts were very dif-
ferent. They had been expressed in 1798, in answer to the res-
olutions of Virginia, and she did not depart from them, nor bend
them to the times. Misgoverned, wronged, oppressed, as she
felt hervelf to be, she still held fast her integrity to the Union.
The gentleman may find in her proceedings much evidence of
dissatisfaction with the measures of government, and great and
deep dislike to the embargo; all this makes the ease so much
the stronger for her; for, notwithstanding all this dissatisfaction
and dislike, she still claimed no right to sever the bonde of
the Union. There was beat, and there was anger in her po-
litiea! feeling. Be it so; but neither her heat nor her anger
betrayed her into infidelity to the government. The gentleman
labors to prove that she disliked the embargo as much as Soath
Carolina dislikes the tariff, and expressed her dislike as strong-
ty. Be it so; but did she propose the Carolina remedy? did
she threaten to interfere, by State authority, to annul the laws
of the Union? That is the question for the gentleman's con-
sideration.

No doubt, Sir,a great majority of the people of New Eng-
lund conscientiously believed the embargo law of 1807 unconsti-
tutional; a8 conscientiously, certainly, ats the people of South
Carolina hold that opinion of the tariff’ They reasoned thus:
Congress has power to regulate commerce; but here is a law,
they said, stopping all commerce, and stopping, it. indefinitely.
‘The law is perpetual; that is, it is not limited in point of time,
and must of course continue until it shall be repealed by some
other law. It ie a8 perpetual, therefore, us the law against trea-
son or murder. Now, is this regulating commerce, or destroying
it? Is it guiding, controlling, giving the rale to commerce, as 9
subsisting thing, or is it putting an end to it altogether? Noth-
ing is more certain, thar that a majority in New England deemed

wR ‘SROOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION.

this Inw u violation of the Constitution. ‘The very case required
by the gentleman to justify State interference had then arisen,
Massachusetis believed this law to be “a deliberate, palpable,
und dangerous exercise of a power not granted by the Constitu-
tion." Deliberate it was, for it was long continued; palpable
she thought it, as no words in the Constitution gave the power,
and only a construction, in her opinion most violent, raised it;
dangerous it was, since it threatened utter rain to her most im-
portant interests. Here, then, was a Carolina case. How did
Massachusetts deal with it? It was, as she thought, a plain,
manifest, palpable violation of the Constitution, and it brought
ruin to her doors. Thousands of families, and hundreds of
thousands of individuals, were beggared by it. While she saw
and felt all this, she saw and felt also, that, as a measure of
national policy, it was perfectly futile; that the country was no
way benefited by that which caused so much individual dis-
tress; that it was efficient only for the production of evil, and
all that evil inflicted on ourselves. In euch a case, ander such
cireumstances, how did Massachusetts demean herself? Sir,
she remonstrated, she memorialized, she addressed herself to the
general government, not exactly “with the concentrated energy
of passion,” but with her own strong scnsc, and the energy of
sober conviction. But she did not interpose the arm of her own
power to arrest the law, and break the embargo, Far from it.
Her principles bound her to two things; and she followed her
principles, lead where they might. First, to submit to @¥ery
constitutional law of Congress, and secondly, if the econstitu-
tional validity of the law be doubted, to refer that question to
the decision of the proper tribunals, ‘The first principle is vain
and ineffectual without the second. A majority of us in New
England believed the embargo law unconstitutional; but the
great question was, and always will be in such cases, Who is to
decide this? Who is to judge between the people and the gor-
emment? And, Sir, it is quite plain, that the Constitution of
the United States confers on the government itself, to be exer
cised by its appropriate department, and under its own respon-
sibility to the people, this power of deciding ultimately and cone
clasively upon the just extent of its own authority. If this had
not been done, we should not have advanced a single step be
yond the old Confederation.

i

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 329

Being fully of opinion that the embargo law was unconstita-
tional, the people of New England were yet equally clear in the
opinion, (it was a matter they did doubt upon,) that the question,
after all, must be decided by the judicial tribunals of the United
States. Before those tribunals, therefore, they brought the ques-
tion. Under the provisions of the law, they had given bonds to
millions in amount, and which were alleged to be forfeited.
‘They suffered the bonds to be sued, and thus raised the ques«
tion, In the old-fashioned way of settling disputes, they went
to law. The case came to hearing, and solemn argument; and
he who capoused their cause, and stood up for them againet the
validity of the embargo act, was none other than that great
man, of whom the gentleman has made honorable mention,
Samuel Dexter. He was then, Sir, in the fulness of his knowl-
edge, and the’ maturity of his sirength. He had retired from
long and distinguished public service here, to the renewed pur
suit of professional duties, carrying with him all that enlarge-
ment and expansion, all the new strength and force, which an
acquaintance with the more general subjects discussed in the
national councils is capable of adding to professional attain-
ment, in a mind of trae greatness and comprehension. He was
a lawyer, and he was alsoa statesman. THe had studied the
Constitution, when he filled public station, that he might defend
it; he had examined its principles that he might maintain them. +
More than all men, or at least as much as any man, he was at-
tached to the general government and to the union of the States.
His feelings and opinions all ran in that direction. A question
of constitutional law, too, was, of all subjects, that one which
‘was best suited to his talents and learning. Aloof from techni+
ality, and unfettered by artificial rule, such a question gave
opportunity for that deep and clear analysis, that mighty grasp
of principle, which so much distinguished his higher efforts, His
very stutement was argument; his inference seemed demonstras_
tion. The earnestness of his own conviction wrought conviction
in others. One was convinced, and believed, and assented, be-
vanse it was gratifying, delightful, to think, and feel, and believe
in unison with an intellect of such evident superiority.

Mr. Dexter, Sir, such as I have described him, argued the
New England cause. He put into his effort his whole heart, as
well ws all the powers of his understanding; for he had avowed,

one

aa0 SECOND SPEECH ON FOUTS RESOLUTION.

in the most public manner, his entire concurrence with his neigh
bors on the point in dispute. He argued the cause; it was lost,
and New England submitted. The established tribunals pro
nounced the law constitutional, and New England acquiesced,
Now, Sir, is not this the exact opposite of the doctrine of the
gentleman from South Carolina? According to him, instead
of referring to the judicial tribunals, we should have broken ap
the embargo by lawa of our own; we should have repealed it,
quoad New England; for we had a strong, palpable, and oppres-
sive case, Sir, we believed the embargo unconstitutional; but
still that was matter of opinion, and who was to decide it?
We thought it a clear case; but, nevertheless, we did not take
the law into our own hands, becanse we did not wish to bring
about a revolution, nor to break up the Union; for I maintain,
that between submission to the decision of the constitated tri-
bunals, and revolution, or disunion, there is no middle ground;
there is no ambiguous condition, half allegiance and hulf rebel
lion. And, Sir, how futile, how very futile it is, to admit the
right of State interference, and then attempt to save it from the
character of unlawful resistance, by adding terms of qualification
to the causes and occasions, leaving all these qualifications, like
the case itself, in the discretion of the State governments. It
must be a clear case, it is said, a deliberate case, a palpable case,
a dangerous case. But then the State is still left at liberty to
decide for herself what is clear, what is deliberate, what is pal-
pable, what is dangerous. Do adjectives and epithets avail any
thing?

Sir, the human mind is so constituted, that the merits of both
sides of a controversy appear very clear, and very palpable, to
those who respectively espouse them; and both sides usually
grow clearer as the controversy advances. South Carolina sees
unconst..utionality in the tariff; she sees oppression there also,
und she sees danger, Pennsylvania, with a vision not less sharp,
jooks at the same tariff, and sees no such thing in it; she sees
it all constitutional, all useful, all safe. The faith of South Car
olina is strengthened by opposition, and she now not only sees,
but resolves, that the tariff is palpably unconstitutional, opprea-
sive, and dangerous; but Pennsylvania, not to be behind her
neighbors, and equally willing to strengthen her own faith by a
confident asseveration resolves, also, and gives to every warm

SECOND SPEECH ON FOUT'S RESOLUTION, Su

affirmative of South Carolina, a plain, downright, Penney vania
negntive. South Carolina, to show the strength and unity of
her opinion, brings ber assembly to a unanimity, within seven
voices; Pennsylvania, not to be outdone in this respect any more
than in others, reduces her dissentient fraction to a single vote
Now, Sir, again, I ask the gentleman, What is to bedone? Are
these Statee both right? Is he bound to consider them both
right? If not, which is in the wrong? or rather, which has the
best right to decide? And if he, and if I, are not to know what
the Constitution means, and what it is, till those two State leg-
islatures, and the twenty-two otbers, shall agree in its construc
tion, what have we sworn to, when we have sworn to maintain
it? Twas forcibly struck, Sir, with one reflection, as the gentle-
moan went on in his speech, He quoted Mr, Madison’s resola-
tions, to prove that a State may interfere, in a case of deliberate,
palpable, and dangerous exercise of a power not granted. The
honorable member supposes the tariff law to be such an exercise
of power; and that consequently a case has arisen in which the
State may, if it see fit, interfere by its own law. Now it so
happens, nevertheless, that Mr. Madison deems this same tariff
Inw quite constitutional. Instead of a clear and palpable vio-
lation, it is, in his judgment, no violation at all. So that, while
they use his authority for a hypothetical case, they reject it in
the very case before them. All this, Sir, shows the inherent
futility, 1 had almost used a stronger word, of conceding this
power of interference to the State, and then attempting to se-
cure it from abuse by imposing qualifications of which the
States themselves are to judge. One of two things is true;
either the laws of the Union are beyond the discretion and be-
yond the control of the States; or else we have no constitution
of general government, and are thrust back again to the days of
the Confederation.

Let me here say, Siz, that if the gentleman’s doctrine had been
received and acted upon in New England, in the times of the
embargo and non-intercourse, we should probably not now have
been here. The government would very likely have gone to
pieces, and crumbled into dust. No stronger case can ever arise
than existed under those laws; no States can ever entertain »
clearer conviction than the New England States then enter
tained; and if they had been under the influence of that heresy

$32 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION.

of opinion, as I must call if, which the honorable member
espouses, this Union would, in all probability, have been scat-
tered to the four winds. I ask the gentleman, therefore, to apply
his principles to that case; I ask him to come forth and declare,
whether, in his opinion, the New England States would have
been justified in interfering to break up the embargo system
under the conscientious opinions which they held upon it?
Had they a ight to annul that law? Does he admit or deny?
If what is thought palpably unconstitutional in South Car-
olina justifies that State in arresting the progress of the law,
tell me whether that which was thought palpably unconstitu-
tional also in Massachusetts would have justified her in doing
the same thing. Sir, I deny the whole doctrine. It has not a
foot of ground in the Constitution to stand on. No public man
of reputation ever advanced it in Massachusetts in the warmest
times, or could maintain himeelf upon it there at any time,

I wish now, Sir, to make a remark upon the Virginia resolu-
tions of 1798. I cannot undertake to say how these resolutions
were understood by those who passed them. Their language is
not a little indefinite. In the case of the exercise by Congress
of a dangerous power not granted to them, the resolutions as-
sert the right, on the part of the State, to interfere and arrest the
progress of the evil. ‘This ix susceptible of more than one inter.
pretation. It may mean no more than that the States may in-
terfere by complaint and remonstrance, or by proposing to the
people an alteration of the Federal Constitution. This would
all be quite unobjectionable. Or it may be that no more is
meant than to assert the general right of revolution, as against
all governments, in cases of intolerable oppression. ‘This no
one doubts, and this, in my opinion, is all that he who framed
the resolutions could have meant by it; for I shall not readily
believe that he was ever of opinion that a State, under the Con-
stitution and in conformity with it, could, upon the ground of
her own opinion of its unconstitutionality, however clear and
palpable she might think the case, annul a law of Congress, s0
far as it should operate on herself, by her owa legislative power.

€ Timust now beg to ask, Sir, Whence is this supposed, right of
the States derived? Where do they find the power fo interfere
with the laws of the Union? Sir, the opinion which the honor

SECONY SPEECH UN FOOT'S RESOLUTION, aaa,

able gentleman maintains is a notion founded in a total misap-
prehension, in my judgment, of the origin of this government,
and of the foundation on which it stands. 1 hold it to ben
popular government, erected by the people; those who admin-
ister it, responsible to the people; and itself capable of being
amended and modified, just as the people may choose it should
be. It is as popular, just as traly emanating from the people, as
the State governments. It is created for one purpose; the State
governments for another, Jt has its own powers; they have
theirs. ‘There is no more authority with them to arrest the
operation of a law of Congress, than with Congress to arrest the
operation of their laws, We are here to administer a Constitu-
tion emanating immediately from the people, and trusted by
them to our administration. It is not the creature of the State
governments. It is of no moment to the argument, that certain
acts of the State legislatures are necessary to fill our seats in this
body. That is not one of their original State powers, a part of
the sovereignty of the State. It is a duty which the people, by
the Constitution itself, have imposed on the State legislatures;
and which they might have left to be performed elsewhere, if
they had scen fit, So they have left the choice of President
with electors; but all this does not affect the proposition that
this whole government, President, Senate, and House of Repre-
sentatives, is a popular government. It leaves it still all its pop-
ular character. ‘The governor of a State (in some of the States)
is chosen, not directly by the people, but by those who are
chosen by the people, for the purpose of performing, among
other duties, that of electing a governor. Is the government of
the State, on that acconnt, not a popular government? This
government, Sir, is the independent offspring of the popular
will. It is not the creature of State legislatures; nay, more, if
the whole trath must be told, the people brought it into exist
ence, establighed it, and have hitherto supported it, for the very
purpose, amongst others, of imposing certain salutary restraints
on State sovereignties. The States cannot now make war;
they cannot contract alliances; they eannot make, each for itself,
separate regulations of commerce; they cannot lay imposts;
they cannot coin money, If this Constitution, Sir, be the crea-
ture of State legislatures, it must be admitted that it has oh
tained a strange control over the volitions of its creators,

384 «SECOND SPEECH ON FooT'S RESOLUTION.

‘The people, then, Bis eae ete gree a They gave it
a Constitution, and in that Constitution they have enamerated
the powers which they bestow on it, Thay Lave wads lea Bos
ited government. They have defined its authority. They have
restrained it to the exercise of such powers as are granted; and
all others, they declare, are reserved to the States or the people.
But, Sir, they have not stopped here. If they had, they would
bave accomplished but half their work. No definition ean be eo
clear, a to avoid possibility sare no limitation so precies,
as to exclude all uncertainty. Who, then, shall construe this
grant of the people? Who shall interpret their will, where it
may be supposed they have left it doubtful? With whom du
they repose this ultimate right of deciding on the powers of the
government? Sir, they have settled all this in the fullest man-
ner. They have left it with the government itself, in its appro-
priate branches. Sir, the very chief end, the main design, for
which the whole Constitution was framed and adopted, was to
establish a government that should not be obliged to act through
State agency, or depend on State opinion and State discretion.
The people had had quite enough of that kind of government
under the Confederation. Under that system, the legal action,
the application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to
the States. Congress could only recommend; their acts were
not of binding force, till the States had adopted and sanc-
tioned them. Are we in that condition etill? Are we yet at
the merey of State discretion and State construction? Sir, if
we are, then vain will be our attempt to maintain the Constitu-
tion under which we sit.

But, Sir, the people have wisely provided, in the Constitution
itself, a proper, suitable mode and tribunal for settling questions
of constitutional law. There are in the Constitution grants of
powers to Congress, and restrictions on these powers. There
are, aleo, prohibitions on the States, Some aathority must,
therefore, necessarily exist, having the ultimate jurisdiction to fix
and ascertain the interpretation of these grants, restrictions, and
prohibitions. The Constitution has itself pointed out, ordained,
and established that authority. How has it accomplished this
great and essential end? By declaring, Sir, that “the Constitu-
tion, and the laws of the United Slates made in pursuance thereof,
snall be the supreme law of the land, any thing in the constitution
or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 335

This, Sir, was the first great step. By this the supremacy
of the Constitution and laws of the United States is declared.
‘The people so will it. No State law is to be valid which comes
in conflict with the Constitation, or any law of the United
States passed in pursuance of it. But who shall decide this
question of interference? To whom lies the last appeal? ‘This,
Sir, the Constitution itself decides also, by declaring, “that the
judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the Concti-
tution and laws of the United States” "These two provisions
cover the whole ground, They are, in teuth, the keystone of the
arch! With these it is a government; without them it is a
confederation. In pursuance of these clear and express provie-
ions, Congress established, at its very first session, in the judicial
act, a mode for carrying them into full effect, and for bringing
all questions of constitutional power to the final decision of the
Supreme Court, It then, Sir, became a government. It then
had the means of self-protection; and but for this, it would, in
all probability, have been now among things which are past.
Having constituted the government, and declared its powers,
the people have further said, that, since somebody must decide
on the extent of these powers, the government shall itself de-
cide; subject, always, like other popular governments, to its
sponsibility to the people. And now, Sir, I repeat, how is it
that a State legislature acquires any power to interfere? Who,
or what, gives them the right to say to the people, “ We, who
are your agents and servants for one purpose, will undertake to
decide, that your other agents and servants, appointed by you
for another purpose, have transcended the authority you gave
them!” The reply would be, I think, not impertinent, —“ Who
made you a judge over another's servants? ‘To their own mns-
ters they stand or fall.”

Sir, I deny this power of State legislatures altogether. It
cannot stand the test of examination. Gentlemen may say,
that, in an extreme case, a State government might protect the
people from intolerable oppression. Sir, in such a case, the peor
ple might protect themselves, without the aid of the State gov-
émments. Such a case warrants revolution, It must make,
when it comes, a law for itself. A nullifying act of a State leg-
islature cannot alter the case, nor make resistance any more law-
ful. In maintaining these sentiments, Sir, 1 am but asserting

336 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION.

the rights of the people. I state what they have declared, and
insist on their right to declare it, They have chosen to repose
this power in the general government, and I think it my duty to
sn] it, like other constitutional powers.

‘or myself, Sir, I do not admit the competency of South Car-
olina, or any other State, to prescribe my constitutional duty;
or to settle, between me and the people, the validity of laws of
Congress, for which 1 have voted. I decline her umpirage. 1
have not sworn to eupport the Constitution according to her
construction of its clauses, I have not stipulated, by my oath
of office or otherwise, fo come under any responsibility, except
to the people, and those whom they have appointed to pass upon
the question, whether laws, supported by my votes, conform to
the Constitution of the country, And, Sir, if we look to the
general nature of the case, could any thing have been more pre~

than to make a government for the whole Union,
and yet leave its powers subject, not to one interpretation,
but to thirteen or twenty-four interpretations? Instead of one
tribunal, established by all, responsible to all, with power to de-
cide for all, shall constitutional questions be left to four-and-
twenty popular bodies, each at liberty to decide for iteelf, aad
none bound to respect the decisions of others; and each at lib-
erty, too, to give a new construction on every new election of
its own members? Would any thing, with such # principle in
it, or rather with such a destitution of all principle, be fit to be
called a government? No, Sir, It should not be denominated
a Constitution. It should be called, rather, a collection of top-
iea for everlasting controversy; heads of debate for a disputa-
tious people. It would not be a government. It would not be
adequate to any practical good, or fit for any country to live
under,

‘To avoid all possibility of being misunderstood, allow me to
repeat again, in the fullest manner, that I claim no powers for
the government by forced or unfair construction. I admit that
it is a government of strictly limited powers; of enumemted,
specified, and particulurized powers; and that whntsoever ix not
granted, is withheld. But notwithstanding all this, and however
the grant of powers may be expressed, its limit and extent may
yet, in some cases, admit of doubt; and the general govern-
ment would be good for nothing, it would be incapable of long

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 337

existing, if some mode had not been provided in which those
doubts, as they should arise, might be peaceably, but author
itatively, solved.

And now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gentle+
man’s doctrine a little into its practical application. Let as
Jook at his probable modus operandi. If a thing can be done, an
ingenious man can tell how it is to be done, and I wish to be
informed how this State interference is to be put in practice,
without violence, bloodshed, and rebellion, We will take the
existing case of the tariff law. South Carolina is said to have
made up her opinion upon it. If we do not repeal it (as we
probably shall not), she will then apply to the case the remedy
of her doctrine. She will, we must suppose, pass a law of her
legislature, deelaring the several acts of Congress, usually called
the tariff laws, null and void, so far as they respect South Caro
lina, or the citizens thereof. So far, all is a paper transaction,
and easy enough. But the collector at Charleston is collecting
the duties imposed by these tariff laws. He, therefore, must be
stopped. The collector will seize the goods if the tariff duties
are not paid, The State anthorities will undertake their rescue,
the marshal, with his posse, will come to the collector's aid, and
here the contest begins. The militia of the State will be called
out to sustain the nullifying act, ‘They will march, Sir, under a
very gallant leader; for I believe the honorable member himself
commands the militia of that part of the State. He will raise
the Senutrvine act on his standard, and spread it ont ns his
banner! It will have a preamble, setting forth, that the tariff
laws are palpable, deliberate, and dangerous violations of the
Constitution! He will proceed, with this banner flying, to the
custom-house in Charleston,

All the while,
Sonorous metal blowing martial sounds.''

Arrived at the custom-house, he will tell the collector that be muat
cdlect no more duties under any of the tariff laws, This he will
be somewhat puzzled to say, by the way, with a grave counte-
nance, coneidering what hand South Carolina herself had in that
of 1816. But, Sir, the collector would not, probably, desist, at his
bidding. He would show him the law of Congress, the treasury
instruction, and his own oath of office. He would say, he should
perform his duty, come what come might.

VOL. Ih 20

breath awhile, and before all this military array should fall on
the custom-house, collector, clerks, and all, it is very probable
some of those composing it would request of their gallant cor-
mander-in-chief to be informed a little upon the point of law;
for they have, doubtless, a just respect for his opinions a4 a Jaws
yer, as well as for his bravery as a soldier. They know he has
read Blackstone and the Constitution, as well as Turenne and
Vauban. They would ask him, therefore, something conccrn-
ing their rights in thie matter, They would inquire, whether
it was not somewhat dangerous to resist a law of the United
‘States. What would be the nature of their offence, they would
wish to learn, if they, by military force and array, resisted the
execution in Carolina of a law of the United States, and it
should turn out, after all, that the law was constitufional? He
would answer, of course, Treason. No lawyer could give any
other answer. John Fries, he would tell them, had learned
that, some years ago. How, then, they would ask, do you pro-
pose to defend as? We are not afraid of bullets, but treason has
a way of taking people off that we do not much relish, ; How
do you propore to defend us? “Look at my floating banner,”
he would reply; “see there the nullifying law!" Is it your
opinion, gallant commander, they would then say, that, if we
should be indicted for treason, that same floating banner of
yours would make a good plea in bar? “South Carolina is a
sovereign State,’ he would reply. ‘That is trac; but would
the judge admit our plea? “These tariff Inws,” he would
repeat, “are unconstitutional, palpably, deliberately, danger-
ously.” ‘That may all be so; but if the tribunal should not hap-
pen to be of that opinion, shall we swing for it? We are ready
to die for our country, but it is rather an awkward business,
this dying without touching the ground! After all, that is a
sort of hemp tax worse than any part of the tarifl

Mr. President, the honorable gentleman would be in a dilem-
ma, like that of another great general. He would have a knot
vefore him which he could not untic. He must cut it with his
sword. He must say to his followers, “ Defend yourselves with
your bayonets”; and this is war,—civil war.

Direct collision, therefore, between force and foree, is the un-

avoidable result of that remedy for the revision of unconstitu-
ional laws which the gentleman contends for. It must happen
in the very first ease to which it is applied. Te not this the plain
result? ‘To resist by force the execution of a law, generally, is
treason. Can the courts of the United States take notice of the
indulgence of a State to commit treason? The common sny-
ing, that a State cannot commit treason herself, is nothing to
the purpose. Can she authorize others to do it? If John Fries
had produced an act of Pennsylvania, annulling the law of Con-
gress, would it have helped his case? Talk about it as we will,
these doctrines go the length of revolution, They are incom-
patible with any peaceable administration of the government.
‘They lead directly to divunion and civil commotion; and there-
fore it is, that at their commencement, when they are first found
Lo Saleh big sinhiraaa tpl en jue
enter my public protest against them

The honorable gentleman ese if this government be
‘the sole judge of the extent of its own powers, whether that
ight of judging be in Congress or the Supreme Court, it
equally subverts State sovereignty. ‘This the gentleman sees, or
thinks he sees, although he cannot perceive how the right of
judging, in this matter, if left to the exercise of State legisla-
tures, has any tendency to subvert the government of the Union.
The gentleman's opinion may be, that the right ought not to
have been lodged with the general government; he may like
better such 2 constitution as we should have under the right of
State interference; but I ask him to meet me on the plain mat-
ter of fact. Iask him to meet me on the Constitution itself I
ask him if the power is not found there, clearly and visibly found
there ?*

But, Sir, what is this danger, and what are the grounds of
it? Let it be remembered, that the Constitution of the United
States is not unalterable. It is to continue in its present form
no longer than the people who established it shall choose to con-
tinpe it, If they ehall become convineed that they have made
an injudicious or inexpedient partition and distribution of power
between the State governments and the general government,
they can alter that distribution at will.

* See Note C, at the and of the epecch.

340 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION.

If any thing be found in the national Constitution, either by
original i or subsequent interpretation, which ought
not to be in it, the people know how to get rid of it If any
construction, unacceptable to them, be established, eo as to be-

to maintain it as it is, while they are satisfied with it, and re-
fase to change it, who has given, or who can give, to the State
legislatures a right to alter it, either by interference, construction,
or otherwise? Gentlemen do not sccm to recollect that the
people have any power to do any thing for themselves. They
imagine there is no safety for them, any longer than they are
under the close guardianship of the State legislatures. Sir, the
people have not trusted their safety, in regard to the general
Constitution, to these hands. They have required other: i
and taken other bonds. ‘They have chosen to trust themnsclves,
first, to the plain words of the instrament, and to such construc-
tion as the government themselves, in doubtful cases, should put
on their own powers, under their oaths of office, and subject to
their responsibility to them; just as the people of a State trust
their own State governments with a similar power.

they have reposed their trust in the eflicacy of frequent clections,
and in their own power to remove their own servants and agents
whenever they see cause. Thirdly, they have reposed trast in
the judicial power, which, in order that it might be trastworthy,
they have made as respectable, as disinterested, and as inde-
pendent as was practicable. Fourthly, they have seen fit to
rely, in case of necessity, or high expediency, on their known
and admitted power to alter or amend the Constitution, peace-
ably and quietly, whenever experience shall point out defects or
imperfections. And, finally, the people of the United States
have at no time, in no way, directly or indirectly, authorized
any State legislature to constrac or interpret their high instra-
ment of government; much less, to interfere, by their own power,
to arrest its course and operation.

If, Sir, the people in these respects had done otherwise than
they have done, their constitution could neither have been pre=
served, nor would it have’ been worth preserving. And if its
plain provisions shall now be disregarded, and these new doc-
triner interpolated in it, it will become as feeble and helpless a

SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION. aL

being as its enemies, whether early or more recent, could possi+
bly desire. It will exist in every State but as a poor dependent
on State permission. It must borrow leave to be; and will be,
no longer than State pleasure, or State discretion, secs fit to

people have preserved this, thelr own chosen Constitution, for
forty years, and have seen their happiness, prosperity, and re-
nown grow with its growth, and strengthen with its strength.
They are now, generally, strongly attached to it, Overthrown
by direct assault, it cannot be; evaded, undermined, xvutiriep,
it will not be, if we, and thoee who shall succeed us here, as
agents and representatives of the people, shall conscientiously
and vigilantly discharge the two great branches of our public
trust, faithfully to preserve, and wisely to administer it,

Mr. President, I have thus stated the reasons of my dissent
to the doctrines which have been advanced and maintained. I
am conscious of having detained you and the Senate much too
long. I was drawn into the debate with no previous delibera-
tion, such as is suited to the discussion of so grave and impor-
tant a subject. But it is a subject of which my heart is full,
and T have not been willing to suppress the utterance of its
spontancous sentiments. 1 cannot, even now, persuade myself
to relinquish it, without expressing once more my deep conviction,
‘that, eince it reapects nothing lees than the Union of the States, it
is of most vital and essential importance to the public happiness,

CU profess, Sir, in my career hitherto, to have kept steadily in
view the prosperity and honor of the whole country, and the
preservation of our Federal Union. It is to that Union we owe
our safety at home, and our consideration and dignity abroad,
It ix to that Union that we are chiefly indebted for whatever
makes us most prond of our country. That Union we reached
only by the discipline of our virtues in the severe school of ad-
versity, It had its origin in the necessities of divordered finance,
prostrate commerce, and ruined credit, Under its beniga influ- ~
ences, these great interests immediately awoke, as from the dead,
and sprang forth with newness of life. Every year of its dura.
tion has teemed with fresh proofs of its utility and its blessings;
and although our territory has stretched out wider and wider,
and our population spread farther and farther, they have not

20°

thoughts

bemt on considering, not how the Union may be best pre-
served, but how tolerable might be the condition of the people
when it should be broken up and destroyed. While the Union
lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out be-
fore ns, for us and our children. Beyond that I seek not to
penetrate the veil. God grant that in my day, at least, that
curtain may not rise! God grant that on my vision never may
be opened what lies behind! When my eyes shall be turned to
behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him
shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glo-
rious Union; on States dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a
land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal
blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather be-
hold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now known and
honored throughout the earth, atill full high advanced, its arme
and trophies streaming in their original lustre, not a stripe
erased or polluted, nor « single star obscured, bearing for its
motto, no such miserable interrogatory as “ What is all this
worth?” nor those other words of delusion and folly, “ Liberty
first and Union afterwards"; but everywhere, spread all over in
characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they
float over the sea and over the Jand, and in every wind under
the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true
American heart,— Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one
un iinseparable! )

LAST REMARKS ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION.*

Ms. Harwe having rejoined to Mr. Webster, especially on the constr
tutional question, Mr. Webster rose, and, in conclusion, said :—

A rew words, Mr, President, on this constitutional argument,
which the honorable gentleman has labored to reconstruct.

His argument consists of two propositions and an inference
His propositions are, —

1. That the Constitution is a compact between the States.

2. That a compact between two, with authority reserved to
one to interpret its terms, would be a surrender to that one of
ull power whatever.

3. Therefore, (such is his inference,) the general government
does not possess the authority to construe its own powers,

Now, Sir, who does not see, without the aid of exposition or
detection, the utter confusion of ideas involved in this vo elab-
orate and systematic argument.

The Constitution, it is suid, is a compact between States; the
States, then, and the States only, are parties to the compact.
How comes the gencral government itself a parly? Upon the
honorable gentleman’s hypothosis, the general government is the
result of the compact, the creature of the compact, not one of
the parties to it. Yet the argument, as the gentleman has now
stated it, makes the government itself one of its own creators,
It makes it a party to that compact to which it owes its own
existence.

For the purpose of erecting the Constitution on the basis of
compact, the gentleman considers the States as parties to that
compact; but as soon as his compact is made, then he chooses

* Delivered in the Senate, on the 87th of January, 1830.

a4 LAST REMARKS ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION.

to consider the genera) government, which is the offspring of
that compact, not its offypring, but one of its parties; and so,
being a party, without the power of judging on the terms of
compact. Pray, Sir, in what school is such reasoning as this
tanght?

Af the whole of the gentleman's main proposition were con-
coded to him; that is to say, if 1 admit, for the suke of the argu-
ment, that the Constitation is a compact between States, the in-
ferences which he draws from that proposition are warranted
by no just reasoning. If the Constitation be a compact between
States, still that Constitution, or that compact, has established
& government, with certain powers; and whether it be one of
those powers, that it shall constrae and interpret for itself the
terms of the compact, in doubtful cases, is a question which can
unly be decided by looking to the compact, and inguiring what
provisions it contains on this point. Without any inconsistency
with natural reason, the government even thus created might
be trusted with this power of construction, The extent of its
powers, therefore, must still be sought for in the instrament
itself. ;

If the old Confederation had contained a clause, declaruig that
resolutions of the Congreas ehould be the supreme law of the
land, any State law or constitution to the contrary notwith-
sianding, and that a committee of Congress, or any other body
created by it, should possess judicial powers, extending to all
cases arising under resolutions of Congress, then the power of
ultimate decision would have been vested in Congress under
the confederation, although that confederation was a compact
between States; and for this plain reason; that it would have
been competent to the States, who alone were purtics to the
compact, to agree who should decide in cases of dispute arising
on the construction of the compact.

For the same reason, Sir, if I were now to concede to the
gentleman his principal proposition, namely, that the Constitu-
tion is a compact between States, the question would still be,
What provision is made, in this compact, to settle points of dis-
puted construction, or contested power, that shall come into
controversy? And this queetion would etil] be answered, and
ecuclusively answered, by the Constitution itself.

While the gentlemun is contending against construction, he

LAST REMARKS ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 5

himself is setting up the most loose and dangerous constrac-
tion. The Constitution declares, that the laws of Congress
passed in pursuance of the Constitution shall be the supreme law
of the land. No construction is necessary here, It declares,
also, with equal plainness and precision, that the judicial power
of the United States shall extend to every case arising under the
daws of Congress. ‘This needs no construction. Here is a law,
then, which is declared to be supreme; and here is a power es
tablished, which is to interpret that law. Now, Sir, how has
the gentleman met this? Suppose the Constitution to be a
compact, yet here are its terms; and how does the gentleman get
rid of them? He cannot argue the seal off the bond, nor the »
words out of the instrament. Here they are; what answer does
he give to them? None in the world, Sir, except, that the effect
of this would be to place the States in a condition of inferiority ;
und that it results from the very nature of things, there being no
superior, that the parties must be their own judges! Thus
closely and cogently does the honorable gentleman reason on
the words of the Constitution. The gentleman says, ‘if there
be such power of final decision in the general government, be
asks for the grant of that power. Well, Six, I show him the
grant, [I turn him to the very words, I show him that the
laws of Congress are made supreme; and that the jndicial
power extends, by express words, to the interpretation of these
Jawa, Instead of answering this, he retreats into the general
reflection, that it must result from the nature of thing's, that the
States, being parties, must judge for themselves,

I have admitted, that, if the Constitution were to be con-
sidered as the creature of the State governments, it might be
modified, interpreted, or construed according to their pleasure.
But, even in that case, it would be necessary that they should
agree. One alone could not interpret it conclusively; one alone
could not construe it; one alone could not modify it Yet
the gentleman's doctrine is, that Carolina alone may construe
and interpret that compact which equally binds all, and gives
equal rights to all.

8o, then, Sir, even supposing the Constitution to be a com
pact between the States, the gentleman’s doctrine, neverthe
tess, is not maintainable; because, first, the general government
is not a party to that compact, but a government established

346 LAST REMARKS ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION.

by It, and vested by it with the powers of trying and decid

doubtful questions; and secondly, because, if the Consti-

be regarded as a compact, not one State only, but all

the States, are parties to that compact, and one can have no
right to fix upon it her own peculiar construction.

So much, Sir, for the argument, even if the premises of the
gentleman were granted, or could be proved. But, Sir, the
gentleman has failed to maintain his leading proposition. He
has not shown, it cannot be shown, that the Constitution is a

between State governments. The Constitution itwelf,
in its very front, refates that idea; it declares that it ix ordained
und established by the people of the United States. So far from
saying that it is established by the governments of the several
States, it does not even say that it is established by the peo-
ple of the several States; but it pronounces that it is estab-
lished by the people of the United States, in the aggregate.
The gentleman says, it must mean no snore than the people
of the several States. Doubtless, the people of the several
States, taken collectively, constitute the people of the United
States; but it is in thie, their collective capacity, it is as all
the people of the United States, that they establish the Cons
stitution. So they declare; and words cannot be plainer than
the words used.
~~ When the gentleman says the Constitution is a compact be-
twoen the States, he uses language exactly applicable to the old
* Confederation. He speaks as if he were in Congress before
1789. He describes fully that old state of things then existing,
‘The Confederation was, in strictness, a compact; the States, as
States, were parties to it, We had no other general govern-
ment, But that was found insufficient, and inadequate to the
public exigencies, The people were not satisfied with it, and
undertook to establish a better. They undertook to form a gen-
era] government, which should stand on a new busis; not a con-
federacy, not a league, not a compact between States, but a
Constitution; popular government, founded in popular election,
directly responsible to the people themeelves, and divided into
branches with prescribed limits of power, and prescribed duties.
‘They ordained such a government, they guve it the name of a
Constitution, and therein they established a distribution of pows
ers between this, their general government, and their several

LAST REMARKS ON FOOT'S RESOLUTION. 37

State governments. When they shall become dissatisfied with
this distribution, they can alter it. Their own power over their
own instrument remains, But until they shall alter it, it must
stand as their will, and is equally binding on the general goy-
ernment and on the States.

The gentleman, Sir, finds analogy where I see none, He
likens it to the case of a treaty, in which, there being no eom-
mon superior, each party must interpret for itself, under its own
obligation of good faith, But this is not a treaty, but a con
stitution of government, with powers to execute itself, and fulfil
its duties.

Tadmit, Sir, that this government is a government of checks
and balances; that is, the House of Representatives is a check
‘on the Senate, and the Senate is a check on the House, and the
President a check on both. But 1 cannot comprehend him,
or, if I do, I totally differ from him, when he applies the notion
of checks and balances to the interference of different govern-
ments He argues, that, if we transgress our constitational lim-
its, each State, as a State, has a right to check us Does he
admit the converse of the proposition, that we have a right to
check the States? The gentleman’s doctrines would give us a
strange jumble of authorities and powers, instead of govern-
ments of separate and defined powers. It is the part of wisdom,
Tthink, to avoid this; and to keep the general government and
the State government cach in its proper sphere, avoiding as
carefully as possible every kind of interference.

Finally, Sir, the honorable gentleman says, that the States
will only interfere, by their power, to preserve the Constitution,
‘They will not destroy it, they will not impair it; they will only
anve, they will only preserve, they will only strengthen it! Ah!
Gir, this is but the old story. All regulated governments, all
free governments, have been broken by timilar disinterested and
well disposed interference. It is the common pretence. But |
take leave of the subject.

NOTES.

NOTE A. Page 282.

Extract from the Journal of the Congress of the Confederation,

Wednesday, 2st February, V287.
Conoxsss ussembled: Present, as before, The report of a
committee, consisting of Mr, Danc, Mr. Varnum, Mr. 8. M. Mitchell,
Mr. Smith, Mr, Cadwallader, Mr. Irvine, Mr. N. Mitchell, Mr. Forrest,
Mr. Grayson, Mr, Blount, Mr. Bull, and Mr, Few, to whom was referred
& lotter of 14th Soptomber, 1786, from J. Dickinson, written ut the re-
quest of commissioners from the States of Virginin, Delaware, Pennsyl-
yania, New Jersey, and New York, assembled at the city of Annapolis,
Aogether with a copy of the report of said commissioner to the legisla.
tures of the States by whom they were appointed, being an order of the
day, was called up, and which is contained in the following resolution,
viz, —

Congress having had under consideration the letter of John Dickin-
son, Esq., chairman of the commissioners who assembled at Annapolis
during the last year, also the proceedings of the said commissioners,
and entirely coinciding with them as to the inefficiency of the federal
government, and the necessity of devising such further provisions ax
shall render the same adequate to the exigencies of the Union, do
strongly recommend to the different legislatures to send forward dele-
gates to meet the proposed Convention, on the second Monday in May
next, at the city of Philadelphia.”

NOTE B, Page 298.

Extract from Mr, Calhoun's Speech in the House of Representatives,
April, 1816, on Mr. Randolph's Motion to strike out the Miniawn
Valuation on Cotton Goods.

“ Tw debate, heretofore, on this subject, has been on the degree of
protection which ought to be afforded to our cotton and woollen manu

UN FOOT'S RESOLUTION. ae

factures; all professing to be friendly to those infant establishments,
and to be willing to extend to them adequate encourngement. ‘The
present motion assumes a new aspect. It is introduced, professedly, on
the ground that manufactures ought not to receive any encouragement;
und will, in its operation, leave our cotton establishments exposed to the

ion of the cotton goods of the East Indies, which, it is acknowl~
edged on all sides, they are not capable of meeting with success, without
the proviso proposed to be stricken out by the motion now under discus-
sion, ‘Till the debate assumed this new form, he (Mr. Calhoun) deter-
mined to be silent ; participating, as he largely did, in that general anxin»
ty which is felt, after so long and Iaborious a session, to return to the
bosom of our families, But on a subject of such vital importance,
touching, as it doos, the security and permanent prosperity of our
country, he hoped that the House would indulge him in n few observa-
tions.

“ To give perfection to this state of things, it will be necessary to add,
as soon as possible, a system of internal improvements, and, at least,
such an extension of our navy as will prevent the cutting off our const.
ing trade. ‘The advantage of each is so striking as not to require illua-
tration, especially afier the experience of the late war.

“ He firmly believed that the country is prepared, even to maturity,
for the introduction of manufactures. We have abundance of reaour-
ces, and things naturally tend, at this moment, in that direction. A
prosperous commerce has poured an immense amount of commercial
capital into this country. This capital has till lately found occ!
in commerce ; but that state of the world which transferred it to this
country and gaye it active employment, has passed away, nover to ro-
turn. Where shall we now find full employment for our prodigious
amount of tonnage ? Where, markets for the numerous and abundant
products of our country? This great body of active capital, which,
_for the moment, has found sufficient employment in supplying our mar
kets, exhausted by the war and measures preceding it, must find a
new direction; jt will not be idle. What channel can it take but that
of manufsctures? This, if things continue as they are, will be its
direction. It will introduce an oma in our affairs, in many respects
highly advantageous, and which ought to be countenanced by the gor-
ermment,

“ Bosides, we have alrendy surmounted the greatest difficulty that hae
ever been found in undertakings of this kind, The cotton and woollen
manufactures are not to be introduced,—they are already introduced
to a groat extent; freeing us entirely from the hazards, and, in a gren
measure, the sacrifices, experienced in giving the capital of the country
anew direction, ‘The restrictive measures, and the war, though not ip

FOL, Ht 30

peace, t would thea be time to show our affection for them. He at
‘that time did not expect an apathy and aversion to the extent which is
Bow seen.

* But it will no doubt be said, if they are so far established, and if the

ney.

Tt has been furthor asserted, that manufactures are the fruitful cause
of pauperism ; and England has been referred to as furnishing conclu
sive evidence of its truth, For his part, he could perceive no such ton:
dency in them, but the exact contrary, as they furnished now stimulus
and means of subsistence to the laboring clauses of the community.
We ought not to look at the cotton and woollen establishments of Great
Britain for the prodigious numbers of poor with which her population
was disgraced ; causes much more efficient exist. Her poor laws, and
statutes rogulating the prices of labor, with taxes, wore the ral causes.
Bur if it must be so, if the mere fact that England manufactured more
than any other country, explained the cause of her having more beg-
gars, it ia justae reasonable to refer to the samo cause her coursge,
spirit, and all her masculine virtues, in which she excels all other max
tions, with a single exception; he meant our own, in which we might,
without vanity, challenge a preéminence.

Another objection had been, which he must acknowledge was better
founded, that capital employed in manufacturing produced a greater
dependones on the part of the employed, than in commerce, navigation,
or agriculture. It is certainly aw evil, and to be regretied, but he did
not think st a decisive objection to the system; especially when it had
incidental political advaninges, which, in his opinion, more than eoun-
terpoiwed it. It produced an interest strictly American, as much #0 as
agriculture, in which it had the decided advantage of commerce or nav-
igution. The country will from this derive much advantage.

“ Again: it is calculated 10 bind together more closely our widely
spread republic. It will greaily increase our mutual dependence and

connected with the ultimate attainment of national strength, and the per
fection of our political institutions,”

amect from te Span of Br. Calhoun, Aprit, 1816, on the Direct

In regard to the question, how far manufnetures ought to be fostered,
Mr. Calhoun said, “Jt was the duty of this country, as a means of
defence, to encourage the domestic industry of the country, more espe
cially that part of it which provides the necessary materials for clothing
and defence, Lat us look to the nature of the war most likely to occur.
England is in the possession of the ocean. No man, however sanguine,
can believe that we can deprive her soon of her predominance there.
‘That control deprives us of the means of keeping our army and navy
cheaply clnd. ‘The question relating to manufactures must not depend
on the abstract principle, that industry, left to pursue its own course,
will find’in its own interest all the encouragement that is necessary. I
lay the claims of the manufacturers entirely out of view," said Mr. Cal-
houn; “bot, on general principles, without regard to their interost, a
certain encourngement should be extended, at least, to our woollen and
cotton manufactures,

“'Thie nation,” Mr. Calhoun said, “was rapidly changing tho charac-
ter of its industry. When « nation is agricultural, depending for supply
on foreign markets, its people may be taxed through its imports almost
to the amount of its capacity, The nntion was, however, rapidly he
coming, 10 8 considerable extent, a manufacturing nation.”

To the quotations from the speeches and proceedings of the Repre-
sentatives of South Carolina in Congress, during Mr. Monroe's adminis
tration, may be added the following extmet from Mr. Calhoun's report
on roads and canals, submitted to Congress on the 7th of Junuary, 1819,
from the Department of War: —

‘A judicious system of roads and canals, constructed for the conven-
ience of commerce and the transportation of the mail only, without any
referonce to military operations, is itself among the most efficient means
for the * more complete dofence of the United States.’ Without advert-
ing to the fact, that the roads and canals which such a system would re=
quire are, with few exceptions, precisely those which would be required
for the operations of war; such a system, by consolidating our Union
and increasing our wealth and fiseal eapacity, would add greatly to our
resources in war. It is in a state of war, when & nation is compelled to
put all its misources, in men, money, skill, and devotion to country, mio

352 NOTES TO THE SECOND SPEECH

requisition, that its government realizes in its security the beneficial
‘effects from a people made prosperous and happy by « wise direction
of its resources in peace.

“Should Congress think proper to commence a aystem of roads and
canals for the ‘more complete defence of the United States,’ the dis-
bursements of the sum appropriated far the purpose might he made by
the Department of War, under the direction of the President, Where
incorporated companies are already formed, or the road or canal com-
menced, under the superintendence of a State, it perhaps would be ad-
visable to direct a subscription on the part of the United States, om such
terms and conditions as might be thought proper.”

NOTE C. Pago 339.

‘Tie following resolutions of the Legislature of Virginia bear so per-
tinently and so strongly on this point of the debate, that they are thought
worthy of being inserted in a note, especially as other resolutions of the
same body are referred to in the discussion. It will be observed that
these resolutions were unanimously adopted in each house,

VIXGINIA LEGISLATURE.
Extract from the Message of Governor Tyler, December 4, 1809,
“A proposition from the State of Pennsylvania is herewith submitted,
with Governor Snyder’s letter accompanying the same, in which is sug-
gested the propricty of amending the Constitution of tho United States,
‘80 28 10 prevent collision between the government of the Union and the
‘State governments.”

Housx or Detxgares, Friday, December 1, 1809.
On motion, Ordered, That so much of the Governor's communication
as relates o the communication from the Governor of Pennsylvania, on
the subject of an amendment proposed by the Legislature of that State
to the Constitution of the United States, be referred to Messrs. Peyton,
Otey, Cabell, Walker, Madison, Holt, Newton, Parker, Stevenson, Ran-
dolph (of Amelia), Cocke, Wyatt, and Ritchie. — Journal, p. 26.

Thursday, January 11, 1810.

Mr. Peyton, from the committee to whom was referred that part of

the Governor's communication which relatea to the amendment pro-

posed by the State of Pennsylvania to the Constitution of the United
States, made the following report: —

The committee to whom was referred the communication of the Gor

UN Foors RESOLUTION, 353

‘mor of Peonsylvania, covering certain resolutions of the Logislatare of
that State, proposing an amendment of the Constitution of the United
‘States, by the appointment of an impartial tribunal to decide disputes
between the States and Federal Judiciary, have had the same under their
consideration, and are of opinion that « tribunal is already provided by
the Constitution of the United States ; to wit, the Suprome Court, more
eminently qualified, from thuir habits and duties, from the mode of their
selection, and from the tenure of their offices, to decide the disputes
aforesaid in an enlightened and impartial manner, than any other tribu-
nal which could be created.

‘The members of the Supreme Court are selected from those in the
United States who are most colebrated for virtue and legal learning, not
at the will of a single individual, but by the concurrent wishes of the
President and Senate of the United States; they will, therefore, have
0 local prejudices and partialities, ‘The duties they have to perform
‘oad them, necessarily, to the most enlarged and accurate acquaintance
with the jurisdiction of the Federal and State courts together, and with
the admirable symmetry of our government. The tenure of their offi-
ces enubles them to pronounce the sound and correct opinions they may
have formed, without fear, favor, or partiality.

‘The amendment to the Constitution proposed by Pennsylvania seoms
to be founded upos the idea that the Federal Judiciary will, from a lust
of power, enlarge their jurisdiction to the total annihilation of the juris-
diction of the State courts; that they will exercise their will, instead of
the law and the Constitution,

‘This argument, if it proves any thing, would operate more strongly
against the tribunal proposed to be ereated, which promises ao litte
than against the Supreme Court, which for the reasons given before
have every thing connected with their appointment calculated to insure
confidence, What security have we, were the proposed amendment
adopted, that this tribunal would not substitute their will and their pleas:
ure in place of the law? The judiciary are tho weakest of the three
departments of government, and least dangerous to the political righty
of the Constitution; they hold neither the purse nor the aword; and,
even to enforce thelr own judgments and decisions, must ultimately de.
pend upon the executive arm. Should the Federal Judiciary, however,
unmindful of their weakness, unmindful of the duty which they owe to
themselves and thelr country, become corrupt, and transcend the limite
of their ‘urisdiction, would the proposed amendment oppose even a prob:
able barrier in such an improbable atate of things ?

‘The creation of « tribunal such as 1 proposed by Pennsylvania, so
far as we are able to form an idea of it, from the doscription given in
‘the resolutions of the Legislature of that State, would in tho opinion of

30°

354 NOTES TO THE SECOND SPEECH

your rommittee, tend mither to invite than to prevent collisions between
the Pederal and State courts. It might also become, in process of time,
‘= serious and dangerous embarrassment to the operations of the general
government,

Resolved, therefore, That the Legislature of this State do disapprove
‘of the amondment to the Constitution of the United States proposed by
the Legislawre of Pennsylvania.

Resolved, also, That his Excellency, the Gavornor, be, and he is
hereby, requested to transmit forthwith a copy of the foregoing pream-
ble and resolutions to each of the Senators and Representatives of this
‘State in Congross, and to the executive of the woveral Statos in the
‘Union, with a request that the same be laid before the legislatures
thereof.

‘The said resolutions, being read a second timo, were, on motion, or-
dered to be referred to « committee of the whole house on the state of
the Commonwealth.

Tuesdad, January 23, 1810.

‘The House, according to the order of the day, resolved itself into a
committee of the whole house on the stare of the Commonwealth, and,
after some time spent therein, Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and Mr.
Stanard of Spottsylvania reported that the committee had, according
to order, had under consideration the preamble and resolutions of the
select commitice to whom was referred that part of the Governor's
communication which rolatea to tho amondmont proposed to the Conati-
tution of the United States by the Logislaure of Pennsylvania, had gone
through with the same, and directed him to report them to the house
without amendment; which he handed in at the clerk's table,

‘And the question being put on agreeing to the said preamble and res
colutions, they were agreed to by the House unanimously.

Ordered, That the clork carry the said preamble and resolutions to
the Senate, and desire their concurrence.

Iw Sxnare, Wednesday, January 24, 1810.
‘The preamble and resolutions on the amendment to the Constitution
of the United States proposed by the Legislature of Ponnsylvania, by
the appointment of an impartial tribunal to decide disputes betwoen the
States and Federal Judiciary, being also delivered in and twice read, on
‘motion, were ordered to be committed to Messrs. Nelson, Currie, Camp:
bell, Upuhur, and Wolfs.

Friday, January 26, 1810.
Mr. Nelson reported, from the committee to whom was committed the

ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 35E

preamble ard resolutions on the amendment proposed by the Legisla-
ture of Pennsylvania, &c., that the committee had, according to order,
taken the said preamble, &c., under their consideration, and directed
him to report them without any amendment.

And on the question being put thereunon the name was agreed to
smeninously,

THE NOMINATION OF MR. VAN BUREN AS
MINISTER TO ENGLAND.*

Mr. Pansipens, as it is highly probable that our proceedings
on this nomination will be published, I deem it proper to state
shortly the considerations which have influenced my opinion,
and will decide my vote.

regard this as a very important and delicate question. It is
full of responsibility; and I feel the whole force of that respon-
sibility. While I have been in the Senate, I have opposed no
nomination of the President, except for cause; and I have at
all times thought that such cause should be plain and sufficient;
that it should be real and substantial, not unfounded or fanciful.

Thave never desired, and do not now desire, to encroach in
the slightest degree on the constitutional powers of the chief
magistrate of the nation. I have heretofore gone far, very far,
in assenting to nominations which have been submitted to us.
1 voted for the appointment of all the gentlemen who composed
the first cabinet; I have opposed no nomination of a foreign
minister; and I have not opposed the nominations recently be-
fore us, for the reorganization of the administration. I have
always been especially anxious, that, in all matters relating tc
our intercourse with other nations, the utmost harmony, the
yreatest unity of purpose, should exist between the President
and the Senate. I know how much of usefulness to the public
service such harmony and union are calculated to produce,

Tam now fully aware, Sir, that it is a serious, a very serious
matter, to vote against the confirmation of a minister to a for-
eign court, who has already gone abrond, and has been received

* Remarks mado in Seoret Session af the Senate of the United States, on the
24h of January, 1639, on the Nomination of Mr. Yaa Buren s¢ Miniaer wo
yar Britain.

THE NOMINATION OF MR. YAN BUREN. a7

and accredited by the government to which he is sent. [am
aware that the rejection of this nomination, and the n

recall of the minister, will be regarded by foreign states, at the
first blush, as not in the highest degree favorable to the char-
acter of our government. I know, moreover, to what injurious
reflections one may subject himself, especially in times of party
excitement, by giving a negative vote on euch a nomination.
Bot, after all, 1 am placed here to discharge a duty. Iam not
to go through a formality; I am to perform a substantial and
responsible duty. Iam to advise the President in matters of
appointment. This is my constitutional obligation; and I shall
perform it conscientiously and fearlessly. I am bound to say,
then, Sir, that, for one, I do not advise nor consent to this nomi-
nation, Ido not think ita fit and proper nomination; and my
reasons are found in the letter of inetractions written by Mr.
Van Boren, on the 20th of July, 1829, to Mr. MeLane, then
going to the court of England, as American Minister. I think
these instructions derogatory, in a high degree, to the character
and honor of the country. I think they show a manifest dispo-
sition in the writer of them to establish a distinction between
his country and his party; to place that party above the coun-
try; to make interest at a foreign court for that party rather
than for the country; to persuade the English ministry, and the
English monarch, that ‘hey have an interest in maintaining in
the United States the ascendency of the party to which the
writer belongs. Thinking thus of the purpose and object of
these instructions, I cannot be of opinion that their author is a
proper representative of the United States at that court, There-
fore it is, that I propose to vote against his nomination. It is
the first time, I believe, in modern diplomacy, it is certainly the
first time in our history, in which a minister to « foreign court
has sought to make favor for one party at home against another,
or has stooped from being the representative of the whole coun-
try to be the representative of a party. And as this is the first
instance in our history of any such transaction, 80 I intend to
do all in my power to make it the last. For one, I set my mark
of disapprobation upon it; I contribute my voice and my vote
to make it a negative example, to be shunned and avoided by
all future ministers of the United States, H, in a deliberate
and formal letter of instructions, admonitions and directions are

358 THE NOMINATION OF MR. YAN BUREN

given to a minister, and repeated, once and again, to urge these
mere party considerations on the foreign government, to what
extent is it probable the writer himself will be disposed to urge
them, in his thousand opportunities of informal intercourse with

I propose, Sir, to refer to some particular parts of these in-
structions; but before I do that, allow me to state, very gener-
ally, the posture of the subject to which those particulars relate,
‘That subject is the state of our trade with the British West
India colonies. Ido not deem it necessary now to go minutely
into all the history of that trade. The occasion does not call for
it All know, that, by the convention of 1815, » reciprocity
of intercourse was established between us and Great Britain.
‘The ships of both countries were allowed to pass to and from
each other reapectively, with the same cargoes, and subject to
the same duties. But this arrangement did not extend to the
British West Indies. There our intercourse was cut off Vuri-
ous discriminating and retaliatory acts were passed by England
and by the United States. Eventually, in the surnmer of 1825,
the English Parliament passed an act, offering reciprocity, so far
as the mere carrying trade was concerned, to all nations who
might choose, within one year, to accept that offer,

Mr. Adams’s administration did not accept that offer; first,
because it was never officially communicated to it; secondly,
because, only a few months before, a negotiation on the very
same subject had been suspended, with an understanding that
it might be resumed; and, thirdly, because it was very desirable
to arrange the whole matter, if possible, by treaty, in order to
secure, if we could, the admission of our products into the Brit-
ish islands for consumption, as well as the admission of our
vessels, This object had been earnestly pursued ever since the
peace of 1815. It was insisted on, as every body knows,
through the whole of Mr, Monroc’s administration. He would
not treat at all, without treating of this object. He thought the
existing state of things better than any arrangement which,
while it admitted our vessels into West India ports, still left our
productions subject to such duties there, that they could not be
carried,

Now, Sir, Mr, Adams's administration was not the first to
take thia ground. It only occupied the same position which its

AS MINISTER TO ENGLAND. 350

predecessor had taken. It saw no important objects tu be gained
by changing the state of things, unless that change was to
admit our products into the British West Indies directly from
our ports, and not burdened with excessive duties. The direct
trade, by English enactments and American enactments, had
become closed. No British ship came here from the British
‘Weet Indies, No American ship went hence to those places
A cirenitous trade took place through the islands of third pow-
ers; and that circuitons trade was, in many respecte, not diso?
vantageous to us.

Tn this state of things, Sir, Mr. seekers wee nee
land; and he received his instructions from the Secretary of
State. Tn these instructions, and in relation to this subject of
the colonial trade, are found the sentiments of which I complain,
What are they? Let ns examine and see,

Mr. Van Buren tells Mr. McLane, “ The opportunities which
you have derived from a participation in our public counsels, as
well as other sources of information, will enable you to speak
with confidence (as far as you may deem it proper and useful
80 to do) of the respective parts taken by those to whom the
administration of thix government is now committed, in relation
to,the course heretofore pursued upon the subject of the colonial
trade.”

Now, this is neither more nor less than eaying, “ You will be
able to tell the British minister, whenever you think proper, that
you, and I, and the leading persons in this administration, have
opposed the course heretofore pursued by the government, and
the country, on the subject of the colonial trade. Be sure to let
him know, that, on that subject, we have held with Englaud,
and not with our own government.” Now, I ask you, Sir, if
this be dignified diplomacy. Je this statesmanzhip? Is it
patriotism, or is it mere party? Is it a proof of a high regurd to
the honor and renown of the whole country, or is it evidence of
a disposition to make a merit of belonging to one of its political
divisions?

‘The Secretary proceeds: “Their views” (that is, the views of
the present administration) “upon that point have been submitted
to the people of the United States; and the counsels by which
your conduct is now directed are the result of the judgment
expressed by the only earthly tribunal to which the late admin.
istration was amenable for its acts.”

360 THE NOMINATION OF MR. YAN BUREN

Now, Sir, in the first place, there is very little reason to sup-
pose that the first part of this paragraph is true, in point of fact;
T mean that part which intimates that the change of administra-
tion was brought about by public disapprobation of Mr. Adams's
conduct reapecting the subject of the colonin! trade. Possibly
20 much was then said on a subject which so few understood,
that some degree of impression may have been produced by it.
But be assured, Sir, another cause will be found, by fature hix-
torians, for this change; and that cause will be the popularity
of a successful soldier, united with a feeling, made to be con-
siderably extensive, that the preferences of the people in his
behalf had not been justly regarded on a previons occasion.
‘There is, Sir, very little ground tosay that “the only tribunal to
which the late administration was amenable” has pronounced
any judgment against it for its conduct on the whole subject of
the colonial trade,

But, however this may be, the ofher aseertion in the pam:
graph is manifestly quite wide of the facts. Mr. Afdams’s ad-
ministration did not bring forward this claim. 1 have stated,
alrendy, that it had been a subject both of negotiation and leg-
islation through the whole cight years of Mr. Monroe’s admin-
istration. This the Secretary knew, or was bound to know.
Why, then, does he speak of it as eet up by the late admin-
istration, and afterwards abandoned by them, and not now
revived ?

But the most humiliating part of the whole follows: —« To
set up the acts of the late administration as the cause of forfeit.
ure of privileges which would otherwise be extended to the peo-
ple of the United States, would, under existing circumstances,
be unjust in itself, and could not fail to excite their deepest sen-
sibility.”

So, then, Mr. President, we are reduced, are we, to the poor
condition, that we see a minister of this great republic instrict-
ed to argue, or to intercede, with the British minister, lest he
should find us to have forfeited our privileges; and lest these
privileges should no longer be extended tous! And we have
forfeited those privileges by our misbehavior in choosing rulers,
who thought better of our own claim than of the British! Why,
Sir, this is patiently submitting to the domineering tone of the
British minister, J believe Mr. Huskisson—{Mr, Clay said, “ No,

AS MINISTER TO ENGLAND. abr

Mr. Canning.”]— Mr. Canning, then, Sir, who told us that all
our trade with the West Indies was a boon, granted to us by the
indulgence of England. he British minister calls it a boon,
and our minister admits it as a privilege, and hopes that his
Majesty will be too gracious to decide that we have forfoited this
privilege, by our misbehavior in the choice of our rulers! Sir,
for one, 1 reject all idea of holding any right of trade, or any
other rights, as a privilege or a boon from the British govern-
ment, or any other government.

At the conclusion of the paragraph, the Secretary says,
“ You cannot press this view of the subject too earnestly upon
the consideration of the British ministry. It has bearings and
relations that reach beyond the immediate question under dis-
cussion.”

Adverting again to the same subject, towards the close of the
despatch, he says, “I will add nothing as to the impropriety of
suffering any feelings that find their origin in the past preten-
sions of this government to have an adverse influence upon the
present conduct of Great Britain.”

Task again, Mr. President, if this be statesmanship? if this be
dignity? if this be elevated regard for country? Can any man
read this whole despatch with candor, and not admit that it is
plainly and manifestly the writer's intention to promote the in-
terests of his party at the expense of those of the country ?

Lest I should do the Secretary injustice, I will read all that 1
find, in this letter, upon this obnoxious point. These are the

paragraphs : —

“Such fs the present state of our commercial relations with the Brite
ish colonics; and such the steps by which we have arrived at it. In re-
viewing the events which have preceded, and more or less contributed
to, result so much to be regretied, there will be found three grounds
upon which we are most assoilable;— Ist, In our too Tong and too tenu-
ciously revisting the right of Great Britain to impove protecting duties in
her colonies ; 2d,” &c,

“The opportunities which you have derived from a participation in
our public counsels, ns well us other sources of information, will enable
you to speak with confidence (us far as you may deem it proper and
useful + to do) of the respective parts taken by those o whom the ad»
ministration of this government is now committed, in relation to the
course heretofore pursued upon the subject of the colonial trade. ‘Their

vou. 1h 31

382 THE NOMINATION OF MR. VAN BUREN

views upon thet point have been submitted to the people of the United
‘Stntes ; and the counsels by which your conduct is now directed are the
result of the judgment expressed by the only earthly tribunal to which
‘the late administration was amenable for its acts, It should be sufficsent
that the elnims set up by them, and which caused the interruption of the
trade in question, have been explicitly abandoned by those who first ar
‘serted them, and are not revived by their successors, If Great Britain
deems it adverse to her interests to allow us to participate in the trade
with her colonies, and finds nothing in the extension of it to others to in«
duce her to upply the same rule to us, she will, we hope, be sensible af
the propriety of placing her refusal on those grounds. To set up the
acts of the late administration as the cnuse of forfoiture of privileges
whieh would otherwise be extended to the people of the United States,
would, under existing circumstances, be unjust in itself, and could not fail
v excite their deepest sensibility. ‘The tone of fecling which a course so
onwise and untenable is calculated 10 produce, would doubtless be greatly
aggravated by the consciousness that Great Britain has, by order in coun-
cil, opened her colonial ports to Russia and France, notwithstanding a
similar omission on their part to nccept the terms offered by the net of
July, 1825. You cannot press this view of the subject too earnestly upon

the consideration of the British ministry. It has bearings and relations”

that mach beyond the immedinte question under discussion.”

«Twill add nothing as to the impropriety of suffering any Feelings that
find their origin in tho past pretensions of this government to have an
adverse influence upon the present conduct of Great Britain.”

Sir, [submit to you, and to the candor of all.just men, if I
am not right in eaying that the pervading topic, through the
whole, is, not American rights, not American interests, not
American defence, but denunciation of past. pretensions of our
own country, reflections on the past administration, and exulta-
tion and a loud claim of merit for the administration now in
power. Sir, I would forgive mistakes; I would pardon the want
of information; I would pardon almost any thing, where I saw
true patriotism and sound American feeling; but I cannot for-
give the sacrifice of this feeling to mere party. I cannot eon-
cur in sending abroad a public agent, who has not concep-
tions so large and liberal as to feel, that, in the presence of for-
tign courts, amidst the monarchies of Europe, he is to stand
up for his country, and his whole country; that no jot nor
tittle of her honor is to suffer in his hands; that he is not to
allow others to reproach either his government or his country

AS MINISTER TO ENGLAND.

Bes
and far less is he himeelf to reprouch either; that he is to have
no objects in bis eye but American objects, and no heart in his
bosom bat an American heart; and that he is to forget. self, and
forget party, to forget every sinister and narrow feeling, in his

Mr. President, I have discharged an exceedingly

duty, the most unpleasant of my public life. But I have looked
upon it as @ duly, and it was not to be shunned. And, Sir,
however unimportant may be the opinion of so humble an indi-
vidual as myself, 1 now only wish that I might be heard by
every independent freeman in the United States, by the British
minister and the British king, and by every minister and every
crowned head in Europe, while, standing here in my place, I
prononnee my rebuke, as solemnly and as decisively ws T can,
upon this first instance in which an American minister has been
sent abroad as the representative of his party, and not as the
representative of hia country.

FURTHER REMARKS ON THE SAME SUBJECT*

In reply to some remarks of Mr. Forsyth, Mr. Webster spoke as
follows : —

Ir is, in my judgment, a great mistake to suppose that what
is now called the American “ pretension” originated with Mr.
Adams, either as President or Secretary of State. By the way,
it is singular enough that the American side of thiy question is
called, in the instructions before us, a pretension too long persist-
ed in; while the British side of it is called a right, too long and
too tenaciously resisted by us. This courteous mode of speak-
ng of the claims of a foreign government, and this reproachful
node of speaking of the claims of our own, is certainly some-
what novel in diplomacy. But whether it be called, reapect-
‘ully, a claim, or, reproachfully, a pretension, it did not originate
with Mr. Adams. It had a much earlier origin. This “preten-

* In Secret Sesion of tho Sennta, on tha 26th of January, 1839

864, ‘THE NOMINATION OF MR. VAN BUREN

sion,” now abandoned with so much scorn, or this claim, said,

reproachfully, to have been first set up by the Inte administra.

tion, originated with George Washington. He put his own

hand to it. He insisted on it; and he would not treat with

England on the subject of the colonial trade without consid
it

In his instroctions to Mr. Morris, under his own hand, in
October, 1789, President Washington says: —

“ Let it be strongly impressed on your mind, that the privilege of ears
rying our productions in our vessels to their islands, and bringing in re-
tum the productions of those islands to our own ports and markets, is
regarded here as of the highest importance ; and you will be careful not
to countenance any idea of our dispensing with it in a treaty. Ascer
tain, if possiblo, their views on this subject; for it would not be expe-
dient to commence negotiations without previously having good reasons
to expect a satisfactory termination of them.”

Observe, Sir, that President Washington, in these instrace
tions, is not speaking of the empty and futile right of sending
our own vessels without cargoes to the British West Indies;
but he is speaking of the substantial right of carrying our own
products to the islands, for sale and for consumption there.
And whether these products were shut out by a positive act of
Parliament, or by a tariff of duties absolutely and necessarily
prohibitory, could make no difference. The object was to pro-
vide by treaty, if it could be done, that our products should find
their way, effectually and profitably, into the markets of the
British West Indies. This was General Washington's object.
This was the “pretension” which he set up,

It is well known, Sir, that no satisfactory arrangement was
made in General Washington's time respecting our trade with
the British West Indies. But the breaking out of the French
Revolution, and the wars which it occasioned, were causes
which of themselves opened the ports of the West Indies. Dur-
ing the long continuance of those wars, our vessels, with care
goes of our own products, found their way into the British West
India Islands, under a practical relaxation of the British colonial
system. While this condition of things lasted, we did very
well without a particular treaty. But on the general restora-
‘ion of peace, in 1815, Great Britain returned to her former
system; then the islands were shut against as; and then it

AS MINISTER TO ENGLAND. 365

became necessary to treat on the subject, and our ministers
were, successively, instructed to treat, from that time forward.
And, Sir, I undertake to say, that neither Mr. Madison, who
was then President, nor his successor, Mr. Monroe, gave any
authority or permission to any American minister to abandon
this pretension, or even to waive it or postpone it, and make a
treaty without providing for it. No such thing, On the con-
trary, it will appear, I think, if we look through papers which
have been sent to the Senate, that, under Mr. Madison's admin-
istration, our minister in England was fully instructed on this
subject, and expected to press it, As to Mr. Monroe, I have
means of being informed, in a manner not liable to mistake,
that he was on this subject always immovable. He would not
negotiate without treating on this branch of the trade; nor did
Lever understand, that, in regard to this matter, there was any
difference of opinion whatever among the gentlemen who coin-
posed Mr. Monroe's cabinet. Mr. Adams, as Secretary of State,
wrote the despatches and the instructions; but the policy was
the policy of the whole administration, as far as I ever under
stood. Certain it is, it was the settled and determined policy of
Mr. Monroe himself. Indeed, Sir, so far is it from being true
that this pretension originated with Mr. Adams, that it was in
his administration that, for the first time, permission was given,
under very peculiar circumstances, and with instructions, to ne-
gotiate a treaty, waiving this part of the question. ‘This has
been already alluded to, and fully explained, by the honorable
member from Kentucky.

So, then, Sir, this pretension, asserted in the instructions tu
have been first set up by the late administration, is shown to
have had President Washington for its author, and to have re-
ceived the countenance of every President who had occasion to
act on the subject, from 1789 down to the time of the present
administration.

But this is not all. Congress itself has sanctioned the same
“pretension.” The act of the Ist of March, 1823, makes it an
express condition upon which, and upon which alone, our ports
thall be opened to British veevels and cargoes from the Weet
Indies on paying the same duties as our vessels and cargoes, that
our products shall be admitied into those islands without paying: any
other or higher duties than shall be paid on similar productions

arr

366 ‘THE NOMINATION OF MR. VAN BUREN

coming from elsewhere. All this will be seen by reference to
the third section of that act. Now remember, Sir, that this act
of Congress passed in March, 1823, two years before the com-
mencement of Mr. Adams's administration. The act ori;
in the Senate. The honorable Senator from Maryland,* who
has spoken on this subject to-day, was then a member of
the Senate, and took part in discussion of thie very bill;
and he supported it, and voted for it, It passed both houses,
without material opposition in either, How is it possible, after
referring to this law of 1823, to find any apology for the asser-
tion contained in these instructions, that this claim is a preten-
sion first set up by Mr, Adame’s administration? How is it
possible that this law could have been overlooked or not remem-
bered? In short, Sir, with any tolerable acquaintance with the
history of the negotiations of the United States or their legisla-
tion, how are we to account for it that such an assertion as
these instractions contain should have found its way into them?

But the honorable member from Georgia asks why we lay
all this to the charge of the Secretary, and not to the charge of
the President. The answer is, the President's conduct is not
before us. We are not, and cannot become, his wcousers, even
if we thought there were any thing in his conduct which gave
cause for accusation, But the Secretary is before us, Not
brought before us by any act of ours, but placed before us by
the President's nomination. On that nomination we cannot
decline to act. We must either confirm or reject it, As to the
notion that the Secretary of State was but the instrument of the
President, and so not responsible for these instructions, I reject
at once all such defence, excuse, or apology, or whatever clse it
may be called. If there be any thing in a public despatch de-
rogutory to the honor of the country, as I think there is in this,
it is enough for me that I see whose hand is to it. If it be
said, that the signer was only an instrament in the hands of
others, I reply, that I cannot concur in conferring a high public
diplomatic trast on any one who has consented, under any cir
cumstances, to be an instrament in such a case,

‘The honorable member from Georgia asks, also, why we have
alept on this subject, and why, at this late day, we bring forward

* Mr, Smnlih,

AS MINISTER TO ENGLAND ‘387

complninia Sir, nobody has elept upon it. Sinee these tm
structions have been made public, there has been nv previous
opportunity to dixeuss them. The honorable member will rec-
ollect, that the whole arrangement with England was made
and completed before these instructions saw the light. ‘The
Preaident opened the trade by his proclamation, in October,
1830; but these instructions were not publicly sent to Congress
till long afterwards, that is, till January, 1831. They were not
then sent with any view that either house should act upon the
subject, for the whole business was already settled. For one, [
never saw the instructions, nor heard them read, till January,
1831; nor did J ever hear them spoken of as containing these
obnoxions passages. ‘This, then, is the first opportunity for con-
sidering these instructions,

‘That they have been subjects of complaint out doors since
they were made public, and of much severe animadversion, is
certainly true. But, until now, there never has been an oppor+
tunity naturally calling for their discussion here. ‘The honora-
ble gentlernan may be assured, that, if such occasion had pre-
rented itself, it would have been embraced.

1 entirely forbear, Mr. President, from going into the merits
of the late arrangement with England, as a measure of commer.
cial policy. Another time will come, I trust, more suitable for
that discussion. For the present, I confine myself strictly to
such parts of the instructions as I think plainly objectionable,
whatever may be the character of the agreement between us
and England, as matter of policy. I repeat, Sir, that I place
the justification of my vote on the party tone and party charac.
ter of these instructions. Let us ask, If such considerations as
these are to be addressed to a foreign government, what is that
foreign government to expect in return? ‘The ministers of for-
eign courts will not beetow gratuitous favors, nor even gratui-
tous smiles, on American parties. What, then, I repeat, is to
be the return? What is party to do for that foreign gov-
ernment which has done, is expected to do, or is asked to
do, something for party? What is to be the consideration
paid for this foreign favor? Sir, must not every man see, that
any mixture of euch causes or motives of action in our foreign
intercourse is a2 full of danger as it is of dishonor?

Twill not pursue the subject. I am anxious only to make

368 ‘THE NOMINATION OF MR, VAN BUREN.

my own ground fully and clearly understood; and willingly
leave every other gentleman to his own opinions. And I cheer-
folly submit my own vote to the opinions of the country. 1 will-
ingly leave it to the people of the United States to say, whether
Tam acting a factious and unworthy part, or the part of a
true-hearted American, in withholding my approbation from the

already, as it appears to me, instructed his predecessor at the
| fame court to carry party considerations, to argue party merits,
and solicit party favors, at the foot of the British throne.

Note.—'The circumstance did not occur to Mr. Webster's recollection
at the moment he was speaking, but tho truth jis, that Mr, Van Buren
was himself 1 member of the Senate at the very time of the passing
of the law of 1823, and Mr. McLane was at the same time a member
of the House of Representatives. So that Mr, Van Buren did himeelf
certainly concur in “setting up this pretension,” two year before Mr.
Adams became President,

APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION.*

‘Tue object of the following report is to set forth the unjust operation
of the rule by which the apportionment of Representatives had hitherto
been made among the States, and was proposed to be made under
the fifth census. Notwithstanding the manifest unequal operation of
the rule, and the cogency of the arguments against it contained in this
report, Congress could not be brought on this occasion, nor on that of
the neat decennial apportionment, to apply the proper remedy.

In making provision for the apportionment under the census of 1850,
the principles of this report prevailed, By tho act of the 23d of May,
1850, it is provided that the number of the new House shall be 233.
‘The'entire representative population of the United States is to be divided
by this sum ; and the quotient is the ratio of apportionment among the
several States, Their representative population is in turn to be divided by
this ratio; and the loss of members arising from the residuary numbers
is made up by assigning as many additional members as are necessary
for that purpase to the States having the largest fractional remainders.
It was @ further very happy provision of the law of the 23d of May,
1850, that this apportionment should be made by the Secretary of the
Interior, after the returns of the census should have been made, and
without the necessity of any further action on the part of Congress.

Tue Select Committee, to whom was referred, on the 27th of
March, the bill from the House of Representatives, entitled,
“An Act for the Apportionment of Representatives among
the several States according to the Fifth Census,” have had
the subject under consideration, and now ask leave to report:

‘Tous bill, like all laws on the same subject, must be regarded
as of an interesting and delicate nature. It respects the distri-
on the Subject of the Apgenionsent of Ropresentation, in the

House of Rage made in the Senate, on the 60s
of April, 1832,

tA

370 APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION.

bution of political power among the States of the Union. Tt in
to determine the number of voices which, for ten years to come,
each State is to possess in the popular branch of the legisla.
ture, In the opinion of the committee, there can be few or no
questions which it is more desiraile to settle on just, fair, and
satisfactory principles, than this; and, availing themselves of
the benefit of the discussion which the bill has already under.
gone in the Senate, they have given to it a renewed and anxious
consideration, The result is, that, in their opinion, the bill
ought to be amended. Seeing the difficulties which belong to
the whole subject, they are fully convinced that the bill has been
framed and passed in the other House with the sincerest desire
to overcome these difficulties, and to enact a law whieh should
do as much justice as possible to all the States. But the com-
mittee are constrained to say, that this object appears to them
not to have been attained. The unequal operation of the bill
on some of the States, should it become a law, seems to the
committee most manifest; and they cannot but express a doubt
whether its actual apportionment of the representative power
among the several States can be considered as conformable to
the spirit of the Constitution.

‘The bill provides, that from and after the 3d of March, 1833,
the House of Representatives shall be composed of members
elected agreeably to a ratio of one Representative for every
forty-seven thousand and seven hundred persons in each State,
computed according to the rule prescribed by the Constitution.
‘The addition of the seven hundred to the forty-seven thousand,
in the composition of this ratio, produces no effect whatever in
regard to the constitution of the House. It neither adds to nor
takes from the mamber of members assigned to any State. Its
only effect is a reduction of the apparent amount of the frace
tions, as they are usually called, or residuary numbers, after the
application of the ratio. For all other purposes, the result is
precisely the same as if the ratio had been forty-seven thou-
wand.

As it seems generally admitted that inequalities do exist in
this bill, and that injurious consequences will arise from its op-
eration, which it would be desirable to avert, if any proper
means of averting them, without producing others equally ine
jurious, could be found, the committee do not think it necessary

=

APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION, a7

to go into a full and particular statement of these consequences.
‘They will content themselves with presenting a few examples
only of these results, and such as they find it most difficult to

Tn exhibiting these examples, the committee must necessarily
speak of particular States; but it is burdly necessary to say,
that they speak of them as examples only, and with the most
perfect respect, riot only for the States themselves, but for all
those who represent them here,

Although the bill does not commence by fixing the whole
number of the proposed House of Representatives, yet the pro-
cess adopted by it brings out the number of two hundred and
forty members. Of these two hundred and forty members, forty
are assigned to the State of New York; that is to say, precisely
one sixth part of the whole. ‘This assignment would seem to
require that New York should contain one sixth part of the
whole population of the United States, and should be bound
to pay one sixth part of all direct taxes. Yet neither of these
is the case. The whole representative population of the United
States is 11,929,005; that of New York is 1,918,623, which is
less than one sixth of the whole, by nearly 70,000. Of a direct
tax of two hundred and forty thousand dollars, New York would
pay only § 38.59.

But if, instead of comparing the numbers assigned to New
York with the whole numbers of the House, we compare her
with other States, the inequality is still more evident and strik-
ing. To the State of Vermont the bill assigns five members
It gives, therefore, eight times as many Representatives to New
York as to Vermont; but the population of New York is not
equal to eight times the population of Vermont, by more than
three hundred thousand. Vermont has five members only for
280,657 persons. If the same proportion were to be applied to
New York, it would reduce the number of her members from
forty to thirty-four, making a difference more than equal to the
whole representation of Vermont, and more than sufficient to
overcome her whole power in the House of Representatives.

A disproportion almost equally striking is manifested, if we
compare New York with Alabama. The population of Alabama
is 262,203; for this she is allowed five members.. The rule of
proportion which gives to her but five members for her number,

© whole representation of Alabama; and this excess itself
whole delegation of Alabama, within a single vote. Can it

these

The ratio assumed by the bill, it will be perceived, leaves
large fractions, so called, or residuary numbers, in several of
the small States, to the manifest loss of a great part of their
just proportion of representative power. Such is the operation
of the ratio, in this respect, that New York, with a popula-
tion less than that of New England by thirty or thirty-five

land States; and there are seven States in the Union, repre-
sented, according to the bill, by one hundred and twenty-three
members, being a clear majority of the whole House, whose

ite fractions, all together, amount only to fifty-three thou-
sand; while Vermont and New Jerscy, having together but
eleven members, have a joint fraction of seventy-five thousand.

Pennsylvania, by the bill, will have, as it happens, just as
many members as Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
and New Jersey; but her population is not equal to their by
a hundred and thirty thousand; and the reason of this advan-
tage, derived to her from the provision of the bill, is, that
her fraction, or reeiduam, is twelve thousand only, while theirs
is a hundred and forty-four thousand.

But the subject is capable of being presented in a more ex-
act and mathematical form. The House is to consist of two
hundred and forty members. Now, the precise portion of pow-
er, out of the whole masa presented by the number of two
hundred and forty, to which New York would be entitled
according to her population, is 38.59; that le to say, she would
be entitled to thirty-eight members, and would have a residaum

or fraction; and even if a member were given her for that
fraction, she would still have but thirty-nine. But the bill gives
her forty.

‘These are a part, and but a part, of those results, produced by
the bill in its present form, which the committee cannot bring

APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 373

themselves to approve. While it is not to be denied, that, under
‘any rule of apportionment, some degree ‘of relative inequality
muat always exist, the committee cannot believe that the Sen-
ate will sanction inequality and injustice to the extent in which
they exist in this bill, if it can be avoided, But, recollecting
the opinions which had been expressed in the liscussions of the
Senate, the committee have diligently sought to learn whether
there was not some other number which might be taken fora
ratio, the application of which would produce more justice and
eqnality. In this pursuit, the committee have not been suceess-
ful. There are, it is true, other numbers, the adoption of which
would relieve many of the States which suffer under the pres-
ent; but this relief would be obtained only by shifting the
pressure to other States, thus creating new grounds of com-
plaint in other quarters. The number 44,000 has been gen-
erally spoken of as the most acceptable substitute for 47,700;
but should this be adopted, great relative inequality would full
on several States, and, among them, on some of the new and
growing States, whose relative disproportion, thus already great,
would be constantly increasing.

The committee, therefore, are of opinion that the bill should be
altered in the mode of apportionment. ‘They think that the pro-
cess which begins by assuming a ratio should be abandoned, and
that the bill ought to be framed on the principle of the amend-
ment which has been the main subject of discussion before the
Senate. The fairness of the principle of this amendment, and
the general equity of its results, compared with those which flow
from the other process, seem plain and undeniable. The main
question has been, whether the principle itself be constitutional,
and this question the committee proceed to examine, respectfully
asking of those who have doubted its constitutional propriety
to consider the question of so much importance as to justify a
second reflection,

‘The words of the Constitution are, —

“Represomiatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the
several States, which may be included within this Union, according 1
their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the
whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a
term of years, and excluding Indians, three fifths’ of all other persona.
‘The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after tho first

VOL. Hit. 32

874 APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION.

meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within evory esbse>
quent term of ten years, in such manner ns they shall by law direct.
‘The nurnber of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty
thousand, but each Stato shall have at least ono Reprosentative.”
There would scem to be little difficulty in understanding these
provisions. The termns used are designed, doubtless, to be re-
ceived in no peculiar or technical sense, but according to their
common and popular acceptation. To apportion ia to distribute
by right measure, to set off in just parts, to assign in doe and
proper proportion. These clauses of the Constitation respect
not only the portions of power, bat the portions of the public
barden, ulso, which should fall to the several States; and the
same language is applied to both. Representatives are to be
apportioned among the States according to their respective num-
bers, and direct fuxes are to be apportioned by the same rule,
‘The end aimed at is, that representation and taxation should go
hand in hand; that cach State should be represented in the same
‘extent to which it is made subject to the public charges by direct
taxation, But between the apportionment of Representatives
and the apportionment of taxes, there necessarily exists one es-
sential difference. Representation founded on numbers must
have some limit, and being, from its nature, a thing not capable
, of indefinite subdivision, it cannot be made precisely equal. A
+ tax, indeed, cannot always, or often, be apportioned with perfect
exactness; as in other matters of account, there will be frac
tional parts of the arsallest coins, and the stnallest denomination
of money of account; yet, by the usual subdivisions of the coin,
and of the denominations of money, the apportionment of taxes
is capable of being made eo exact, that the inequality becomes
minute and invisible. Bat representation cannot be thus dix
vided. Of representation, there can be nothing less than one
Representative; nor, by our Constitution, more Representatives
than one for every thirty thousand. It is quite obvious, there-
fore, that the apportionment of representative power can never
be precise and perfect, There must always exist some degree
of inequality. ‘Those who framed and those who adopted the
Constitation were, of course, fully acquainted with this neces-
sary operation of the provision. In the Senate, the States are
entitled to a fixed number of Senators; and therefore, in regard
to their representation in that body, there is no consequential

APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 375

or incidental inequality. But, being represented in the House
of Representatives according to their respective numbers of
people, it is unavoidable that, in assigning to each State ite
number of members, the exact proportion of each, out of a given
namber, cannot always or often be expressed in whole num-
bers; that is to say, it will not often be found that there be-
longs to a State exactly one tenth, or one twenticth, or one thir-
ticth of the whole House; and therefore no number of Repre-
sentatives will exactly correspond with the right of such State,
or the precise share of representation which belongs to it, aecord-
ing to its population.

‘The Constitution, therefore, mast be understood, not as enjoin-
ing an absolute relative equality, because that would be de-
manding an impossibility, but as requiring of Congress to make
the apportionment of Representatives among the several States
uccording to their respective numbers, as near as may be. That
which cannot be done perfectly must be done in a manner as
near perfection as can be, If exactness cannot, from the nature
of things, be attained, then the nearest practicable approach to
‘exactness ought to be made,

Congress is not absolved from all rule merely because the rule
of perfect justice cannot be applied. In such case, approx-

imation becomes a rule; it takes the place of that other rule,

which would be preferable, but which is found inapplicable, and
becomes itself an obligation of binding foree. The nearest ap-
proximation to exact truth or exact right, when that exact trath
or that exnct right cannot iteelf be reached, prevails in other
cases, not as matter of discretion, but as an intelligible and defi-
nite rule, dictated by justice and conforming to the common
sense of mankind; a rule of no less binding force in cases to
which it is applicable, and no more to be departed from, than
any other rale or obligation.

The committee understand the Constitution as they would
have understood it if it had said, in so many words, that Repre-
rentatives should be apportioned among the States according to
their respective numbers, as near as may be. If this be not its
true teaning, then it has either given, on this most delicate and
important subject, a rule which is always impracticable, or clee
it has given no rule at all; because, if the rule be that Repre-
ventatives shall be apportioned exactly according to numbers, it je

a

376 APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION.

am) ible in every case; and if, for this renson, that eunnot
‘be the rule, then there is no rule whatever, unless the rule be
that they shall be apportioned as near as may be.

‘This construction, indeed, which the committee adopt, has
not, to their knowledge, been denied; and they proceed in the
disenssion of the question before the Senate, taking for granted
that such is the true and undeniable meaning of the Consti-
tution,

‘The next thing to be observed is, that the Constitation pre-
seribes no particular process by which this apportionment is to be
wrought ont. It has plainly described the end to be accom-
plished, namely, the nearest approach to relative equality of rep-
resentation among the States; and whatever accomplishes this
end, and nothing else, is the trac process, In truth, if, without
any process whatever, whether elaborate or easy, Congress could
perceive the exact proportion of representative power rightfully
belonging to ench State, it would perfectly fulfil its duty by eon-
ferring that portion on each, without reference to any process
whatever, It would be enough that the proper end had been
attained. And it is to be remarked, further, that, whether this
end be attained best by one process or by another, becomes,
when each process has been carried through, not matter of opin-
jon, but matter of mathematical certainty, If the whole popu-
lation of the United States, the population of each State, and
the proposed number of the House of Representatives, be all
given, then, between two bills apportioning the members among
the several States, it can be told with absolute certainty which
bill assigns to any and every State the number nearest to the
exact proportion of that State; in other words, which of the two
bills, if either, apportions the Representatives according to the
numbers in the States, respectively, as near as may be. If, there
fore, a particular process of apportionment be adopted, and ob-
jection be made to the injustice or inequality of its result, it is
surely no answer to such objection to say, that the inequality
necessarily results from the nature of the process. Before auch
‘auswer could avail, it would be necessary to show, either that
the Constitution prescribes such process, and makes it necessury,
or that there is no other mode of proceeding which would pro-
duce less inequality and less injustice. If inequality, which
might have otherwise been avoided, be produced by a given

APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION, 377

process, then tht process is a wrong ou. It is not suited to
the case, and should be rejected.

Nor do the committce perceive how it can be matter of
constitutional propricty or validity, or in any way a constitu-
tonal question, whether the procees which may be applied to
the case be simple or compound, one process or many processes;
since, in the end, it may always be seen whether the result be
that which has been aimed at, namely, the nearest practicable
approach to precise justice and relative equality. ‘The commit-
tec, indeed, are of opinion, in this case, that the simplest and
‘most obvious way of proceeding is alao the true and constitu.
tional way. ‘To them it appears, that, in carrying into effect
this part of the Constitution, the first thing naturally to be done
is to decide on the whole number of which the House is to be
composed; as when, under the same clause of the Constitution,
m tax is to be apportioned among the States, the amount of the
whole tax is, in the first place, to be settled,

‘When the whole number of the proposed House is thus ascer-
tained and fixed, it beeomes the entire representative power of
all the people in the Union. It is then a very simple matter to
ascertain how much of this representative power each State is
entitled to by its numbers. If, for example, the House is to con-
tain two hundred and forty members, then the number 240 ex-
presses the representative power of all the States; and a plain
calcnlation readily shows how much of this power belongs to
each State, This portion, it is true, will not always, nor often,
be expressed in whole numbers, but it may always be preciacly
exhibited by a decimal form of expression. If the portion of
any State be seldom or never one exact tenth, one exact fif-
teenth, or one exact twentieth, it will still always be capable of
precise: decimal expression, as one tenth and two hundredths, one
twelfth and four hundredths, one fifteenth and six handredths,
and so on, And the exact portion of the State, being thus deci-
mally expressed, will always show, to mathematical certainty,
what integral number comes nearest to such exact portion, For
example, in a House consisting of 240 members, the exact
mathematical proportion to which her numbers entitle the State
of New York is 38,59; it is certair, therefore, that 89 is the in-
tegral or whole number nearest to her exact proportion of the
representative power of the Union. Why, then, should she not

aQ°

7

os APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION,

have thirty-nine? and why should she have forty? She is nor
quite entitled to thirty-nine; that number ix something more
than ber right. But allowing her thirty-nine, from the necessity
of giving her whole numbers, and because that is the nearest
whole number, is not the Constitution fully obeyed when she has
received the thirty-ninth member? Is not her proper number
of Representatives then apportioned to her, as near as may be?
And is not the Constitution disregarded when the bill goes fare
ther, and gives her a fortieth member? For what is such a for-
ticth member given? Not for her absolute numbers, for her ab-
solute numbers do not entitle her to thirty-nine. Not for the sake
of apportioning her members to her nambers as near ae may be,
because thirty-nine is a nearer apportionment of members to
numbers than forty. But it is given, say the advocates of the
bill, because the process which has been adopted gives it. The
answer is, No such process is enjoined by the Constitation.
The case of New York may be compared, or contrasted, with
that of Missouri. The exact proportion of Missouri, in a gen-
eral representation of 240, is two und six tenths; that is to say,
it comes nearer to three members than to two, yet it is confined
totwo. But why is not Missouri entitled to that number of
Representatives which comes nearest to her exact proportion?
Is the Constitution fulfilled as to her, while that number is with-
held, and while, at the same time, in another State, not only ia
that nearest number given, but an additional member given
also? Is it an unswer with which the people of Missouri onght
to be satisfied, when it is said that this obvious injustice is the
necessary result of the process adopted by the bill? May they
not say with propriety, that, since three is the nearest whole
number to their exact right, to that number they are entitled,
and the process which deprives them of it must be a wrong
2 A-similar comparison might be made between New
York and Vermont. The exact proportion to which Vermont
is entitled, in a representation of 240, is 5.646. Her nearest
whole number, therefore, would be six. Now two things are
undeniably true ; first, that to take away the fortieth member from
‘New York would bring her representation nearer to her exact
proportion than it stands by Jeaving her that fortieth member;
second, that giving the member thus taken from New York to
Vermont would bring her representation nearer to her exact

APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 379

nght than it is by the bill) And both these propositions are
‘equally true of a transfer to Delaware of the twenty-eighth mem-
ber assigned by the bill to Pennsylvania, and to Missouri of
‘the thirteenth member assigned to Kentocky. In other words,
Vermont has, by her numbers, more right to six members than
New York has to forty; Delaware, by her numbers, hat more
right to two members than Pennsylvania has to twenty-eight;
and Missonri, by her numbers, has more right to three members
then Kentacky hus to thirteen. Without disturbing the pro«
posed number of the House, the mere changing of these three
members from and to the six States, respectively, would bring
the representation of the whole six nearer to their due

tion, according to their respective numbers, than the bill in its
present form makes it. In the face of this indisputable trath,
how can it be said that the bill apportions members of Congress
among thove States according to their respective numbers, as
near as may be?

‘The principle on which the proposed amendment is founded
is an effectual corrective for these and all other equally great ine
equalities. It muy be applied at all times, and in all cases, and
its result will always be the nearest approach to perfect justice.
It is equally simple and impartial. As a rule of apportionment,
itis litde other than a transcript of the words of the Constita-
tion, and its results are mathematically certain, The Constitn-
tion, as the committee understand it, says, Representatives shall
be apportioned among the States according to their respective
numbers of people, as near as may be, The rule adopted by
the committee says, out of the whole number of the House, that
number shall be apportioned to each State which comes nearest
to its exact right according to its number of people.

Where is the repugnancy between the Constitution and the
rule? The arguments against the rale seem to assume, that
there is a necessity of instituting some process, adopting some
number as the ratio, or as that number of people which each
member shall be understood to represent, But the committee
see no occasion for any other process whatever, than simply the
ascertainment of that quantum, out of the whole mass of the rep-
Tese, tative power, which each State may claim,

But it is said that, although a State may receive a nwnber
of Representatives which is something less than its exact pro

7

R80 APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTA Fon.

portion of representation, yet that it can in no case constitution-
ally receive more. How is this proposition proved? How is it
shown that the Constitution is less perfectly fulfilled by allow-
ing a State a small excess, than by subjecting her to a large de-
ficiency? What the Constitution requires ix the nearest priteti-
cable approach to precise jastice. ‘The rule is approximation ;
and we ought to approach, therefore, on whichever side we can
approach nearest.

But there is « still more conclusive answer to be given to thix
suggestion, ‘The whole number of Representatives of which
the House is to be composed is, of necessity, limited. ‘This
number, whatever it is, is that which is to be apportioned, and
nothing else can be apportioned. This is the whole sum to be
distributed. If, therefore, in making the apportionment, some
‘States receive less than their just share, it must necessarily fol-
low that some other States have received more than their just
share. If there be one State in the Union with less than its
right, some other State has more than its right; so that the are
gument, whatever be its force, applics to the bill in its present
form, as strongly as it can ever apply to any bill.

But the objection most usually urged against the principle of
the proposed amendment is, that it provides for the representa-
tion of fractions. Let this objection be examined and consid-
ered. Let it be ascertained, in the first place, what these frac-
tions, or fractional numbers, or residuary numbers, really are,
which it is said will be represented, should the amendment
prevail.

A fraction is the broken part of some integral number. It is,
therefore, « relative or derivative idea. It implies the previows
existence of some fixed number, of which it is but a part or re-
mainder, If there be no necessity for fixing or establishing
such previous namber, then the fraction resulting from it is iteclf
not matter of necessity, but matter of choice or accident. Now,
the argument which considers the plan proposed in the amend-
ment a# a representation of fractions, and therefore unconstitu-
tional, assumes as its basis, that, according to the Constitution,
every member of the House of Representatives represents, or

ought to represent, the same, or nearly the same, number of con- _

stituents; that this namber is to be regarded as an integer; and
any thing less than this is therefore called a fraction, or a residu-

APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 381

um, and cannot be entitled to a Representative. But nothing
of this is prescribed by the Constitution of the United States.
‘That Constitution contemplates no integer, or any common
number for the constituents of a member of the House of Rep-
resentatives. It goes not at all into these subdivisions of the
population of a State. It provides for the apportionment of
Representatives among the several States, according to their re-
spective numbers, and stops there. It makes no provision for
the representation of districts of States, or for the representation
of any portion of the people of a State less than the whole. It
says nothing of ratios or of constituent numbers. All these
things it leaves to State legislation. The right which each State
possesses to its own due portion of the representative power is
a State right, strictly, It belongs to the State, as a State; and
it is to be used and exercised as the State may see fit, sub-
ject only to the constitutional qualifications of electors. — In fact,
the States do make, and always have made, different provisions
for the exercise of this power. In some,a single member is
chosen for a certain defined district; in others, two or three
members are chosen for the same district; and in some, again,
is New: Hamipshire,, Rhode | Indand,) Connecticat, New Tersey,
and Georgia, the entire representation of the State i
and undivided representation. In each of these last-mentioned
States, every member of the House of Representatives haa for
his constituents all the people of the State; and all the peo-
ple of those States are consequently represented in that branch
of Congress.

If the bill before the Senate should pass into a law, in its
present form, whatever injustice it might do to any of those
States, it would not be correct to say of them, nevertheless, that
any portion of their people was unrepresented. The well-founded
objection would be, as to some of them at least, that they were
not adequately, competently, fairly represented; that they had
not as many voices and as many votes in the House of Repre+
sentatives as they were entitled to. This would be the objec
tion. There would be no unrepresented fraction; but the State,
ae a State, as a whole, would be deprived of some part of ite
just rights.

On the other hand, if the bill should pass as it js now pro-
posed tu be amended, there would be no representation of {rao

3s2 APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTA DON.

tions in any State; for a fraction supposes a division and a
remainder, All that could justly be said would be, that some of
these States, as States, possessed a portion of legislative power
a little larger than their exact right; as it must be admitted,
that, should the bill pass unamended, they would possess of that
power much less than their exact right. The same remarks
are substantially true, if applied to those States which adopt the
district system, as most of them do. In Missouri, for example,
there will be no fraction unrepresented, should the bill become a
law in its present form; nor any member for a fraction, should
the amendment prevail, Because the mode of apportionment
which is nearest to its exact right applies no assumed ratios,
makes no subdivisions, and, of course, produces no fractions.
In the onc case, or in the other, the State, as a State, will have
something more, or something less, than its exact proportion of
repreeentative power; but ehe will part out thie power among
her own people, in either case, in such mode as she may choose,
or exercise it altogether ax an entire representation of the people
of the Sinte.

Whether the subdivision of the representative power within
any State, if there be a subdivision, be equal or mmequal, or
fairly or unfairly made, Congress cannot know, and has no au
thority to inquire. It is enough that the State presents her own.
representation on the floor of Congress in the mode she chooses
to present it. If a State were to give to one portion of her
territory a Representative for every twenty-five thousand per
sons, and to the rest a Representative only for every fifty thou-
sand, it would be an act of unjust legislation, doubtless; but it
would be wholly beyond redress by any power in Congress, be-
canse the Constitution has left all this to the State itself.

‘These considerations, it is thought, may show that the Con-
stitution has not, by any implication or necessary construction,
enjoined that which it certainly has not ordained in terms,
namely, that every member of the House should be supposed to
represent the same number of constituents; and therefore, that
the assumption of a ratio, as representing the common number
of constituents, is not called for by the Constitution. All that
Congress is at liberty to do, as it would seem, is to divide the
whole representative power of the Union into trenty Seer parts,
assigning one part to each State, as near as practicable accord-

APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 383

ing to its right, and leaving all subsequent arrangement, and all
subdivisions, to the State itself.

Af the view thus taken of the rights of the States and the du-
ties of Congress be the correct view, then the plan proposed in
the amendment is in no just sense a representation of fractions.
But suppose it was otherwise; suppose a direct provision were
made for allowing a Representative to every State in whose
population, it being first divided by a common ratio, there

* should be found a fraction exceeding half the amount of that
ratio, what constitutional objection could be fairly urged against
such a provision? Let it always be remembered, that the case
here supposed provides only for a fraction exceeding the moicty
of the ratio; for the committee admit at once that the repre-
aentation of fractions less than a moiety is unconstitutional;
because, should a member be allowed to a State for such a frae-
tion, it would be certain that her representation would not be so
near her exact right us it was before. But the allowance of a
member for a major fraction is a direct approximation towards
justice and equality. There appears to the committee to be
nothing, either in the letter or the spirit of the Constitution, op-
posed ta such a mode of apportionment. On the contrary, it
seems entirely consistent with the very object which the Consti-
tution contemplated, and well calculated to accomplish it, The
argument commonly urged against it is, that it ie necessary to
apply sore one common divisor, and to abide by its reaulte.

If by this it be meant that there must be some common rale,
or common measure, applicable, und applied impartially, to all
the States, it is quite trac, But if that which is intended be,
that the population of cach State must be divided by a fixed
ratio, and all resulting fractions, great or small, disregarded, this
is bat to take for granted thé very thing in controversy. The
question is, whether it be unconstitutional to make approxima-
tion to equality by allowing Representatives for major fractions,
'The affirmative of this question is, indeed, denied, but it is not
disproved, by saying that we must abide by the operation of di-
vision by an assumed ratio, and disregard fractions. The ques-
tion etill remains as it was before, and it ie still to be shown
what there is in the Constitation which rejects approximation
‘as the rule of apportionment.

Bat snppose it to be necessary to find a divisor, and to abide

a |

BL APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION.

its results. What is a divisor? Not necessarily a simple num-
ber, It may be composed of a whole number and a fraction;
it may itself be the result of a previous process; it may be
any thing, in short, which produces accurate and uniform divia-
jon, Whatever does this is a common rule, a common etand-
ard, or, if the word be important, a common divisor. The com-
mittee refer, on this part of the case, to some observations by
Professor Dean, with a table, both of which accompany this

report.

As it is not improbable that opinion has been a good deal in-
fiaenced on this subject by what took place on the passing of
the first act making an apportionment of Representatives among
the States, the committee have examined and considered that
precedent. If it be in point to the present case, it is certainly
entitled to very great weight; but if it be of questionable appli-
cation, the text of the Constitution, even if it were doubtful,
cannot be explained by a doubtful commentary. In the opin-
ion of the committee, it is only necessary that what was said on
this occasion should be understood in connection with the sub-
ject-matter then under consideration; and in order to see what
that subject-matter really was, the committee think it necessary
shortly to state the case,

The two houses of Congress passed a bill, after the first, enu-
meration of the people, providing for a House of Representatives
which should consist of 120 members. The bill expressed no
rule or principle by which these members were assigned to the
several States. It merely eaid that New Hampshire should
have five members, Massachusetts ten, and so on; going through
all the States, and assigning the whole number of one hundred
and twenty. Now, by the census then recently taken, it ap-
peared that the whole representative population of the United
States was 3,615,920; and it was evidently the wish of Congress
to make the House as numerous as the Constitution would
allow. But the Constitution provides that there shall not be
more than one member for every thirty thousand persons.

This prohibition was, of couse, to be obeyed; but did the
Constitution mean that no State should have more than one
member for every thirty thousand persons? Or did it only
mean that the whole House, as compared with the whole popu-
‘ation of the United States, should not contain more than one

APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. Buh

member for every thirty thousand persone? If this last were
the true construction, then the bill, in that particular, was right,
if the first were the trae construction, then it was wrong; be-
cause 80 many members could not be assigned to the States,
without giving to some of them more members than one for
every thirty thousand, In fact, the bill did propose to do this in
regard to several States,

President Washington adopted that construction of the Con-
stitution which applied its prohibition to each State individaally.
He thought that no State could constitutionally receive more
than one member for every thirty thousand of ber population.
On this, therefore, his main objection to the bill was founded.
‘That objection he states in these words: —

“The Constitution has also provided that the number of Rep-
resentatives shall not execed one for every thirty thousand;
which restriction is, by the context, and by fair and obvions con+
struction, to be applied to the separate and respective numbers
of the States; and the bill has allotted to eight of the States
more than one for every thirty thousand.”

It is now necessary to sce what thore was further objection-
able in this bill. The number of one hundred and twelve mem-
bers was all that could be divided among the States, without
giving to some of them more than one member for thirty thou-
sand inhabitants. Therefore, having allotted these one hundred
and twelve, there still remained eight of the one bundred and
twenty to be assigned; and these cight the bill assigned to the
States having the largest fractions. Some of these fractions
were large, and some were small, No regard was paid to frac-
tions over a moiety of the ratio, any more than to fractions
under it’ ‘There was no rule Inid down, stating what fractions
should entitle the States to whom they might happen to fall, or
in whose population they might happen to be found, to a Repre-
ventative therefor. The aseignment was not made on the prin-
ciple that each State should have a member for a fraction greater
than half the ratio; or that all the States should have a member
for « fraction, in all cases where the allowance of such member
would bring her representation nearer to its exact proportion
than its disallowance. ‘There wa no common measure or com-
mon rule adopted, but the assignment was matter of arbitrary
discretion. A member was allowed to New Hampshire, for ex

33

Vou. 1.

|

386 APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESEN'TATION.

ample, for a fraction of less than one half the ratio; thus placing
her representation farther from her exact proportion than it was
without such additional member; while a member was refused
to Georgia, whoae cave closely resembled that of New

shire, both having what were thought large fractions, but both
still onder a moiety of the ratio, and distinguished from each
other only by a very slight difference of absolute numbers. The
committee have already fully expressed their opinion on such a
mode of apportionment.

{n regard to this character of the bill, President Was!
said: “The Constitution has preseribed that Representatives
shall be apportioned among the several States according to their
respective numbers; and there is no one proportion or divisor,
which, applied to the respective numbers of the States, will
yield the number and allotment of Representatives proposed by
the bill.”

‘This was all undoubtedly troe, and was, in the jadgment of
the committee, a decisive objection agninst the bill. It is, never-
theless, to be observed, that the other objection completely cov-
ered the whole ground. There could, in that bill, be no allowance
Sor a fraction, great or small; because Congress had taken for
the ratio the lowest number allowed by the Constitution, viz.
thirty thousand. Whatever fraction a State might have less
than that ratio, no member could be allowed for it. It is scarce-
ly necessary to observe, that no such objection applies to the
amendment now proposed. No State, shonld the amendment
prevail, will have a greater number of members than one for
every thirty thousand; nor is it likely that the objection will ever
again occur. The whole force of the precedent, whatever it be,
in its application to the present case, is drawn from the other
objection. And what is the trae import of that. objection?
Does it mean any thing more than that the apportionment was
not made on a common rule or principle, applicable and ap-
plied alike to all the States?

President Washington's words are: “ There is no one propor. *
tion or divisor, which, applied to the respective numbers of the
States, will yield the number and allotment of Representatives
proposed by the bill.”

If, then, he could have found a common proportion, it would
have removed this objection. He required a proportion or

APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION, B87

aivisor. These words he evidently uses as explanatory of each
other. He meant by divisor, therefore, no more than by propor-
tum. What he sought was some common and equal role, by
which the allotment had been made among the several States;
he did not find such common rule; and, on that ground, be
thought the bill objectionable.

Tn the opinion of the committee, no such objection applies to
the amendment recommended by them. That amendment gives
# rule, plain, simple, just, uniform, and of universal application.
‘The role bas been frequently stated. It may be clearly expressed
in either of two ways. Let the rule be, that the whole number
of the proposed House shall be apportioned among the several
Slates according to their respective numbers, giving to cach State
that number of members which comes nearest lo her exact mathe-
matical part or proportion; or let the rale be, that the population
of each State shall be divided by a common divisor, and, in
addition to the number of members resulting from such division,
@ member shall be allowed to cach State whose fraction exceeds a
moiety of the divisor.

Either of these is, it seems to the committee, a fair and just
role, capable of aniform application, and operating with entire
impartiality. There is no want of a common proportion, or a
common divisor; there is nothing left to arbitrary discretion. If
the rule, in either of these forms, be adopted, it can never be
doubtful how every member of any proposed number for a Honse
of Representatives ought to be assigned. Nothing will be left
in the discretion of Congress; the right of each State will be a
mathematical right, easily ascertained, about which there can be
neither doubt nor difficulty ; and, in the application of the rale,
there will be no room for preference, partiality, or injustice, In
any case, in all time to come, it will do all that human means
can do to allot to every State in the Union its proper and just
proportion of representative power, And it is because of this,
its capability of constant application, as well as because of its
impartiality and justice, that the committee are earnest in rece
ommending its adoption by Congress. If it shall be adopted,
they believe it will remove a cause of uncasiness and dissatie-
faction, recurring, or liable to recur, with every new cenens, and
place the rights of the States, in this respect, on a fixed basis,
of which none ean with -eason complain. Tt is true, that there

7

388 APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION.

may be some numbers assumed for the composition of the
House of Representatives, to which, if the rule were applied,
the result might give a member to the House more than was

the very nature of the process itself, that its unjust results must
grow greater and greater in proportion as the population of the
country enlarges, What was objectionable, though tolerable,
yesterday, becomes intolerable tommorrow. A change, the com-
mittee are persuaded, must come, or the whole just balance and
proportion of representative power among the States will be dis:
turbed and broken up.

APPENDIX.
(See p. 384.)
Extract of a Letter from Professor James Dean.

“Teannot express tny rule so densely and perspicuously as I couia
wish ; bot its meaning is, that each State shall have sucha numberof ~«
Representatives, that the population for each shall be the nearest posal~
ble, whether over or under, to}. ‘The number for each State may
be ascertained thus; Divide the representative number by the number
assumed to fill the blank, disregarding the remainder; the quotient, o
the next greater number, will be the number of Representatives. In
order to determine which is the proper one, divide the representative
number of the State by the two numbers separately, then subtract the
least quotient from the assumed number, and the assumed number from
sho other quotient; and that from which results the least remainder is
the number of Representatives for the State."

APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION 389

‘The foregoing rule is illustrated thus; The population of Maine,
fur instance, which is 399/435, being divided by 47,700, the ratio as-
sumed in the bill from the House of gives a quotient
of 8; the population being then divided by 8, the quotient is 49,929;
divide by 9, tho next higher number, the quotient is 44,381,

‘The following table exhibits the results in the several Smtes, uccord-
ang to this process.

wt ka-Bae
=
=
3

|8|-wnen-SeGeette-BeSceusen| MmTOnE

Nors.—The principle laid down by Professor Dean appears to be
this: Each State should have that share of representation which bears
the nearest possible proportion to the ratio assumed,

Thus Massachusetts, with 610,000 people, if the mtio be 47,700,
should have 18 Reprosentatives, because 13 bears the nearcat possible
proportion to 47,700.

As 13 is to 1, 80 is 610,000 to 46,923,
As 12 is to 1, 80 is 610,000 to 50,833,

‘Tho first result, or 46,923, is nearer to 47,700, the assumed ratio,
than the last result, or 50,833. The number 13, therefore, is more

33°

7

390 APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION.

nearly apportioned to the assumed ratio than 12; and further trial of
numbers will prove it to bear the nearest possible proportion to 47/700

Mr. Dean considers that, the ratio being assumed, the number of the
House, and of each State’ share of representation, should be appor-
tioned to the ratio. “The error of the bill Is thas shown; its ratio bears
no proportion, either to the whole number of the House, or to the rex
spective quotas of representation of the several States. Its ratio ia arbi-
trary, and its proposed number of this House is arbitrary ; that is, the
number is not to be found by any process. The necesmry consequence
is, that no State's share of the House is found by any rule of proportion,
‘The number of the House being fixed, the ratio should be found by
proportion. As 24], e. g-:1;: 11,998,054; 49,494,

‘Thus, for a House of 241, the true ratio is found to be 49,194; then,
by the rule of Professor Dean, each State is entitled to that number of
Representatives which, when divided into its whole federative popula-
tion, produces a quotient or mtio approximating nearest to the true ratio,
49,494; in other words, each State is entitled to that number of Repre+
sentatives which bears the nearest possible proportion to the true ratio.

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.*

Mp. Presivent, though I am entirely satisfied with the gen-
eral view taken by the chairman of the committee,t and with bis
explanation of the details of the bill, yet there are a few topics
upon whieh I desire to offer some remarks; and if no other gen-
tleman wishes at present to address the Senate, I will avail my-
self of this opportunity.

A considerable portion of the active part of life has elapsed,
sinee you and I, Mr. President,$ and three or four other gentle
men, now in the Senate, acted our respective parts in the pus:
sige of the bill creating the present Bank of the United States.
‘We have lived to little purpose, as public men, if the experience
of this period has not enlightened our judgments, and enabled
us to revise our opinions, and to correet any errors into which
we may have fallen, if such errors there were, either in regard to
the general atility of a national bank, or the details of its con.
stitution. [trust it will not be unbecoming the occasion, if 1
allude to your own important agency in that transaction. The
bill incorporating the bank, and giving it a constitution, proceed
ed from a committee in the House of Representatives, of which
you were chairman, and was conducted through that House
under your distinguished lead. Having recently looked back to
the proceedings of that day, I must be permitted to say, that I
have perused the speech by which the subject was introduced to
the consideration of the House, with a revival of the feeling of
approbation and pleasure with which J heard it; and I will add,
that it would not, perhaps, now be easy to find a better brief

* A Speech delivered in the Senate on the 25th of May, 1632, on the Bill for
mal tag ethereal Nye mai ol nee

Mr. Calhoun, at that time Vice-President of tho United States.

7

392 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

aynopesie than that epeech contains, of those principles of curren-
ey and of banking, which, since they spring from the nature of
money and of commerce, must be essentially the same at all
times, in all commercial communities. The other gentlemen
now with us in the Senate, all of them, I believe, concurred with
the chairman of the committec, and voted fur the bill. My own
vote was against it, This is a matter of little importance; but
it is connected with other circumstances, to which I will for a
moment advert, The gentlemen with whom I acted on that
occasion hud no doubts of the constitutional power of Congress
to establish a national bank; nor had we any doubts of the geu-
eral utility of an institution of that kind. We had, indeed,
most of us, voted for a bank, at a preceding session. But the
object of our regard was not whatever might be called a bank,
‘We required that it should be established on certain principles,
which alone we deemed safe and naeful, made subject to certain
fixed liabilities, and so guarded, that it could neither move vol-
untarily, nor be moved by others, out of its proper sphere of
action, The bill, when first introduced, contained features to
which we should never have assented, and we accordingly set
ourselves to work, with a good deal of zeal, in order to effect
sundry amendments. In some of these proposed amendmenta,
the chairman, and those who acted with bir, finally concurred.
Others they opposed. The result was, that several most impor
tant amendments, as I thought, prevailed: | But there atill re-
mained, in my opinion, objections to the bill, which justified a
persevering opposition, till they should be removed.

‘The first objection was to the magnitude of the capital. In
its original form, the bill provided for a capital of thirty-five
millions, with a power in Congress to increase it to fifty millions.
This latter provision was strack out on the motion of a very
intelligent gentleman from New York," and I believe, Sir, with
your assent. But I was of opinion that a capital of thirty-five
millions was more than was called for by the circumstances of
the country. The capital of the first bank was but ten millions;
and it had not been shown to be too small; and there certainly
was no good ground to say, that the business or the wants of
the country had grown, in the mean time, in the proportion of

* Mr, Cady,

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. BAe
ten. But the state of things has now become

5
:

bank. At first view, there might appear to be some reason in
such a suggestion; but I think further reflection on the duties
expected to be performed by the bank, in relation to the general
currency of the country, will show that suggestion not to be
well founded. On the whole, I am disposed to continue the
capital as it is,

‘There was another objection. The bill hnd divided the stock
into shares of one hundred dollars each, not of four hundred
dollars cach, as in the first bank; and it had established such «
veale of voting by the stockholders, as showed it to be quite
pricticable for a minority in interest to control all elections, and
to seize on the entire direction of the bank. It was on this very
ground, and under the apprehension of this very evil, that the
last attempt to amend the bill, made by me, proceeded. That
attempt was a motion to diminish the number of shares, by:
taising the amount of each from one hundred dollars to four
hundred.

‘There was yet one other provision of the bill, which was re-
garded as unnecessary and objectionable. That was, the power
reserved to the government of appointing five of the directors.
We had no experience of our own of the effect of such govern-
ment interference in the direction of the bank; and in other
countries it had been found that such connection between gov-
ernment and banking institutions produced nothing but evil.
‘The credit of banks has generally been very much in proportion
to their independence of government control, While acting on
true commercial principles, they are useful both to government
and people; but the history of the principal moneyed institu.
tions of Europe has demonstrated, that their efficiency and
stability consist very much in their freedom from all subjection
to State interests and State necessities. ‘The real eafety to the

—™

34 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.

public lies in the restraints and liabilities imposed oy low, and
in the interest which the proprietors themselves have in a jue
dicious management of the affairs of the corporation, 1 will
only say, on this part of the subject, that it Is unquestionably
true, that the successful career of this institution commenced,
when its stock, leaving the hands of speculation, came to be
owned, for the common purposes of investment, by such as were
in possession of capital to invest, and when the proprietors ex-
ercised their proper discretion in constituting their part of the
direction with a single view of giving to the bank a safe and
competent administration.

‘The question now is, Sir, whether this institution shall be con-
tinued, We ought to treat it as a great public subject; to con-
sider it, like statesmen, a# it regards the great interests of the
country, and with as little mixture as possible of all minor
motives.

The influence of the bank, Mr. President, on the interests of
the government, and the interests of the people, may be consid-
ered in several points of view. It may be regarded as it affects
the currency of the country; as it affects the collection and dis-
bursement of the public revenue; as it respects foreign ex-
chatige#y"ts it reepects domestic exchanges; and us it affects,
either generally or locally, the agriculture, commerce, and manu-

of the Union,
First, as to the currency of the country. ‘This is, at all times,
most important political object. A sound currency is an essen-

tin] and indispensable security for the fruits of industry and hone
est enterprise, Every man of property or industry, every man
who desires to preserve what he honestly possesses, or to obtain
what he can honestly earn, has a direct interest in maintaining
a safe circulating medium; euch a medium as shall be a real
and substantial representative of property, not liable to vibrate
with opinions, not subject to be blown up or blown down by
the breath of speculation, but made stable and secure by its im-
mediate relation to that which the whole world regards as of a
permanent valac, A disordered currency is one of the greatest
of political evils. It undermines the virtues necessary for the
support of the social system, and encourages propensities de-
structive of its happiness. It wars against industry, frugality,
und economy ; and it fosters the evil spirits of extravagance and

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 395

speculation, Of all the contrivances for cheating the lnboring
clesses of mankind, none has been more effectual than that
whieh deludes them with paper money. This is the most effec«
tual of inventions to fertilize the rich man’s field by the sweat
of the poor man’s brow. Ordinary tyranny, oppression, exces
sive taxation, these bear lightly on the happiness of the mass of
the community, compared with a frandolent currency, and the
robberies committed by depreciated paper. Our own history
has recorded for our instruction enough, and more than enough,
of the demoralizing tendency, the injustice, and the intolerable
oppression on the virtuous and well disposed, of a degraded
paper currency, authorized by law, or in any way countenanced
by government,

We all know, Sir, that the establishment of a sound and uni-
form currency was one of the great ends contemplated in the
adoption of the present Constitution. If we could now fully ex-
plore all the motives of those who framed and those who sup-
ported that Constitution, perhaps we should hardly find a more
powerful one than this. The object, indeed, is sufficiently proms
inent on the face of the Constitution itself. Tt cannot well be
questioned, that it was intended by that Constitution to submit
tae whole subject of the currency of the country, all that re-

the actual medium of payment and exchange, whatever
that should be, to the control and legislation of Congress, Con-
gress can alone coin money; Congress can alone fix the value
of foreign coins. No State can coin money; no State can
fix the value of foreign coins; no State (nor even Congress
itself) can make any thing a tender but gold and silver, in the
payment of debts; no State can emit bills of credit. The ex-
elusive power of regulating the metallic currency of the country
would seem necessarily to imply, of, more properly, to include,
as part of itself, a power to decide how far that currency should
be exclusive, how far any substitute should interfere with it, and
what that substitute should be. The generality and extent of
the power granted to Congress, and the clear and well-defined
prohibitions on the States, leave little doubt of an intent to rea.
cue the whole subject of currency from the hands of local legis
lation. and to confer it on the general government, But, not-
withstanding this apparent purpose in the Constitution, the
truth is, that the currency of the country is now, to a very great

—™

396 BANK OF THR UNITED STATES,

extent, practically and effectually under the control of the sev
ate governments; if it be not mcre correct to say, that it
is under the control of the banking institutions created by the
‘States; for the States seem first to have taken possession of the
power, and then to have delegated it.

Whether the States can constitutionally exercise this power,
or delegate it to others, is a question which I do not intend, at
present, either to concede or to argue. It is much to be hoped,
that no controversy on the point may ever become necessary.

But it is tiatler Miphly deser hip of eotelderatiod that SRREGED
clothed by the Constitution with exclusive power over the me-
tallic currency, Congress, unless through the ageney of a bank
established by its authority, has no control whatever over that
which, in the character of a mere representative of the metallic
currency, fills up almont all the channels of pecuniary eireolation.

In the absence of a Bank of the United States, the State
banks become effectually the regulators of the public currency.
Their numbers, their capital, and the interests connected with
them, give them, in that state of things, a power which
is competent to control. We saw, therefore, when the late war
broke out, and when there was no national bank in being, that
the State institutions, of their own authority, and by an ander-
standing among themselves, under the gentle phrase of suspend-
ing specie payments, everywhere south of New England re-
fused payment of their notes, and thus filled the country with
frredeemable and degraded paper, They were not called to an-
swer for this violation of their charters, as far as I remember, in
any one State. They pleaded the urgency of the occasion, and
the public distresses; and in this apology the State govern-
ments acquiesced. Congress, at the same time, found itself in
an awkward predicament. It held the whole power over coins.
No State or State institution could give cireulation to an ounce
of gold or of silver, not sanctioned by Congress, Yet all the
States, and a hundred State institutions, claimed and exercised
the right of driving coin out of circulation by the introduction of
their own paper; and then of depreciating and degrading that
paper, by refusing to redeem it. Ax they were not institutions
created by this goverment, they were not answerable to it
Congress could not call them to account, and if it could, Con-
gress had no bank of its own, whose circulation could supply the

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 307

wants of the community, Coin, the substantial constituent, was,
and was admitted to be, subject only to the control of Congress;
but paper, assuming to be a representative of this constituent,
was taking great liberties with it, at the eame time that it wax
no way amenable to its constitational guardian. This suspen-
sion of specie payrnents was of course immediately followed by
grent depreciation of the paper. It shortly fell so low, that #
bill on Boston could not be purchased at Washington under au
advance of from twenty to twenty-five per cent. Ido not mean
to reflect on the proceedings of the State banks. Perhaps their
best justification is to be found in the readiness with which gov-
ernment itself borrowed their paper of them, depreciated as it
was; butit certainly becomes us to consider attentively this part
of our experience, and to guard, as far as we can, againet sim-
ilar occurrences.

I am of opinion, Sir, that a well-conducted national bank
has an exceedingly useful and effective operation on the general
paper circulation of the country, I think its tendency is mani-
festly to restrain within some bounds the paper issues of other
institutions. If it be said, on the other hand, that these institu-
tions, in turn, hold in check the iesnes of the national bank, 20
much the better. Let that check go to its full extent, An overs
issue, even by the bank itself, no one can desire. But it is plain,
that, by holding State institutions which come into immediate
contact with itself und its branches to an accountability for their
issues, not yearly or quarterly, but daily and hourly, an impor-
tant restraint is exercised. Be it remembered always, that what
it is to expect from others, it is to perform itself; and that its
own paper is at all times to tarn into coin at the first touch of
its own counter.

But, Mr, President, so important is this object, that 1 think,
that, far from diminishing, we ought rather to increase and mul-
tiply our securities; and I am not prepared to say that, even
with the continuance of the bank charter, and under its wisest
administration, I regard the state of our currency as entirely
safe. It is evident to me that the general paper circulation ha»
been extended too far for the specie basis on which it rests.
Our system, as a system, dispenses too far, in my judgment,
with the use of gold and silver. Having learned the use of pax
per as a substitute for specie, we use the substitute, I fear, too

TOL Ht uM

—

398 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.

freely It is trne, that our circulating paper is all redeeinable in
gold and silver. Legally speaking, it is all convertible into spe-
cie at the will of the holder, But a mere legal convertibility is
not sufficient. There muet be an beget
convertibility. This, I think, is not at t

cured; and, as it ix a matter of high peepee,
pe consideration of the Senate, The paper circulation
of the country is at this time probably seventy-five or eighty
millions of dollars, Of specic, we may have twenty or twenty-
two millions; and this principally in masses, in the vaulte of the
banks. Now, Sir, this isa state of things which, in my judg-
ment, leads constantly to over-trading, and to the consequent
excesses and revalsions which so often disturb the regular course
of commercial affairs. A circulation consisting in so great a
degree of paper is casily expanded, to furnish temporary capi-
tal to such as wish to adventure on new enterprises in trade;
and the collection in the banks of the greater part of the specie
in the country affords all possible facility for its exportation.
Hence, over-trading does frequently occur, and is always fol-
lowed by an inconvenient, sometimes by a dangerous, reduction
in the amount of coin. It is in vain that we look to the pray
dence of the banks for an effectaal security against over-trading.
‘The directors of such institutions will generally go to the length
of their means in cashing good notes, and leave the borrower to
judge for himself of the useful employment of his money.

Nor would a competent security against over-trading be al-
ways obtained, if the banks were to confine their discounts
strictly to business paper, so denominated; that is, to notes and
bills which represent real transactions, having been given and
received on the actual purchase and sale of merchandise; be+
cause these transactions themselves may be too far extended.
In other words, more may be bought than the wants of the com-
munity require, on a speculative calculation of future prices.
Men naturally have a good opinion of their own sagacity. He
who believes merchandise is about: to rise in price, will bay mer-
thandise, if he possesses money, or cnn obtain credit. ‘The fact
of actual purchase, therefore, is not proof of a really subsisting
want; and of course the amount of all purchases does pot cor.
reepond always with the entire wanta or necessities of the com-
munity. Too frequently it very much exceeds that measure.

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 399

Af, then, the discretion of the banks, exercised in deciding the
smount of their discounts, is not a proper security against over-
wading, if facility in obtaining bank credits naturally fosters that
spirit, if the desire of gain and love of enterprise constantly
cherish it, and if it finds epecie collected in the banks inciting
exportation, what is the remedy suited and adequate to the
case? '

Now I think, Sir, that a closer inquiry into the direct souree

* of the evil will suggest the remedy. Why have we so small an
amount of specie in circulation? Certainly the only reasan is,
because we do not require more. We have but to ask its pres-
ence, and it would return. But we voluntarily banish it by the
great amount of small bank-notes. In most of the States, the
banks issue notes of all low denominations, down even to a sin-
gle dollar. How is it possible, under such circumstances, to
retain specie in circulation? All experience shows it to be im-
possible. The paper will take the place of the gold and silver,
When Mr, Pitt, in the year 1797, proposed in Parliament to
authorize the Bank of England to issne one-pound notes, Mr.
Burke lay sick at Bath of an illness from which he never recov-
ered; and he is said to have written to the late Mr. Canning,
“Tell Mr. Pitt, that, if he consents to the issuing of one-pound
notes, he must never expect to see a guinea again.” ‘The one-
pound notes were issued, and the guineas disappeared. A similar
cause is producing now a precisely similar effect with us, Small
notes have expelled dollars and half-dollars from circulation in
all the States in which such notes are issued. On the other
hand, dollars and half-dollars abound in those States which have
adopted a wiser and eafer policy. Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ma-
tyland, Louisiana, and some other States, I think seven in all,
do not allow their banks to seme notes under five dollars. Ev-
cry traveller notices the difference, when he passes from one of
these States into those where small notes are allowed.

The evil, then, is the issuing of small notes by State banks.
(f these notes, that is to say, of notes under five dollars,
the amount now in circulation is doubtless eight or ten mil-
lions of dollars, Can these notes be withdmwn? Tf they can,
their place will be immediately supplied by a specie circula-
tion of equal amount, The object is a great one, as it is con-
nected with the safety and stability of the currency, and may

—

1m BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.

well justify a serious reflection on the means of
it, May not Congress and the State governments, acting, not
unitedly, but severally, to the same end, easily and quictly at
tain it? Ithinkthey may. It fe but for other States to follow
the good example of those which I have mentioned, and the
work is done. As an inducement to the States to do this, 1
2 tr lester poner aed ated power of
from circulation a pretty large part of the Smaant
the Bank of the United States, I propose this, so that the
State banks may withdraw their small notes, and find their com-
pensation in a larger circulation of those of a higher denomina-
tion. My proposition will be, that, at any time after the expi-
ration of the existing charter of the bank, that is, alter 1836,
Congress may, if it see fit, restrain the bank from iseuing for
circulation notes or bills under a given sum, say, ten or twenty
dollars. ‘This will diminish the circulation, and consequently.
the profits, of the bank; but it is of less importance to make
the bank a highly profitable institution to the stockholder, than
that it ehould be safe and useful to the community, It ought
not, certainly, to be restrained from the enjoyment of all the fair
advantages to be derived from the discreet use of its eapital in.
banking transactions; but the leading object, after all, in its
continuance, is, and ought to be, not private emolument, but
public benefit,

It may, perhaps, strike some gentlemen, that the circulation
of small notes might be effectually discouraged, by refasing
to recive not only all such notes, but all notes of such
banks as issue them, at the custom-houses, land-offices, post
offices, and other places of public receipt, and by causing them
to be refased also, cither in payment or deposit, at the Bank
of the United States, But the effect of auch refusal may be
doubtful. It would certainly, in some degree, discredit such
notes; but probably it would not drive them out of circulation
altogether; and if it should not do this, it might very probably
increase their circulation. If in some degree they become dis-
credited, to that degree they will become cheaper than other
notes; and universal experience proves, that, of two things which
muy be/current, the cheaper will always expel the other. ‘Thus,
silver ilself, because it is proportionably cheaper with us than
old, has driven the gold out of the country; that is to say, we

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, aut

ean pay a debt of one hundred dollars, by tendering that number
of Spanish or American dollare. But we cannot go into the
market, and buy ten American eagles for these hundred silver
dollars. ‘They would cost us a hundred and four, Thus, as we
can pay our debts cheaper in silver than in gold, we use noth-
ing’but silver, and the gold goes where it is more highly valued.
‘The same thing always happens between two sorts of paper,
which are found at the same time in circulation. That which
is cheapest, or of less value than the other, always drives its
more respectable associate out of its company.

Measures, therefore, such as I have alluded to, would be likely,
I fear, rather to aggravate than to remedy the evil. We must
hope that all notes under five dollars may be entirely withdrawn
from cireulation, by the consent of the States and the State
banks; and when that shall be done, their place will be imme-
diately supplied by specie, We should then receive an acces-
sion of ten millions of dollars, at least, to our specie circulation ;
and these ten millions will find their place, not in the banks,
not collected anywhere in large masses, but in constant usc,
among all classes, and in hourly transfer from hand to hand,
Tt cannot be denied that euch an addition would give great
strength to our pecuniary system, discourage excessive exporta-
tion of specie, and tend to restrain and correct the evils of over+
trading. England has applied the like remedy to a similar evil,
though she has carried the restriction much higher, and allowed
the cireulation of no notes for less sams than five pounds ster-
ling.

Ihave thought this subject, Mr. President, of so much im-
“portance, that it was fit to present it, at this time, to the con-
sideration of the Senate. I propose to do no more at present
than to insert such a provision as I have described in this bill,
Tn the mean time, I hope the matter may attract the attention
of those whove agency will be desired to accomplish the general
object.

The next point on which T will offer a few remarks is the
great advantage of the bank in the operations of the Treasury *
first in the collection, and, next, in the disbursement of the reve-
nue, How is the revenue to be collected through all the eustom-
houses, the land-offices, and the post-oflices, without some such
means as the bank affords? Where are payments made at

34

402 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES,

the custom-houses to be deposited? In whose hands are these
large sume to be trusted? And how are they to be remitted to
Washington, or wherever else they may be wanted? I dare
say, Sir, that the operations of the government might be carried
on in some way without the agency of a bank; but the ques
tion is, whether they could be carried on safely, without loss
and without charge. Look to the disbursement of the reve~
auc. At present, the bank is bound to transmit

funds in one place to any other place, without expenac, A
dollar at St. Louis or Nashville becomes a dollar in New
Hampshire or Maine, if the Treasury 80 choose. This eer-
tainly is very usefol and convenient. If there were no Bank
of the United States at New Orleans, for example, duties to
the government at that place must be received either in spe-
cic, or in bills of local banks. If in the former, the funds could
not be remitted where they might be required, without consid-
erable expense ; if in the latter, they could not be remitted at
all, until first converted into specie. If bills of exchange were
resorted to, they would often command a premium, and would
be always attended with more or less risk. In short, the util-
ity of the bank in collecting and disbursing the revenue is too
obvious to be argued, and too great not to strike any one, con-
vereant with such subjects, without the aid of comment,

Thave alluded to its dealings in foreign exchanges as one of
the mast important powers of the corporation. ‘There ar those
who think this power ought to be withheld. The possession of
it is, I think, one of the most common objections to the bank in
the large cities; but I do not think it a well-founded objection,
It is said that the trade in exchange ought to be left free, like
other traffic. Be it 0; but then why not leave it as free to the
bank as to others? ‘The bank enjoys no monopoly. If it be
true, that, by the magnitude of its capital and the distribution
of its several offices, it acts upon the rates of exchange, not
locally, but generally, and thus occasionally restrains the profit
of dealing in one place by bringing the general rates through
the whole country nearer to a uniformity, the occasional profits
of individnals may be lessened, but the general effect is bene
ficial to the public. If, at the same time that it keeps the doe
mestic exchanges of the country at low rates, it keeps the rates
of foreign exchanges nearly uniform and level, I hardly know

SANK OF THE UNITED STATES 403

now it could do greater service to the commercial

In the business of foreign exchange the bank has, and always will
have, powerful rivals. It is natural that these rivals should de-
sire that, in this particular, the bank should retire from business,
Bat are its dealings in exchange found prejudicial, by those who
deal in it themselves no further than to buy for their own remit-
tances in the ordinary way of business? In things of this kind
we may most safely guide onrselves by the light of experience.
Taking it for granted that the general interest of the trading
community is injured by sudden fluctuations in exchange, and
benefited by keeping it as steady as the commerce of the coun-
try will allow, — in other words, by making the price of bills cor-
respond with the real state of the exchange, instead of being
raised or lowered for ends of speculation, —I have inquired
of those who could inform me, whether, for ten or twelve years
past, the rates of exchange have, or have not, been as steady
and unvarying as may ever be expected; and the information
T have received han satisfied me that the power of the bank of
dealing in foreign exchange has been far from prejudicial to the
commercial world, While there is a dealer with

funda and credit always willing to sell foreign bills at moderate
rates, and always ready also to buy them, the very nature of the
case furnishes a considerable degree of security against those
fluctuations which arise from speculation, although it leaves
private dealings entirely free,

If that power should be now taken away from the bank, 1
think I can perceive that consequences of geome magnitude
would follow, in particular parts of the country. At present, the
producer or the shipper of produce at New Orleans, Savannah,
or Charleston, in making shipment for Europe, can, on the spot,
cash his bill, drawn against such shipment, without charge for
brokerage, guaranty, or commission. If the planter has sold to
the shipper, the latter has his bill discounted, and pays the
planter, who thus receives the price for his crop without delay,
and without danger of loss. Suppose the bank were denied
the power of purchasing foreign bills, what would be the neces»
sary operation? The producer or shipper might send the oot
ton or the sugar to the North, and in that case the bank could
cash his draft, But if he sent it abroad, his bill must be sent
te his agent, in the bill market of the Northern cities, for sole

404 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, |

and if bo wishes to realize the amount, he will draw on bis
agent, and sell such draft, This evidently subjects him to a
double operation, and to the expenses of commission and guar-
anty.

It is plain, I think, that, in the present state of things, the
shipper of Southern and Western produce enjoys the benefit of
both the foreign and the Northern market more perfectly than
he would if this state of things were to be so changed, that he
could not draw on bis consignee in the foreign market as advan-
tageously as he can now do it,

But if there be a question about the utility of the operations
of the bank in foreign exchange, there can be none, I suppose,
a8 to its influence on that which is internal or domestic. T
speak now of internal exchange as exchange merely; without
considering It connected, as it usually is, with advance or dis-
count, in anticipation of the maturity of bills. Tn regard to mere
exchange, the operations of the bank appear to have produced
the most beneficial effect, I doubt whether, in any extensive
sountry, the rates of internal exchange ever averaged so low.
Before the bank went into operation, three, four, or five per
cent. was not uncommon as the difference of exchange between
one extremity of the country and the other. It has at times,
indeed, as [am informed, been as high as six per cent. between
New Orleans and Baltimore; and between other places in this
country much higher. The vast amounts bonght and sold by
the bank, in all parte of the country, average, perhaps, lees than
one half of one per cent. I doubt whether this exceeds the rates
between comparatively neighboring parts of Great Britain, o
of the continent of Europe, although much of it consists im
exchange between the extreme South and the northern and enst-
ern parts of the Union,

With respect to the effect and operation of the bank upon
the general interests of agrienlture, commerce, and manufac
tures, there will be found a great difference as we look at
different parts of the country. Everywhere, 1 think, they
have been salutary; but they have been important in yery
different degrees in different quarters. ‘The influence of the
bank on the general currency of the country, and ite opera-
tions in exchanges, nre benefits of a general nature. These
are felt all over the country, But in loans and discounts, in

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 405

the distribution and actual application of its capital, different
portions of the country have partaken, and are partaking, ir
very different degrees. The West is a new and fast-growing
country, with vast extents of rich land, inviting settlement and
cultivation. Enterprise and labor are pressing to this scene
of useful exertion, and necessarily create an urgent demand
for capital. This demand the bank meets to a very consider
able degree. ‘The reports of the bank show the existing ex-
tent of its accommodation to this part of the country. In the
whole Southern aud Western States, that is to say, south and
west of Philadelphia, the amount exceeds forty-three millions
of dollars. In the States lying on the Mississippi and its wa-
ters, it exceeds thirty millions of dollars. Of these thirty mil-
jions, nineteen or twenty are discounts of notes, and the res-
idue of acceptances of bills drawn on other parts of the country.
This last amount is not strictly a loan; it is an advance in
anticipation of a debt; but other advances are needed, quite as
fast as this is paid off, as every successive crop creates a new
occasion, and a new desire to sell bills, I leave it to Western
gentlemen to judge how far this state of things goes to show
that the continuance of the bank is important to the agriculture
and commerce of the West. I leave it to them to contemplate
the consequences of withdrawing this amount of capital from
their country. I pray them also to inquire what is to be their
circulating medium, when the notes of the bank are called in?
Do they see before them neither difficulty nor danger in this
part of the case? Are they quite confident, that, in the absence
of the bills and notes of the Bank of the United States, they
need have no fears of a bad currency, depreciated paper, and the
long train of ills that follow, according to all human experience,
those inauspicious leaders? I ask them, also, to judge how far
it is wise to settle this question now, so a8 to give time for mak-
ing this vast change, if it is to be made at all. The present
charter is to continue but four years. If it be not renewed, this
debt must be called in within that period. Not a new note can
be taken to the bank for a dollar of it, after that time. The
whole circulation of bank-notes, too, must be withdrawn. Ie a
not plain, then, that it is high time to know how this important
matter is to be adjusted? The country could not stand a sud-
den recall of all this capital, and an abrapt withdrawal of this

73

406 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.

cireulation, How, indeed, the West coald stand the change,
even if it were begun now, and conducted as gradually and as
gently as possible, 1 confess, I can hardly see, The very corn
mencement of the process of recall, however slight, would be felt
in the prices of the very first crop, partly from the immediate
effect of withdrawing even « small portion of the capital, and
pallies the certainty of future pressure from withdrawing

a, gentlemen must prepare themselves, 1 think, for some
effect on prices of lands and commodities by the postponement
of this question, should jt take place, as well ax for embarrase-
ments in other respects. That postponement will, at best, not
diminish the uncertainty which hangs over the fate of the meas~
ure. Sceing the hostility which existe to renewing the charter,
and the extent of that hostility, if the measure cannot now be
carried, not only a prudent regard to its own interesta, but the
highest daty to the country, ought to lead the bank to prepare
for the termination of ite career. It has not before it one day
too many to enable it to wind up such vast concems, with
out distressing the public. If it were certain that the charter
was to be renewed, 4 postponement would be of little impor
tance. But this is uncertain, and a postponement would render
it more uncertain, A motion to postpone, should such be mada,
will be mainly supported by those who, either on constitutional
grounds, or some other grounds, are and always will be against
the renewal of the charter. A postponement under such elt
cumstances, and such auspices, cannot but create far
doubts than now exist of the final renewal of the charter. It is
now two years and a half sinee the President invited the atten-
tion of Congress to this subject. That invitation has been more
than once repeated. Everywhere the subject has been con-
sidered; everywhere it has been discussed. The public interest
now requires our decision upon it, and the public voice de-
mands that decision. I trust, Sir, we shall make it, and make it
wisely.

Mr. President, the motives which prescribe my own line of
condnet, on this occasion, are not drawn from any local canaid
erations, The State in whose representation I bear a part haw
as little intereat peculiar to itself, in the continuance of this cor
poration, as any State in the Union, She does not need the ald

| 4

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 407

of its capital, because the state of her commerce and manufac-
tures docs not call for the employment of more capital than ehe
possesses. She does not need it, in a peculiar degree, certainly,
‘as any restraint or corrective on her own paper currency, Her
banks are as well conducted as those of other States. But she
has a common interest in the continuance of a useful institution.
She has an interest in the wise and successful administration of
the government, in all its departments. She is interested that
the general currency of the country should be maintained in a
safe and healthy state. She derives a benefit with others (I be-
lieve it a great benefit) from the facility of exchanges in intermal
commerce, which the bank affords. This is the sum of her
motives. For these rensons, she is willing that the bank should
be continued. But if the matter should be otherwise deter-
mined, however much ehe might regret it on general and public
grounds, she certainly does not apprehend from that result such
inconveniences to her own citizens as may and must fall, so far
us T can see, on some others.

Mr. President, I will take leave of the subject for the present,
with a remark which I think is due from me. For some years
past, I have not been inattentive to the general operations of the
bank, or to their influence on the public interests and the con-
venient administration of the government; and [ take the occa-
sion to say, with sincerity and cheerfulness, that, during that
period, its affairs have been conducted, in my opinion, with
fidelity, as well towards the government as towards its own
stockholders ; and that it has sought the accomplishment of the
public purposes designed by its institution with distinguished
ability and distinguished success,

FURTHER REMARKS ON THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES,
MADE IN THE SENATE ON THE 26rn OF MAY, 1432.

‘Tne question being on the amendment offered by Mr. Moore of Ala-
bama, proposing, —

“First, That the bank shall not establish or continue any office of
discount or deposit, or branch bank, in any State, without the consent
and approbation of the State ;

408 DANK OF THE UNITED STA'TES.

fn élber banka as othr propexty shall bo liable’ sq (Sale? s
Mr. Webster spoke us follows: —

J trust, Sir, the Senate will not act on these propositions with-
out fully understanding their bearing and extent. For
look upon the two parts of the amendment as substantially o |
the same character. Each, in my opinion, confers a power in
the States to expel the bank at their pleasure; in
entirely to defeat the operations, and deatroy the capacity for
usefulness, of the whole bank. The simple question is, Shall
we, by our own act, in the charter itself, give to the States this
permission to expel the bank and all its branches from their
limits, at their own pleasure? The first part of the amendment
gives this permission in express terms; and the latter part gives:
it in effect, by authorizing the States to tax the loans and issues
of the bank, with no effectual limitation. It appears to me idle
to say, that this power may be safely given, because it will not
be exercised. It is to be given, I presume, on the
that probably some of the States will choose to exercise it; else
why is it given at all? And will they not so choose? We
have already heard, in the course of this debate, of two cases in
which States attempted to exercise a power of this kind, when
they did not constitutionally possess it. ‘Two States have taxed
the branches, for the avowed purpose of driving them out of
their limits, and were prevented from accomplishing this object
merely by force of judicial decisions against their right. If, then,
these attempts have been made to exercise this power when if
was not legally possessed, and against the will of Congress, is
there any doubt that it will be exercised when its exercise shall
be permitted and invited by the proposed amendment? No
doubt, in my mind, the power, if granted, will be exercised, and
the main object of continuing the bank will be thus defeated.

I have already said, that the second branch of the amendment |
is as objectionable and as destructive as the first. I think it so
It appears to me to give ample power, by means of taxation, to
expel the bank from any State which may choose to expel it,
It gives a power of taxation without fixed limits, or any reason+
able guards, And a power of taxation without fixed limita,

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 40g

and without guards, ia a power to embarrass, a power to oppress
& power to expel, a power to destroy. The States are to be
allowed to tax the branches according to the amount of their
loans and discounts, in like manner as other banks, or other
property in the State, shall be liable to taxation.

Now, Sir, some of the States have no banks. Of course they
tax no banks. In other States, the banks pay the State a bonus
on their creation, and are not otherwise taxed. In other cases,
the State, in effect, itself owns the bank, and a tax on il, there
fore, would be merely nominal. Besides, no State is to be
bound to lay this tax as it taxes its own banks. It has an
option to tax it in that manner, or as other property ic taxed.
What other property? It may be as lottery-tickets, yaming-
tables, or other things which may be deemed fit to be discour-
aged or suppressed, are taxed. ‘The bank may be classed with
other nuisances, and driven out or put down by taxation. All
this is perfeetly within the scope of the amendment. ‘Lhe
license is broad enough to authorize any thing which may be
designed or wished.

Now, Sir, I doubt exceedingly our power to adopt this amend-
ment, und 1 pray the deliberate consideration of the Senate in
regard to this point. In the hrst place, let me ask, What is the
constitutional ground on which Congress created this corpora
tion, and on which we now propose to continue it? There is
ho express authority to create a bank, or any other corporation,
given to us by the Constitution. The power is derived by im-
plication, It has been exercised, and can be exercised, only on
the ground of # just necessity. It is to be maintained, if at all,
on the allegation, that the establishment of a national bank ts
4 just and necessary means for carrying on the government, and
executing the powers conferred on Congress by the Constitu-
tion. On this ground, Congress has established thie bank, and
on this it is now proposed to be continued. And it has already
been judicially decided, that, Congress having established a
bank for these purposes, the Constitution of the United States
prohibits the States from taxing it. Observe, Sir, it is the Con-
stitution, not the law, which lays this prohibition on the States,
‘The charter of the bank does not declare that the States shall
not tax if. It says not one word on that subject. The restraint
is imposed, not by Congress, but by a higher authority, the Con-

VOtn Ite 35

7

410 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.

stitution. Now, Sir, I ask how we can relieve the States from
this constitutional prohibition. It is true, that thie prohibition
is not imposed in express terms; bat it results from the —
provisions of the Constitution, and has been j

to exist in full foree. Thine portise se fener
stitution of the United States, by its own force, holds over this
institution, which Congress has deemed necessary to be created
in order to carry on the government, so soon as Congress, exer+
cising its own judgment, has chosen to create it Can we
throw off from this government this constitutional protection ?
I think it clear we cannot. We cannot repeal the Constitution.
We cannot say that every power, every branch, every institu-
tion, and every law of this government shall not have all the
force, all the sanction, and all the protection, which the Conati-
tution gives it,

By the Constitution, every law of Congress is finally to be
considered, and its constraction ultimately settled, by the Su-
preme Court of the United States. These very acts before re-
ferred to, taxing the banks, were held valid by some of the judi«
catures of the States, bat were finally pronounced uaconstitue
tional by the Supreme Court of the United States; and this,
not by force of any words in the charter, but by force of the
Constitution itself. I ask whether it is competent for us to re~
verse this provision of the Constitution, and to say that the laws
of Congress shall receive their ultimate construction from the
State courts, Again, the Constitution gives Congress a right
to lay duties of impost, and it prohibits the exercise of any such
power by the States. Now it so happens, that the national
treasury is much better supplied than the treasuries of the States.
It might be thought very convenient that a part of the receipts at
the custom-bouses should be received by the States. But will
any man say that Congress could now authorize the States to
lay and collect imposts under any restrictions or limitations
whatever? No one will pretend it. That would be to make a
now partition of power between this government and the State
governments. Mr, Madison has very correctly observed, that the
assent of the States cannot confer a new power on
except in those cases especially provided in the Constitution,
‘This is very true, and it is equally true that the States cannot
obtuin a new power by the consent of Congress, against the

al

BANK OF THE UNITED STATA. an

prohibition of the Conetitution, except in those cases which are
‘expressly so provided for in the Constitution itself.

‘These reasons, Sir, lead me to think that, if, for purposes con
nected with the beneficial administration of the gavernment, we
deem it necessary to continue this corporation, we are not at
liberty to repeal any protection, or any immunity, with which
the Constitution surrounds it. We cannot give to a law of the
United States less than its constitutional effect. The Constita-
tion says, that every such law, passed in pursuance of the Con-
stitution, shall be paramount to any State law. We cannot
enact that it shall not be so; for that would be #0 far to repeal
the Constitution.

Allow me now, Mr, President, to inquire on what ground it
is that the States claim this power of taxation. They do not
claim it as a power to tax all property of their own citizens.
This they possess, without denial or doubt, Bvery stockholder
in the bank is liable to be taxed for his property therein, by the
State of which he is a citizen. This right is exercised, I believe,
by all the States which lay taxes on money at interest, income,
and other subjects of that kind. It Is, then, not that they may
be authorized to tax the property of their own citizens. Nor is it
because any State does not participate in the advantage of the
premium, or bonus, paid by the bank to government for the char-
ter. That sum goes into the treasury for the general good of all.

Nor can the claim be sustained, nor, indeed, is it asserted, on
the strength of the mere circumstance that a branch, or an office,
is established in a State. Such office or branch is but an agen-
ey. It is no body politic or corporate. Tt has no legal exist
ence of itself. It is but an agent of the general corporation.
‘That these agents have their residence or place of business
in a particular State, is not of itself the foundation of any
claim, But, according to the language of the amendment, the
ground of this claim to tax ix evidently the loans and issues;
and these loans and issues, properly speaking, are the loans
and discounts of the bank. The office, as an agent, conducts
the arrangements, it is trac; but the notes which are issued
are notes of the bank, and the debts created are debts due
fo the bank. The cirealation is the circulation of the bank.
Now the truth is, what the States claim, or what this amend-
ment proposes to give them, is a right to tax the circulation of

412 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.

the bank, It is on this right that, the argument rest. The
common way of stating it is, that, since State banks pay a tax
to the State, these branch banks among them ought to pay a
similar tax, But the State banks pay the tax to the State for
the privilege of circulation; and the proposition is, therefore,
neither more nor less than thatthe United Statea Bank shall:
pay the States for the same privilege. The circulation of the
bills is the substance. The locality of the office is but an inci-
dent. An office is created, for example, on Connecticnt River,
cither in Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, or New Hamp-
shire, The notes of the bank are loaned at this office, and put
into circulation in all these States, Now, no one will say that
the State where the office happens to be placed should have a
right to lay this tax,and the other States have no such
This would be a merely arbitrary distinction. It would be
founded on no real or substantial difference; and no maw, as it:
seems to me, could seriously contend for it, Under this very
, amendment, Pennsylvania would be authorized to collect a lange
“tax, and New Jenwy no tax at all, although the State circulation
of New Jemey is as much infringed and diminished ws that of
Pennsylvania by the circulation of the Bank of the United
States. ‘The States which have the benefit of branches (if it be
«a benefit) are to have the farther advantage of taxation; while
other States are to have neither the one nor the other. Found-
Ing the claim on the State right to derive benefit from the paper
circulation which exists within it, the advocates of the claim are
clearly not consistent with themselves, when they maigtain a
measure which professes to protect that right in some States,
and to leave it unprotected in others.

But the inequality of the operation of this amendment is not
the only, nor the main, objection to it. Tt proceeds on » prine
ciple not to be admitted, It asserts, or it takes for granted, that
the power of authorizing and regulating the paper currency of
the country is an exclusive State right. The ground aseained
can be no less brond than this; becanse, the Bank of the United
States having the grant of a power from Congress to issue notes
for circulation, its right is perfect, if Congress could make such
agrant. It owes nothing to the States, if Congress conld give
what it has undertaken to give; that is to say, if Congress, of
its own authority, may confer a right to issue paper for circula.

SANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 413

ton. Now, Sir, whosoever denies this right in Congress denies,
of course, its power to create such a bank as now exists; at least,
so it strikes me. ‘The Bank of the United States is quite uncon-
stitutional, if the whole paper circulation belongs to the States;
because the Bank of the United States is a bank of circulation,
and was so intended to be by Congress, which expressly author-
ized the circulation of notes and bills. The power of issuing
notes for circulation is not an indispensable ingredient in the
constitution of a bank, merely as a bank. The earlier banks
did not possess it, and many good ones have existed without it.
A bank with no such power might yet very well collect the
public revenue, provided there was a proper medium in which
it could be paid; could tolerably well remit the revenue to the
treasury; and could deal usefully, to some extent, in the business
of exchange.

‘On what ground is it, then, that Congress possesses the pow-
er, not only to create a bank, but a bank of circulation? Sim-
ply, as I suppose, because Congress posseases a constitutional
control over the currency of the country, and has power to pro-
vide a safe medium of circulation, as well for other purposes as
for the collection of its own debts and revenue. The bank,
therefore, already possesses unconstitutional power, if the paper
cirenlation be the subject, exclusively, of State right or State
regulation. Indeed, Sir, it is not a little startling that such ex-
clusive right should now be aseerted. 1 observed, the other day,
that, in my opinion, it was very diflicult to maintain, on the face
of the Constitution itself, and independent of long-continued
practice, the doctrine that the States could authorize the cireula-
tion of bank paper at all. They cannot coin money; can they,
then, coin that which becomes the actual and almost the univer-
sal eubstitute for money? Is not the right of issuing paper, in-
tended for circulation, in the place and as the representative of
metallic currency, derived merely from the power of coining and
regulating that metallic currency? As bringing this matter to
2 just test, let me ask whether Congress, if it had not the power
of coining money, and of regulating the value of foreign coins
could create a bank, with the power to circulate bile. For one,
I think it would be difficult to make that out. Where, then, do
the States, to whom all control over the metallic currency is
altogether prohibited, get this power? It is true that, in other

35°

44 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES,

countries, private bankers, having no legal authority over the
coin, issue notes for circulation. But this they do
the consent of government, express or implied; and

world, that the prerogutive of coining money, held by govern-
ment, was liable to be defeated, counteracted, or impeded, by
ee preregutive, held in other hands, of authorizing a paper
circulation,

It is further to be observed, that the States cannot issue bills
of credit; not that they cannot make them a legal tender, but
that they cannot issue them at all. Is not this a clear indication
of the intent of the Constitation to restrain the States, as well
from establishing = paper circulation, as from Mie
the metallic circulation? Banks have been created by
with no capital whatever; their notes being put into circalation
simply on the credit of the State, or the State law. What are
the issues of such banks but bills of credit, iseued by the State?

I confess, Mr, President, that the more I reflect on this sub
ject, the more clearly does my mind approach the conclusion,
that the creation of State banks, for the purpose and with the
power of circulating paper, is not consistent with the grants and
prohibitions of the Constitution. But, Six, this is not now the
question. The question is, not whether the States have the
power; it is, whether they alone have the power. May they
rightfully exefude the United States from all interference with
the paper currency? Are we interlopers, when we create a
bank of circulation? ~Do we owe ther a seigniorage for the cir
culation of bills, by a corporation created by Congress? Up to
the present time, the States have been content with a concur
rent power, They have, indeed, controlled vastly the larger por-
tion of the circulation; but they have not claimed exclusive
authority over the whole. ‘They have demanded no tax or trib-
ule from a bank iseuing paper under the authority of Congress,
Nor do J know that any State or States now insist upon it. It
may be, that individual States have put forth euch claims, in
their legislative capacity; but at present I recollect no instance.
The amendment, however, which is now proposed, asserts the
claim, and I cannot consent to yield to it, We seem to be
making the last struggle for the authority of Congress to inter

«a

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 415

tere at all with the actual currency of the country. I shall never
agree to surrender that authority; I would as soon yield the
coinage power itself; nor do I think there would be much
greater danger, nor a much clearer departure from constitu-
tional principle, in a consenting to such surrender, than in acqui-
escing in what is now proposed.

VETO OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 417

approbation. He states no terms, no qualifications, no condi-
tions, no modifications, which can reconcile him to the essential
provisions of the existing charter. Ho is against the bank,
and againet any bank constituted in a manner known either to
this or any other country. One advantage, therefore, is certain-
ly obtained by presenting him the bill Tt has exused the Presi
dent’s sentiments to be made known. There is no longer any
mystery, no longer a contest between hope and fear, or between
those prophets who predicted a vefo and those who foretold an
approval. The bill is negatived; the President has assumed the
responsibility of putting an end to the bank; and the country
must prepare ijself to meet that change in its concerns whieh
the expiration of the charter will produce. Mr. President, T will
not concen! my opinion thnt the affairs of the country are ap-
proaching an important and dangerous crisis. At the very mo-
ment of almost unparalleled general prosperity, there appears an
unaccountable disposition to destroy the most useful and most
approved institutions of the government. Indeed, it seems to be
in the midst of all this national happiness that some are found
openly to question the advantages of the Constitution itself;
and many more ready to cmbarmas the exercive of its just power,
weaken its anthority, and undermine its foundations. How far
these notions may be carried, it is impossible yet to say. We
have before us the practical result of one of them. ‘The bank
has fallen, or is to fall.

It is now certain, that, without « change in our public coun-
sels, this bank will not be continued, nor will any other be es-
tablished, which, according to the general sense and language of
mankind, can be entitled to the name, ‘Within three years and
nine months from the present moment, the charter of the bank
expires; within that period, therefore, it must wind up its con-
cerns. It must call in its debts, withdmw its bills from circula-
tion, and cease from all its ordinary operations. All this is to
be done in three years and nine months; because, although
there is a provision in the charter rendering it Iawful to use the
corporate name for two years after the expiration of the charter,
yet this is allowed only for the purpose of suits and for the sale
of the estate belonging to the bank, and for no other purpose
whatever, The whole active business of the bank, its custody
of public deposits, its transfer of public moneys, its dealing in

OF THE UsitED STATES BANK BILL. 419

of the pressure. They will not be in 2 condition to extend
their discounts, but, in all probability, obliged to curtail them.
Whenee, then, are the means to come for paying this debt? and
in what medium is payrnent to be made? If all this may be
done with but slight preesure on the community, what course
of conduct is to accomplish it? How is it to be done? What
other thirty millions are to supply the place of these thirty mil-
lions now to be called in? What other circulation or mediam
of payment is to be adopted in the place of the bills of the
bank? ‘The message, following a singular train of argument,
which hal been used in this house, has a loud lamentation
upon the suffering of the Western States on account of their
being obliged to pay even interest on this debt. This payment
of interest is itself represented as exhausting their means and
ruinous to their prosperity. But if the interest cannot be paid
without preasare, can both interest and principal be paid in four
years without pressure? The trath is, the interest has been
paid, is paid, and may continue to be paid, without any pres-
sure at all; because the money borrowed is profitably employed
by those who borrow it, and the rate of interest which they pay
is at least two per cent. lower than the actual value of money in
that part of the country. But to pay the whole principal in less
than four years, losing, at the same time, the existing and ac-
customed means and facilities of payment created by the bank
itself, and to do this without extreme embarrassment, without
absolute distress, is, in my judgment, impossible. I hesitate not
to say, that, a8 this vefo travels to the West, it will depreciate
the value of every man’s property from the Atlantic States to
the capital of Missouri. Its effects will be felt in the price of
lands, the great and leading article of Western property, in the
price of crops, in the products of labor, in the repression of enter-
prise, and in embarrassment to every kind of business and occu-
pation. I state this opinion strongly, because J have no doubt
of its truth, and am willing its correctness should be judged by
the event. ‘Without personal acquaintance with the Western
States, 1 know enough of their condition to be satisfied that
what Ihave predicted mast happen. ‘The people of the West
are rich, but their riches consist in their immense quantities of
excellent Jand, in the products of these lands, and in their spirit
of enterprise, The actoal value of money, or rate of interest,

with them is high, because their pecaley yO
‘ion to their landed interest. At an Mires wetge
is not worth less than eight per cent. per annum |
whole Western country, notwithstanding that it hus now a loan
or an advance from the bank of thirty millions, at six per cent.
‘Lo call in this lonn, at the rate of eight millions a year, in addi-
tion to the interest on the whole, and to take awny, at the same
time, that circulation which constitutes so great a portion of the
mediom of payment throughout that whole region, is an opera-
tion, which, however wisely conducted, cannot but inflict a blow
on the community of tremendous force and frightful conse- —
quences. ‘The thing cannot be done without distress,
ey, and roin, to many. If the President had seen any:
manner in which this change might be effected without. pro~
ducing these consequences, he woold have rendered infinite sere
vice to the community by pointing it ont. But he has pointed
out nothing, he has suggested nothing; he contents himself
with saying, withont giving any reason, that, if the pressure be
heavy, the fnult will be the bank's. TI hope this ix not merely
an attempt to forestall opinion, and to throw on the bank the
responsibility of those evils which threaten the country, for the
sake of removing it from himself.

The responsibility justly lies with him, and there it ought to
remain. A great majority of the people are satisfied with the
bank as it is, and desirous that it should be continued.
wished no change. The strength of this public sentiment has
carried the bill through Congress, against all the influence of
the administration, and all the power of organized party. But
the President has undertaken, on his own responsibility, to
arrest the measure, by refusing his assent to the bill. He fs
answerable for the cousequences, therefore, which
follow the change which the expiration of the bank charter may
produce; and if these consequences shall prove disastrous, they
ean faitly be ascribed to his poliey only, and the policy of his
administration.

Although, Sir, I have spoken of the effects of this nefo in the
Western country, it has not been because I considered that part
of the United States exclusively affected by it, Some of the
Atlantic States may feel its consequences, perhaps, as bag
as tose of the West, though not for the same reasons.

OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 421

voncern manifested by Pennsylvania for the renewal of the
charter shows her sense of the importance of the bank to her
own interest, and that of the nation, That great and enterprisy
ing State has entered into an extensive system of internal im-
provements, which necessarily makes heavy demands on her
credit and her regources; and by the sound and acceptable cur
rency which the bank affords, by the stability which it gives to
private credit, and by occasional advances, made in anticipation
of ber revenues, and in aid of her great objects, she has found
herself benefitted, doubtless, in no inconsiderable degree, Her
legislature has inetructed her Senators here to advocate the
renewal of the charter, at this session. They have obeyed her
voice, and yet they have the misfortune to find that, in the judg-
ment of the President, the measure is unconstitutional, unnecessa-
ry, dangerous to liberty, and is, moreover, ill-timed.

But, Mr. President, it is not the local interest of the Weet,
nor the particular interest of Pennsylvania, or any other State,
which has influenced Congress in passing this bill, It has
been governed by a wise foresight, and by a desire to avoid
embarassment in the pecuniary concerns of the country, to
secure the safe collection and convenicnt transmission of pub-
lic moneys, to maintain the circulation of the country, sound
and safe as it now happily is, againat the possible effects of a
wild spirit of speculation. Finding the bank highly useful, Con-
gress has thought fit to provide for its continuance.

As to the time of passing this bill, it would seem to be the
ast thing to be thought of, as a ground of objection, by the
President; since, from the date of his first message to the pres
ent time, he has never failed to call our attention to the subject
with all possible apparent earnestness. So early as December,
1829, in his message to the two houses, he declares, that he
“cannot, in justice to the parties interested, too soon present the
subject to the deliberate consideration of the legislature, in or-
der to avoid the evils resulting from precipitancy, in a mensure
involving such important principles and such deep pecuniary
interests” Aware of this early invitation given to Congress to
take up the subject, by the President himself, the writer of the
message seems to vary the ground of objection, and, instead of
complaining that the time of bringing forward this measure was
premature, to insist, me that, after the report of the commit.

VOLs Mle

OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 423

ef public opinion, all called upon Congress to act without far-
ther toss of time. Tt has acted, and its act has been negatived
by the President; and this result of the proceedings here places
ibe question, with all its connections and all its incidents, fully
before the people.

Before proceeding to the constitutional question, there are
some other topics, treated in the message, which ovght to be no-
ticed. It commences by an inflamed statement of what it calls
the “favor” bestowed upon the original bank by the govern
ment, or, “indeed, as it is phrased, the “monopoly of its favor
and support”; and through the whole message all possible
chenges are rung on the * gratuity,” the “exclusive privileges,”
and “monopoly,” of the bank charter. Now, Sir, the troth is,
that the powers conferred on the bank are such, and no others,
as are usually conferred on similar institutions. ‘They consti-
tute no monopoly, although some of them are of necessity, and
‘with propriety, exclusive privileges. “The original act," says the
message, “operated as a gratuity of many millions to the stock-
holders." What fair foundation is there for this remark? ‘The
stockholders received their charter, not gratuitously, but for a
valuable consideration in money, prescribed by Congress, and
actually paid. At some times the stock has been above par, at
other times below par, according to prudence in management,
or according to commercial occurrences, But if, by a judicious
administration of its affairs, it had kept its stock always above
par, what pretence would there be, nevertheless, for saying that
such augmentation of its value was a “gratuity from govern=
ment? The message proceeds to declare, that the present act
proposes another donation, another gratuity, to the same men, of
at least seven millions more, Tt seems to me that this is an ex-
traordinary statement, and an extraordinary style of argument, for
such # subjectand on such an occasion. In the first place, the facts
are all assumed ; they arc taken for true without evidence. There
are no proofs that any benefit to that amount will accrue to the
stockholders, nor any experience to justify the expectation of it.
Tt rests on random estimates, or mere conjecture. But suppose
the continuance of the charter should prove beneficial to the
stockhuldera; do they not pay for it? ‘They give twice as much
for a charter of fifteen years, as was given before for one of
twenty, And if the proposed bonus, or premium, be not, in the

OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 426

because a portion of the stock is beld by foreigners. Sir, how
would this sort of argument apply to other cases? The Presi«
dent has shown himself not only willing, but anxious, to pay off
the three per cent. stock of the United States at par, notwith-
standing that it is notorious that foreigners are owners of the
greater part of it, Why should he not call that a donation to
foreigners of many millions ?

1 will not dwell particularly on this part of the message. Its
tone and its arguments are all in the same strain. It speaks of
the certain gain of the present stockholders, of the value of the
monopoly; it says that all monopolies are granted at the ox-
pense of the public; that the many millions which this bill be-
stows on the stockholders come out of the earnings of the peo-
ple; that, if government sells monopolies, it ought to sell them
in open market; that it ia an erroneous idea, that the present
stockholders have a prescriptive right either to the favor or the
bounty of government; that the stock is in the hands of a few,
and that the whole American people are exeluded {rom competi-
tion in the purchase of the monopoly. To all this I say, again,
that much of it is assumption without proof; much of it is an
argument agninst that which nobody has maintained or asserted;
and the reat of it would be equally strong againet any charter,
at any time, These objections existed in their full strength,
whatever that was, againat the first bank. ‘They existed, in like
manner, against the present bank at its creation, and will al-
ways exist against all banks. Indeed, all the fault found with

* the bill now before us is, that it proposes to continue the bank
substantially as it now existe. “All the objectionable princi-
ples of the existing corporation,” says the message, “and most
of its odious features, are retained without alleviation"; so that
the message is aimed against the bank, as it has existed from
the first, and against any and all others resembling it in its gen-
eral features,

Allow me, now, Sir, to take notice of an argument founded
on the practical operation of the bank. "That argument is this,
Little of the stock of the bank is held in the West, the capital
being chiefly owned by citizens of the Southern and Eastern
States, and by foreigners, But the Western and Southwestern
States owe the bank a heavy debt, so heavy that the interest
amounts to a million six hundred thousand a year. ‘This inter.

26°

OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 427

second place, that it is not the practice of civilized states to tax
the property of foreigners under such circumstances. Do we
tax, or did we ever tax, the foreign holders of our public debt?
Does Pennsylvania, New York, or Ohio tax the foreign holders
of stock in the loans contracted by either of these States? Cer-
tainly not. Sir, I must confees I had little expected to see, on
such an occasion as the present, a labored and repeated attempt
to produce an impression on the public opinion unfavorable to
the bank, from the circumstance that foreigners are among its
stockholders. [have no hesitation in saying, that I deem such
a train of remark as the message contains on this point, com-
ing from the President of the United States, to be injurious to
the credit and character of the country abroad; because it man-
ifests a jealousy, a lurking disposition not to respect the proper-
ty, of foreigners invited hither by our own Jaws, And, Sir, what
is its tendency but to excite this jealousy, and create groundless
prejudices?

From the commencement of the government, it hus been
thought desirable to invite, rather than to repel, the introduction
of foreign capital Our stocks have all been open to foreign
subscriptions; and the State banks, in like manner, are free to
foreign ownership. Whatever State has created a debt has
been willing that foreigners should become purchasers, and de-
sirous of it, How long is it, Sir, since Congress itself passed a
law vesting new powers in the President of the United States
over the cities in this District, for the very purpose of increasing
their credit abroad, the better to enable them to borrow mouey
to pay their subscriptions to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal?
It is easy to say that there is danger to liberty, danger toinde-
pendence, ina bank open to foreign stockholders, because it is
easy to sayany thing. But neither reason nor experience proves
any such danger. The foreign stockholder cannot be a director,
He has no voice even in the choice of directors. His money is
placed entirely in the management of the directors appointed by
the President and Senate and by the American stockholders,
So far as there is dependence or influence either way, it is to
the disadvantage of the foreign stockholder. He has parted
with the controlover his owa property, instead of exercising
control over the property or over the actions of others. And,
Sit, let it now be added, in further answer to this clasr of objec

a |

OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. — 42s

netablished; so that in this respect, as well as in others, the
argument of the message is directly opposed to the whole ex-
perience of the government, and to the general and long-settled
convictions of the country.

Tnow proceed, Sir, to a few remarks upon the President's
constitutional objections to the bank; and I cannot forbear to
say, in regard to them, that he appears to me to have assumed
very extraordinary grounds of reasoning. He denies that the
constitutionality of the bank is a settled question. If it be not,
will ikever become so, or what disputed question ever can be
settled? T have already observed, that for thirty-six years out
of the forty-three during which the government hns been in
being, a bank has existed, such as is now proposed to be con-
tinued.

As early a8 1791, after great deliberation, the first bank char-
ter was passed by Congress, and approved by President Wash-
ington. It established an institution, resembling, in all things
now objected to, the present bank, ‘That bank, like this, coul?
take lands in payment of its debts; that charter, like the present,
gave the States no power of taxation; it allowed foreigners to
hold stock; it restrained Congress from creating other banks.
It gave also exclusive privileges, and in all particulars it was,
according to the doctrine of the message, as objectionable as
that now existing. That bank continued twenty years. In
1816, the present institution was establiched, and has been ever
since in full operation. Now, Sir, the question of the power of
Congress to create such institutions has been contested in every
manner known to our Constitution and Inws. The forms of
the government furnish no new mode in which to try this ques-
tion. It has been discussed over and over again, in Congress;
jit has been argued and solemnly adjudged in the Supreme
Court; every President, except the present, has considered it a
settled question; many of the State legislatures have instructed
their Senators to vote for the bank; the tribunals of the States,
in every instance, have supported its constitutionality; and, be-
yond all doubt and dispute, the general public opinion of the
country has at all times given, and does now give, its full sanc-
tion and approbation to the exercise of this power, as being a
constitutional power. There has been no opinion questioning
the power expressed or intimated, at any time, by cither house

‘

OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL 43)

*One Congress,” it says, “in 1815, decided against a bank,
another, in 1816, decided in its favor. There is nothing in pre-
cedent, therefore, which, if its authority were admitted, ought
to weigh in favor of the act before me” Now, Sir, since it is
known to the whole country, one cannot but wonder bow it
should remain unknown to the President, that Congress did not
decide against a bank in 1815, On the contrary, that very
Congress passed a bill for erecting a bank, by very large ma-
jorities, In one form, it is true, the bill failed in the House of
Representatives; but the vote was reconsidered, the bill recom-
mitted, and finally passed by a vote of one hundred and twenty
to thirty-nine. There is, therefore, not only no solid ground, but
not even any plausible pretence, for the assertion, that Congress
in 1815 decided against the bank. That very Congress passed
a bill to create a bank, and its decision, therefore, is precisely
the other way, and is a direct practical precedent in favor of the
constitutional power. What are we to think of a constitutional
argument which deals in this way with historical facts? When
the message declares, as it does declare, that there is nothing in
precedent which ought to weigh in favor of the power, it sets at
naught repented acts of Congress affirming the power, and it
also states other acts, which were in fact, and which are well
known to have been, directly the reverse of what the message
represents them. There is not, Sir, the slightest reason to think
that any Senate or any House of Representatives, ever assem-
bled under the Constitution, contained a majority that doubted
the constitutional existence of the power of Congress ta estab-
lish a bunk. Whenever the question has arisen, and has been
decided, it has always been decided one way. The legislative
precedents all assert and maintain the power; and these legis
lative precedents have been the law of the land for almost forty
years, ‘They settle the construction of the Constitution, and
sanction the exercise of the power in qnestion, so far as these
effects can ever be produced by any legislative precedents what-
ever,

Bat the President docs not admit the authority of precedent.
Sir, 1 have always found, that those who habitually deny most
vehemently the general force of precedent, and uswert most
strongly the supremacy of private opinion, are yet, of all men,
most tenacious of that very authority of precedent, whenever it

—

OF THE UNITED SLATES BANK BILL. 433

over, has been understood so to provide, clearly and express-
ly. It is true, that each branch of the legislature has an ur+
doubted right, in the exercise of its functions, to consider the
constitutionality of a law proposed to be passed. This is nat-
urally a part of its daty; and neither branch can be com-
pelled to pare any law, or do any other act, which it deems to
be beyond the reach of its constitutional power. ‘The President
has the same right, when a bill is presented for his approval,
for he is, doubtless, bound to consider, in all cases, whether
such bill be compatible with the Constitution, and whether he
can approve it consistently with his oath of office. But when
a law has been passed by Congress, and approved by the Pres-
ident, it is now no longer in the power, either of the same Pres-
ident, or his successors, to say whether the law is constitutional
or not. He is not at liberty to disregard it; he is not at liberty
to feel or to affect “constitutional scruples,” and to sit in judg-
nient bimeelf on the validity of a statute of the government, and
to nullify it, if he so chooses, After a law has passed through
all the requisite forms; after it has received the requisite legis«
futive sanetion and the executive approval, the question of
its constitutionality then becomes a judicial question, and
a judicial question alone. In the courts that question ma

be raised, argued, and adjudged; it can be adjudged nowhe

else.

‘The President is as mach bound by the law as any private
citizen, and can no more contest its validity than any private
citizen. He may refuse to obey the law, and so may a private
citizen; but both do it at their own peril, and neither of them
can settle the question of its validity. The President may saya
law is unconstitutional, but he is not the jadge. Who is to de-
cide that question? The judiciary alone possesses this unques-
tivnable and hitherto unquestioned right. The judiciary is the
constitutional tribunal of appeal for the citizens, against both
Congress and the executive, in regard to the constitutionality
of laws. It has this jurisdiction expressly conferred upon it, and
when if has decided the question, its judgment must, from the
very nature of all judgments that are final, and from which
there ia no appeal, be conclusive, Hitherto, this opinion, and a
correspondent practice, have prevailed, in America, with all wise
and considerate men. If it were otherwise, there would be no

YOU. 11h. 37

OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 435

ity. Statutes are but recommendations, judgments no more
than opinions. Both are equally destitute of binding force.
Such a universal power as is now claimed for him, a power of
judging over the laws and over the decisions of the judiciary, is
nothing else but pure despotism, If conceded to him, it makes
him at once what Louis the Fourteenth proclaimed himself to
be when he said, “Iam the State.”

‘The Supreme Court has unanimously declared and adjudged
that the existing bank is created by a constitutional law of Con-
gress, As has been before observed, this bank, so far ax the
present question is concerned, is like that which was established
in 1791 by Washington, and sanctioned by the great men of
that day. In every form, therefore, in-which the question can be
raived, it has been raleed and has been settled. Every process
and every mode of trial known to the Constitution and laws have
been exhausted, and always and without except! yn the decision
has been in favor of the validity of the Jaw. But all this prac-
tice, all this precedent, all this publi. approbation, all this sol-
emn adjudication directly on the point, is to be disregarded and
rejected, and the constitutions. power flatly denied. And, Sir,
if we are startled at this conclusion, our surprise will not be
lessened when we examine the argument by whic's it is main-
tained.

By the Constitution, Congress is authorized to pass all laws
“necessary and proper” for carrying its own legislative pow
ers into effect. Congress has deemed a bank to be “neces-
sary and proper” for these purposes, and it has therefore estab-
lished a bank. But although the law has been passed, and the
bank established, and the constitutional validity of its charter
solemnly adjudged, yet the President pronounces it unconstitu:
tional, because some of the powers bestowed on the bank are, in
his opinion, not necessary or proper. It would appear tht
powers which in 1791 and in 1816, in the time of Washington
and in the time of Madison, were deemed necessary and
proper,” are no longer to be so regarded, and therefore the bank
js unconstitutional. It has really come to this, that the eonsti-
tutionality of a bank is to depend upon the opinion which one
particular man may form of the utility or necessity of some of
the clauses in its charter! If that individual chooses to think
that a particular power contained in the charter is not necessary

OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILt 437

valid, and nugatory. This is a legitimate conclusion from the
argument. Such a view of the subject has certainly never be-
fore been taken. ‘This train of reasoning bas hitherto not been
heard within the halls of Congress, nor has any one ventured
upon it before the tribunals of justice. The first exhibition, its
first appearance, as an argument, is in a message of the Presi-
dent of the United States.

According to that mode of construing the Constitution which
was adopted by Congress in 1791, and approved by Washing-
ton, and which has been sanctioned by the judgment of the Su-
preme Court, and affirmed by the prmetice of nearly forty years,
the question upon the constitutionality of the bank involves two
inquiries. First, whether a bank, in its general character, and
with regard to the general objects with which banks are usually
connected, be, in itself, a fit means, a suitable instrument, to carry
into effect the powers granted to the government. If it be so,
then the second, and the only other question is, whether the pow-
ers given in @ particular charter ure appropriate for a bank. If
they are powers which are appropriate for a bank, powers which
Congress may fairly consider to be useful to the bank or the
country, then Congress may confer these powers; because the
diseretion to be exercised in framing the constitution of the bank
belongs to Congress. One man may think the granted powers
not indispensable to the particular bank; another may suppose
them injudicious, or injurious; a third may imagine that other
power, if granted in their stead, would be more beneficial; but
all these are matters of expediency, about which men may
differ; and the power of deciding upon them belongs to Con-

gress.

again repeat, Sir, that if, for reasons of this kind, the Presi«
dent sees fit to negative a bill, on the ground of its being inex-
pedient or impolitic, he has aright to do eo, But remember,
Sir, that we are now on the constitutional question; remember,
that the argument of the President is, that, because powers were
given to the bank by the charter of 1816 which he thinks an+
necessary, that charter is unconstitutional Now, Sir, it will
hardly be denied, or rather it was not denied or doubted before
this message came to us, that, if there was to be a bank, the
powers and duties of that bank must be prescribed in the law
creating it, Nobody but Congress, it has been thought, could

37°

OF THE UNITED STATES 6ANK BILL, 439

not be established without them; but the question is, Are
they such as Congress, bond fide, may have regarded as ap>
propriate to the end? If any other rule were to be adopted,
nothing could ever be settled. A law would be constitutional
to-day and anconstitutional to-morrow. Ita constitutionality
would altogether depend upon individual opinion on a mat-
ter of mere expediency. Indeed, such a case ns that is now
actually before us. Mr. Madison deemed the powers given
to the bank, in its present charter, proper and necessary, He
held the bank, therefore, to be constitutional. But the present
President, not acknowledging that the power of deciding on
these points rests with Congress, nor with Congress and the
then President, but setting up his own opinion as the standard,

declares the law now in being unconstitutional, because the»

powers granted by it are, in his estimation, not necessary and
proper. I pray to be informed, Sir, whether, upon similar
grounds of reasoning, the President's own acheme for a bank, if
Congress should do so unlikely a thing as to adopt it, would not
become unconstitutional also, if it should so happen that his
suecessor should hold his bank in as light esteem as he holds
those established under the auspices of “Washington and Mad-
ison?

If the reasoning of the message be well founded, it is clear
that the charter of the existing bank i» not a law. The bank
has no legal existence; it is not responsible to government; it
has no authority to act; it is incapable of being an agent; the
President may treat it as a nollity to-morrow, withdraw from
it all the public deposits, and set afloat all the existing nationa:
arrangements of revenue and finance. ‘It is enough to state
these monstrous consequences, to show that the doctrine, prin-
ciples, and pretensions of the message are entirely inconsistent
with a government of laws, If that which Congress hax en
acted, and the Supreme Court has sanctioned, be not the law of
the land, then the reign of law has ceased, and the reign of in-
dividual opinion has already begun.

‘The President, in his commentary on the details of the exist-
ing bank charter, undertakes to prove that one provision, and
another provision, is not necessary and proper; because, as he
thinks, the same objects proposed to be accomplished by ther
might have been better attained in another mode; and therefore

i eee. |

OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 41
si

pensable, ‘tho them fit and suitable, or
rss bl reps en Tt is enongh

necessary.” ‘The President may not think it necessary or prop-
er; the Jaw, then, according to the system of reasoning enforced

paekicar, ose tbat papa tates daa lense
and post-roads, it may, for that end, adopt one set of regulations
or another; and either would be constitutional. So the details
of one bank are a8 constitutional as those of another, if they are
confined fairly and honestly to the purpose of organizing the
institution, and rendering it usefal. One bank is as constitu.
tional as another bank. If Congress possesses the power to
make a bank, it possesses the power to make it ePicient, and
competent to produce the good expected from it, It may clothe
it with all such power and privileges, not otherwise inconsistent
with the Constitation, as may be necessary, in ite own judg-
meat, to make it what government deems it should be. It may
conier on it such immunities as may induce individuals to be
come stockholders, and to furnish the capital; and since the ex-
tent of these immunities and privileges ix matter of discrtion,
and matter of opinion, Congress only can decide it, be ause
Congress alone can frame or grant the charter. A charter, thas
granted to individuals, becomes a contract with ther, upon their
compliaace with its terms. The bank becomes an agent, bound
to perform certain duties, and entitled to certain stipulated rights

OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. a

review of professional characters. The message declares, that
this limitation to create no other bank is unconstitutional, be-
cause, although Congress may use the discretion vested in them,
“they may not limit the discretion of their successors.” This
reason is almost too superficial to require an answer, Every
one at all accustomed to the consideration of such subjects
knows that every Congress can bind its successors to the same
extent that it can bind itself, The power of Congress is always
the same; the authority of law always the same, It is tme, we
speak of the Twentieth Congress and the Twenty-first Congress;
but this is only to denote the period of time, or to mark the euc-
cessive organizations of the House of Representatives under the
successive periodical election of its members, As a politic body,
as the legislative power of the government, Congress is always
continuous, always identical. A particular Congress, as we
speak of it, for instance, the present Congress, can no farther
restrain itself from doing what it may choose to do at the next
‘session, than it can restrain any succeeding Congress from doing
what it may choose. Any Congress may repeal the act or law
of its predecessor, if in its nature it be repealable, just as it may
repeal its own act; and if a law or an act be irrepealable in its
nature, it can no more be repealed by a subsequent Congress
than by that which passed it, All this is familiar to every body
And Congress, like every other legislature, often passes acts
which, being in the nature of grants or contracts, are irrepeala-
ble ever afterwards. ‘The message, in a strain of urgurent
which it is difficult to treat with ordinary respect, declares that
this restriction on the power of Congress, as to the establishment
of other banks, is a palpable attempt to amend the Constitution
by an act of legislation. ‘The reason on which this observation
purports to be founded is, that Congress, by the Constitution,
is to have exclusive legislation over the District of Columbia;
and when the bank charter declares that Congress will create
no new bank within the District, it annuls this power of exelo-
sive legislation! 1 must say, that this reasoning hardly rises
high enough to entitle it to a passing notice. It would be do-
ing it too much credit to call it plausible. No one needs to be
informed that exclusive power of legislation is not unlimited
power of legislation; und if it were, how can that legislative
power be unlimited that cannot restrain itself, that cannot bind

OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 4

erty connected with this instrament, and essential to its very
being, as places its whole existence in the pleasure of the States.
Tt is not enough that the States may tax all the property of all
their own citizens, wherever invested or however employed. The
complaint is, that the power of State taxation does not reach so
far a8 to take cognizance over persone out of the State, and to
tax them for a franchise lawfully exereised under the authority
of the United States. Sir, when did the power of the States,
or indeed of any government, go to such an extent as that?
Clearly never. The taxing power of all communities is neces-
sarily and justly limited to the property of its own citizens, and
to the property of other, having a distinct local existence as
property, within its jurisdiction ; it does not extend to rights and
franchises, rightly exercised, under the authority of other govern-
ments, nor to persons beyond its jurisdiction. As the Constitu-
tion has left the taxing power of the States, so the bank char-
ter leaves it, Congress has not undertaken either to take away,
or to confer, a taxing power; nor to enlarge, or to restrain it; if
it were to do either, I hardly know which of the two would be
the least excusable.

Tbeg leave to repeat, Mr. President, that what I have now
been considering are the President’s objections, not to the policy
or expediency, but to the constitutionality of the bank; and
not to the constitationality of any new or proposed bank, but
of the bank as it now is, and as it has long existed. If the Pres-
ident had declined to approve this bill because he thought the
original charter unwisely granted, and the bank, in point of poli-
ey and expediency, objectionable or mischievous, and in that
view only had suggested the reasons now urged by him, his ar
gument, however inconclusive, would have been intelligible, and
not, in its whole frame and scope, inconsistent with all well-
estnblished first principles. His rejection of the bill, in that ense,
would have been, no doubt, an extraordinary exercise of power ;
but it would have been, nevertheless, the exercise of a power
belonging to his office, and trasted by the Constitution to his
discretion. But when he puts forth an array of arguments such
as the message employs, not agninst the expediency of the bani,
but against its constitutional existence, he confounds all distine-
tions, mixes questions of policy and questions of right together,
and turns all constitutional restraints into mere matters of opin+

¥OL. 11 38

OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILD. 447

It denies to the jndiciary the Interpretation of law, and claims to
divide with Congress the power of originating statates, It ex-
tends the grasp of executive pretension over every power of the
government. Bat this is not all. It presents the chief magistrate
of the Union in the attitude of arguing away the powers of that
government over which he has been chosen to preside; and
adopting for this purpose modes of reasoning which, even under
the influence of all proper feeling towards high official station, it
is difficult to regard as respectable, It appeals to every preju-
ice which may betray men into a mistaken view of their own
interests, and to every passion which may lead them to disoboy
the impulses of their understanding, Tt urges all the specious
topics of State rights and national encroachment against that
which a great majority of the States have affirmed to be right-
ful, and in which all of them have acquiesced. It sows, in an
ungparing manner, the seeds of jealousy and ill-will against that
government of which ita author is the official head. It raises a
cry, that liberty is in danger, at the very moment when it puts
forth claims to powers heretofore unknown and unheard of. It
affects alarm for the public freedom, when nothing endangers
that freedom #o much as its own unparalleled pretences. This,
even, is not all. It manifestly seeks to inflame the poor against
the rich; it wantonly attacks whole classes of the people, for the
purpose of turning against them the prejudices and the resent=
ments of other classes, It is a state paper which finds no topic
too exciting for its use, no passion too inflammable for its ad-
dress and its solicitation.

Sneh is this meeeage. It remains now for the people of the
United States to choose between the principles here avowed and
their government. These cannot subsist together. The one or
the other must be rejected. If the sentiments of the messagr
shall receive general approvation, the Constitution will have per
ished even earlier than the moment which its enemies originally
allowed for the termination of its existence. It will not have
survived to its fiftieth year.

THE CONSTITUTION NOT & COMPACT. 49,

seage of their political existence ; that the people of the several Sues
the Union have not, as members thereof, retuined their sover
cigaty 5 that the allegiance of their citizens has been tmnsferred to the
gener government ; that they have parted with the right of punishing
treason through their respective State governments; and that they have
hot the right of judging in the Inst resort as to the extent of the powers
reserved, and of consequence of those delegated,— are not only without
foundation in truth, but are contrary to the most certain and plain his:
torical facts, and the clearest deductions of reason ; and that all exercise
of power on the part of the general government, or any of its depar-
monts, claiming authority from such erroneous assumptions, must of ne~
cossity be unconstitutional, — must tend, directly and inevitably, to sub-
vert the sovereignty of the States, to destroy the federal character of the
Union, and to rear on its ruins « consolidated government, without con-
stiturfonal check or limitation, and which must necessarily terminate in
the loss of liberty itself." t
‘On Saturday, the 16th of February, Mr. Calhoun spoke in opposition
to the bill, and in support of these resolutions. He was followed by Mr.
Webster in this speech.

Ma. Presrwent,— The gentleman from South Carvlinu Ines
admonished uz to be mindful of the opinions of those who shall
come after us. We must take oar chance, Sir, ns to the light in
which posterity will regard us. I do not decline its jadgment,
nor withhold myself from its serutiny. Feeling that [ am per-
forming my public duty with singleness of heart and to the best
of my ability, I fearlessly trast myself to the country, now and
hereafter, and leave both my motives and my charncter to its
decision.

‘The gentleman has terminated his speech in a tone of threat
and defiance towards this bill, even should it become a law of
the land, altogether unusual in the halls of Congress. But 1
shall not suffer myself to be excited into warmth by his denun-
ciation of the measure which I”support. Among the feelings
which at this moment fill my breast, not the least is that of re=
gret at the position in which the gentleman has placed himself.
Sir, he does himself no justice. The eanse which he has es-
poused finds no basis in the Constitution, no succor from public
sympathy, no cheering from a patriotic community. He has no
foothold on which to stand while he might display the powers
of his acknowledged talents. Every thing beneath hie feet is

aye

HETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 451

through the course of his speech. Much of what he has said he
bas deemed necessary to the just explanation and defence of his
own political character and conduct. On this I shall offer no
comment, Much, too, hus consisted of philosophical remark
upon the general nature of political liberty, and the history of
free institntions; and upon other topics, so general in their na-
ture as to possess, in my opinion, only a remote bearing on the
immediate subject of this debate.

But the gentleman's speech made some days ago, upon intro-
ducing his resolutions, those resolutions themselves, and parte
of the speech now just concluded, may, I presume, be justly re-
garded ax containing the whole South Carolina doctrine. ‘That
doctrine it in my purpose now to examine, and to compare it
with the Constitution of the United States. I shall not consent,
Sir, to make any new constitution, or to catablish another form
of government, I will not undertake to say what a conatitu-
tion for these United States ought to be. ‘That question the
people have decided for themselves ; and T shall take the instra-
ment as they have established it, and shall endeavor to maintain
it, in its plain sense and meaning, against opinions and notions
which, in my judgment, threaten its subversion,

‘The resolutions introduced by the gentleman were apparently
drawn up with care, and brought forward upon deliberation. 1
shall not be in danger, therefore, of misunderstanding him, or
those who agree with him, if I proceed at once to these resolu-
tions, and consider them as an authentic statement of those
opinions upon the great constitutional question, by which the
recent proceedings in South Carolina are attempted to be jus-
tified.

‘These resolutions are three in number,

The third seems intended to enumerate, and to deny, the sev-
eral opinions expressed in the Presidents proclamation, reapect-
ing the nature and powers of this government, Of this third
resolution, I purpose, at present, to take no particular notice,

‘The first two resolutions of the honorable member affirm these
propositions, viz.:—

1, That the political systern under which we live, and under
which Congress is now assembled, is a compact, to which the
people of the several States, as separate and sovereign commu
nities. ar> the parties.

adjective, fo the purpose of accommodating any new se, of po
litieal notions. Sir, we reject his new rules of syntax altogether.
‘We will not give up our forms of political speech to the gram-
mariana of the echool of nullification. By the Constitution, we
mean, not a “eonetitutional compact,” but, simply and directly,
the Conastitation, the fondamental law; and if there be one word
in the language which the people of the United States under
stand, this is that word. We know no more of a constitutional
compact between sovereign powers, than we know of a constilu-
tional indenture of copartnership, a constitutional deed of con-
or a constitutional bill of exchange. But we know
what the Constitution is; we know what the plainly written,
fundamental law is; we know what the bond of our Union and
‘the security of our liberties is; and we mean to maintain and to
defend it, in its plain sense and unsophisticated meaning.

The ense of the gentleman's proposition, therefore, is not at
all affected, one way or the other, by the use of this word. That
proposition still is, that our system of government is but a com-
pact between the people of separate and sovereign States.

‘Was it Mirabeau, Mr, President, or some other master of the
human passions, who has told us that words are things? They
are indeed things, and things of mighty influence, not only in
addresses to the passions and bigh-wrought feelings of mankind,
but in the discussion of legul und political questions also; be-
cause « just conclusion is often avoided, or a false one reached,
by the adroit substitution of one phrase, or one word, for an-
other, Of this we have, I think, another example in the reeolu-
tions before us.

The first resolution declares that the people of the several
States “acceded” to the Constitution, or to the constitational
compact, as it is called. This word “accede,” not found either
in the Constitution itself, or in the ratifieation of it by any one
of the States, has been chosen for use here, doubtless, not with-
out a well-considered purpose.

‘The natural converse of accession is secession; and, therefore,
when it is stated that the people of the States acceded to the
Union, it may be more plausibly argued that they may secede
from it. If, in adopting the Constitution, nothing was done but
acceding to a compact, nothing would seem necessary, in order
to break it np, but to secede from the same compact. But the

them Inasmuch as they were already in union, they did not
speak of acceding to the new Articles of Confederation, but of
ratifying and confirming them; and this language was not used
inadvertently, because, in the same instrument, accession is usext
in its proper sense, when applied to Canada, which was alto-
gether a stranger to the existing union. “ Canada; says the
eleventh article, * acceding to this Confederation, and joining in
the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into the
Union.”

Having thus used the terms ratify and confirm, even in regurd
to the old Confederation, it would have been strange indeed, if
the people of the United States, after its formation, and when
they came to establish the present Constitution, had spoken of
the States, or the people of the States, as acceding to this Con-
stitution. Such language would have been ill-suited to the ocea-
sion, Jt would have implied an existing separation or disunion
among the States, such as never has existed since 1774. No
such language, therefore, was used. ‘The language actually em-
ployed is, adopt, ratify, ordain, establish.

Therefore, Sir, since any State, before she can prove her
right to diseolve the Union, must show her authority to undo
what has been done, no State is at liberty to secede, on the
ground that she and ozher States have done nothing but accede.
She mast show that she has a right to reverse what has been
ordained, to wnsetile and overthrow what has been established,
to reject what the people have adopted, and to break up what
they have ratified; because these are the terms which express
the transactions which have actually taken place. In other
words, she must show her right to. make a revolution.

If, Mr. President, in drawing these resolutions, the honorable
member had confined himself to the usc of constitutional lan-
guage, there would have been a wide and awfal hiatus between
his premises and his conclusion, Leaving out the two words com-
pact and accession, which are not constitutional modes of expres+
sion, and stating the matter precisely as the trath is, his first res-
oluti:n would have affirmed that the people of the several States
vatifi.d this Constitution, or form of government. Theso are the
very words of South Carolina herself, in her act of ratifica-
tion. Let, then, his first resolution tell the exact trath; let it
state the fact precisely as it exists; let it say that the people of

BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES a7

reason, Sir, which makes it necessary to abandon the use of
constitutional language fora new vocabulary, and to substitute,
in the place of plain historical facts, a series of assumptions.
This is the renson why it ix necessary to give new names t
things, to speak of the Constitution, not as a constitution, out
as a compact, and of the rtifications by the people, not as
ratifications, but as acta of accession,

Sir, I intend to hold the gentleman to the written record. In
the disenssion of a constitutional question, I intend to impose
upon him the restraints of constitutional language. The people
have ordained a Constitution; can they reject it without revo-
lution? ‘They bave established a form of government; can
they overthrow it without revolution? ‘These are the trac ques-
tions.

Allow me now, Mr. President, to inquire farther into the ex-)
tent of the propositions contained in the resolutions, and their
“aeccssary consequences.

‘Where sovereign communities are partics, there is no essential
difference between a compact, a confederation, and a league.
They all equally rest on the plighted faith of the sovereign
party. A league, or confederacy, is but a subsisting or continu-
ing treaty.

The gentleman’s resolutions, then, affirm, in effect, that these
twenty-four United States are held together only by a subsist-
ing treaty, resting for its fulfilmentand continnanee on no inhe-
rent power of its own, but on the plighted faith of euch State;
or, in other words, that our Union is but a league; and, as a
consequence from this proposition, they further affirm that, as
sovereigns are subject to no superior power, the States muat
jndge, each for itself, of any alleged siolation of the league;
and if such violation be supposed to have occurred, each may
adopt any mode or measure of redress which it shall think
proper.

Other consequences naturally follow, too, from the main prop-
oxition. If a league between sovereign powers have no limita.
tion as to the time of its duration, and contain nothing making
it perpetual, it subsists only during the good pleasure of the-
parties, although no violation be complained of. If, in the opin-
ion of either party, it be violated, such party may say that he
iinet ARS A stron en) Esper nes WD) eopdlaes

VOL, Mle

| —y

BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATEs. 459
ty dispossessed of the fruits of their Aagitious crimes; and
therefore, impositions on the commerce of other States

dress justly open to the discretion and choice of South Carolina;
for she is to judge of her own rights, and to seek satisfaction for
her own wrongs, in her own way,

But, Sir, a third State is of opinion, not only that these laws
of imposts are constitutional, but that it is the absolute duty of
Congress to pass and to maintain such laws; and that, by omite
ting fo pass and maintain them, its constitutional obligations
would be grosly disregarded, She hereelf relinquished the
power of protection, she might allege, and allege truly, and gave
it up to Congress, on the faith that Congress would exercise it.
Tf Congress now refuse to exercise it, Congress does, as she may
insist, break the condition of the grant, and thus manifestly vio-
late the Constitution; and for this violation of the Constitution,
she may threaten to secede also, Virginia may secede, and hold
the fortresses in the Chesapeake. The Western States may
secede, and take to their own nse the public lands. Louisiana
may secede, if she choose, form a foreign alliance, and hold the
mouth of the Mississippi. If one State may secede, ten may do
80, twenty may do so, twenty-three may do so. Sir, as these
secessions go on, one after another, what is to constitute the
United States? Whose will be the army? Whose the navy?
‘Who will pay the debts? Who fulfil the public treaties? Who
perform the constitutional guaranties? Who govern this Dis«
trict and the Territories? Who retain the public property ?

Mr. President, every man must sce that these are all questions
which ean arise only after a revolution. They presuppose the
breaking up of the government. While the Constitution lasts,
they are repressed ; they spring up to annoy and startle us only
from its grave,

The Constitution does not provide for events which must be
preceded by its own destruction. Secrasion, therefore, since it
must bring these consequences with it, is mevouwrionany, and
NULLIPICATION is equally nevouvTionany. What is revolution?
Why, Sir, that is revolution which overturns, or controls, or suc~
cessfully resists, the existing public authority; that whieh ar
rests the exercise of the supreme power; that which introduces
@ new paramorat authority into the rule of the State. Now

|

BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 461

knows not whither. To begin with nullification, with the avowed
intent, nevertheless, not to proceed to secession, distmember+
ment, and general revolution, ia as if one were to take the
plunge of Ningara, and cry out that he wonld stop half way
down. In the one case, as in the other, the rash adventure
must go to the bottom of the dark abyss below, were it not
that that abyss has no discovered bottom.
Nullification, if successful, arrests the power of the law, ab-
solves citizens from their duty, subverts the foundation both of
protection and obedience, dispenses with onths and obligations
of allegiance, and elevates another authority to supreme com-
mand. Is not this revolution? And it raises to supreme com-
mand four-and-twenty distinct powers, each professing to be
under a general government, and yet each setting ite laws at
defiance at pleasure. Js not this anarchy, as well as revolution?
Sir, the Constitution of the United States wus received as a
whole, and for the whole country. If it cannot stand altogether,
it cannot stand in parts; and if the laws cannot be executed
everywhere, they cannot long be executed anywhere. The gen-
tleman very well knows that all duties and imposts must be uni-
form throughout the country. He knows that we cannot have
one rule or one lew for South Carolina, and another for other
States, He mmst see, therefore, and does seé, and every man
sees, that the only alternative is a repeal of the laws throughout
the whole Union, or their execution in Carolina as well as
elsewhere. And this repeal is demanded because a single
State interposes her veto, and threatens resistance! The result
of the gentleman's opinion, or rather the very text of his doc-
trine, is, that no act of Congress can bind all the States, the con-
stitutionality of which is not admitted by all; or, in other words,
that no single State is bound, against its own dissent, by a law
of imposts. This is precisely the evil experienced under the
old Confederation, and for remedy of which this Constitution
was adopted. The leading object in establishing this govern.
ment, an object forced on the country by the condition of the
times and the absolute necessity of the law, was to give to Con-
gress power to lay and collect imposts without the consent of
particular States, ‘The Revolutionary debt remained unpaid; the
national treasury was bankrupt; the country was deslitute of
credit; Congress issued its requisitions on the States, and the
99°

BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 4g

to submit to this power, she breaks the condition on which oth
er States entered into the Union. She partakes of the common
counsels, and therein assists to bind others, while she refuses to
be bounu herself. It makes no difference in the case, whether
she does all this without reason or pretest, or whether she sets:
up 28 @ reason, that, in her judgment, the acts complained of are
unconstitutional. In the judgment of other States, they are
not so, It is nothing to them that she offers some reason or
some apology for her conduct, if it be one which they do not
admit. It is not to be expected that any State will violate her
duty without some plausible pretexty That would be too rash
a defiance of the opinion of mankind. But if it be a pretext
which lies in her own breast; if it be no more than an opinion
which she says she has formed, how can other States be satis-
fied with this? How can they allow her to be judge of ber own
obligations? Or, if she may judge of her obligations, may
they not judge of their rights also? May not the twenty-three
entertain an opinion as well as the twenty-fourth? And if it
be their right, in their own opinion, as expressed in the common
council, to enforce the law against her, how is she to say that
her right and her opinion are to be every thing, and their right
and their opinion nothing?

Mr. President, if we are to receive the Constitution as thr
text, and then to lay down in its margin the contradictory com
mentaries which have been, and which may be, made by differ
ent States, the whole page would be a polyglot indeed. Ih
would speak with a8 many tongues as the builders of Babel,
and in dinlects as much confased, and mutunlly ax unintelligible
The very instance now before us presents a practical illustration
The law of the Inst session is declared unconstitutional in South
Carolina, and obedience to it is refused. In other States, it is
admitted to be strictly constitutional. You walk over the limit
of its authority, therefore, when you pass a State line. On one
side it is law, on the other side a nullity; and yet it is passed
by a common government, having the same authority in all the

States,

Such, Sir, are the inevitable results of this doctrine. Begin-
ning with the original error, that the Constitution of the United
Bates is nothing but a compact between sovereign States;
asserting, in the next step, that each State has n right to be its

BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 165

must judge of, and finally interpret, this supreme law 0 often
as it has occasion to pass aets of legislation; and in cases capa=
ble of assuming, and actually assuming, the character of a suit,
the Supreme Court of the United States is the final interpreter.
4. That an attempt by a State to abrogate, annul, or nullify
an act of Congress, or to arrest its operation within her limite,
on the ground that, in her opinion, stich law is unconstitutional,
is a direct usurpation on the just powers of the general govern-
ment, and on the equal rights of other States; a plain violation
of the Constitution, and a proceeding essentially revolutionary
in its character and a

‘Whether the Constitution be 2 compact between States in
their sovercign capacities, is 2 question which must be mainly
argucd from what is contained in the instrament itself, We all
agree that it is an instrament which has been in some way
clothed with power, We all admit that it speaks with author-
ity. The first question then is, What does it say of iteelf?
What does it purport to be? Does it style itself a league, con-
federaey, or compact between sovertign States? It is to be
remembered, Sir, that the Constitution began to speak only after
its adoption, Until it was ratified by nine States, it was but a
proposal, the mere draught of an instrament. It was like a deed
draws, bat not exeented. The Convention had framed it; sent
it to Congress, then sitting under the Confederation; Congress
had transmitted it to the State legislatures; and by these lust it
was laid before conventions of the people in the several States,
All this while it was inoperative paper. [t had reccived no
stamp of authority, no sanction; it spoke no language. But
when mtified by the people in their respective conventions, thea
it had @ voice, and spoke authentically. Every word in it had
then received the sanction of the popular will, and was to be
received as the expression of that will. What the Constitution
says of itself, therefore, is as conclusive as what it saya on any
other point, Does it call itself a “compact”? Certainly not.
It uses the word compact but. oner, and that is wheu it declares
that the States shall enter into no compact. Does it call iteel/
a “league,” a “confederacy,” a “subsisting treaty between the
States"? Certainly npt. There is not a particle of such lan-
guage in allits pages’ But it declares itself a Coxstrrerion.
‘What is a constitution? Certa'nly ot a league, compact, or

3}

BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 467

the gentleman's resolution, that the people of the several States
acceded to this compact in their sovereign capacities? What
reason is there for supposing that the framers of the Constitu-
tion rejected expressions appropriate to their own meaning, and
adopted others wholly at war with that meaning?

Again, Sir, the Constitution speaks of that political system
which ie established as “the government of the United States.”
Is it not doing strange violence to language to call a league or a
compact between sovereign powers a government? The gov-
erament of a state is that organization in which the political
power resides, It is the political being created by the constitu-
tion or fundamental law. he broad and clear difference be-
tween a government and & league or compact is, that a govern-
ment is a body politic; it has a will of its own; and it possesses
powers and faculties to exeente its own purposes, Every com-
pact looks to some power to enforce its stipulations, Even in a
compact between sovereign communities, there always exists
this ultimate reference to a power to insure its execution; al-
though, in such case, this power is but the force of one party
against the force of another; that is to say, the power of war,
But a government executes its decisions by its own supreme au-
thority. Its use of force in compelling obedience to its own en-
actments is not war. It contemplates no opposing party having
aright of resistance. It rests on its own power to enforce its
own will; and when it ceases to possess this power, it is no
longer « government.

Mr. President, [ concur so generally in the very able speech
of the gentleman from Virginia near mc," that it is not without
diffidence and regret that I venture to differ with him on any
point. His opinions, Sir, are redolent of the doctrines of a very
distinguished xebool, for which I have the highest regard, af
whose doctrines I can say, what I can also say of the gentle.
man's specch, that, while I concur in the reaults, [ must be per-
mitted to hesitate about some of the premises, [ do not agree
that the Constitution is a compact between States in their sov-
ereign capacities, Ido not agree, that, in strictness of language,
it is a compact at all. But I do agree thatit is founded on
consent or agreement, or on compact, if the gentleman prefers

* Mr. Rives

BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 469

agreement; they adopted the Constitution ms a Constitution,
and henceforth it must stand as a Constitution until it shall be
altogether destroyed. Now, Sir, is not this the truth of the whole
matter? And is not all that we have heard of compact be-
tween sovereign States the mere effect of a theoretical and arti-
ficial mode of reasoning upon the subject? a mode of reason-
ing which disregerds plain fucts for the sake of hypothesis?
Mr. President, the nature of sovercignty or sovereign power
has been extensively discussed by gentlemen on this occasion,
as it generally is when the origin of our government is debated.
But I confess myself not entirely satisfied with arguments and
illustrations drawn from that topic. ‘The sovereignty of govern-|
ment is an idea belonging to the other side of the Atlantic. No
euch thing is known-in North America. Our governments are
all limited. In Europe, sovereignty is of feudal origin, and im-
ports no more than the state of the sovereign, It comprises his
rights, duties, exemptions, prerogatives, and powers. Bat with
us, all power is with the people. They alone are sovereign;
and they erect what governments they please, and confer on
them such powers as they please. None of these governments
is sovereign, in the European sense of the word, all being re-
strained by written constitutions. [It seems to me, therefore,
that we only perplex ourselves when we attempt to explain the
relations existing between the general government and the sev-
tral State governments, according to those ideas of sovereignty
which prevail under systerns essentially different from our own,
Bot, Sir, to return to the Constitution itself; let me Inquire
what it relies upon for its own continnance and support. I hear
it often suggested, that the States, by refusing to appoint Sena-
tors and Electors, might bring this government to an end. Per-
haps that is tre; but the same may be snid of the State gov-
ernments themselves. Suppose the legislature of a State, hav-
ing the power to appoint the governor and the judges, should
omit that duty, would not the State government remain unor-
ganized? No doubt, all elective governments may be Lroken
up by a general abandonment, on the part of those intrusted
with political powers, of their appropriate duties. But one pop
ular government has, in this respect, as much security as an:
other. The maintenance of this Constitution does not depend
on the plighted faith eae States, to support it; ana
VOL, It

wrt the Constitution of the United
on of this oath, no State power can

SE sworn to support it as we our-
me members of

Pof a State legislature can refuse to proceed, at
the proper time, to elect Senators to Congress, or to provide for
the choice of Electors of President and Vice-President, any more
than the members of this Senate can refuse, when the appointed
day arrives, to meet the members of the other house, to count
the votes for those officers, and ascertain who are chosen. In
both cases, the duty binds, and with equal strength, the eonr
science of the individual member, and it is imposed on all by an
oath in the same words. Let it then, never be said, Sir, that it
is a matter of discretion with the States whether they will con-
tinue the government, or break it up by refusing to appoint Sen-
ators and to elect Electors. They bave no discretion the
matter, The members of their legislatures cannot avoid doing
either, eo often as the time arrives, without a direct violation of
their duty and their oaths; such a violation as would break up
any other government, a
Looking still further to the provisions of the Constitution
itself, in order to learn its true character, we find its great ap-
parent purpose to be, to unite the people of all the States under

one general government, for certain definite objects, and, to the
extent of this union, to restrain the separate authority of the
States. Congress only can declare war; therfore, when one

|
{
\

BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 47a

| United States; but the substance of this resolution was te

tained, and was at the head of that list of resolutions which

\. was afterwarde sent to the committee who were to frame the
instrument.

It is true, there were gentlemen in the Convention, who were

for retaining the Confederation, and amending its Articles; but

the majority was against this, and was for a national government.

to the Convention on the 15th of June, and referred to the com>
mittee of the whole, The resolutions forming the basis of a
national government, which had once been agreed to in the
committee of the whole, and reported, were recommitted to the
same committee, on the same day. The Convention, then, in
committee: of the whole, om the 19th of June, had both these
plans before them: that is to say, the plan of a confederacy, or
compact, between States, and the plan of a national

ment. Both these plans were considered and debnted, and the
committee reported, * That they do not agree to the propositions
offered by the honorable Mr. Patterson, but that they again sub-
mit the resolutions formerly reported.” If, Sir, any historical
fact in the world be plain and undeniable, it is that the Con-
vention deliberated on the expediency of continuing the Con-
federation, with some amendments, and rejected that scheme,
and adopted the plan of a national government, with a legis.
lature, an executive, and a judiciary of its own. They were
asked to preserve the league; they rejected the proposition.
They were asked to continue the existing compact between
States; they rejected it. They rejected compact, league, and
confederation, and set thernselves about framing the constitution
of 4 national government; and they accomplished what they
undertook.

Hf men will open their eyes fairly to the lights of history, it is
impossible to be deceived on this point. The great object was
to snpersede the Confederation, by a regular government; be
cause, under the Confederation, Congress had power only to
make requisitions on States; and if States declined compliance,
us they did, there wae no remedy but war against such delin-
quent States [t would seem, from Mr. Jefferson's correspond-
ence, in 1786 and 1787, that he was of opinion that even this

40"

BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES: aE

“To republics, it is a fundamental principle, that the majority govern,
and that the minority comply with the genoral voice, How contrary,
then, 1 republican principles, how humiliating, is our present situation !
A single State can rise up, and put a veto upon the most important
public measures, We have seon this actually take place; a single
State has controlled the general voice of the Union; a minority, a very
small minority, has governed us, So far is this from being consistent
with ropablicun principles, that it is, in effect, the worst species of mon:
archy.

“ Hence we see how necessary for the Union is a coercive principle.
No man pretends the contrary, We all see and feel this necessity,
‘The only question is, Shall it be a coercion of law, or a cvercion of
arme? ‘Thore is no other possible alteynative. Where will those who
oppose # coercion of law come out? Where will they end? A neces:
‘sary consequence of their principles is a war of the States one against
another, Lam for coercion by law; that cocrcion which acts only upon
delinquent individuals. This Constitution does not attempt to coerce
sovereign bodies, States, in their political capacity, No coercion is
applicable to such bodies, but that of an armed force. [f we should
utiempt to execute the laws of the Union by sending an armed force
against a delinquent State, it would involre the good and bad, the inno-
cent and guilty, in the same calamity. But this legal coercion singles
out the guilty individual, and punishes him for breaking the laws of the
Union.”

Indeed, Sir, if we look to all contemporary history, to the num-
bers of the Federalist, to the debates in the conventions, to the
publications of friends and foes, they all agree, that a change had
been made from a confederacy of States to a different system ;
they all ayree, that the Convention had formed «a Constitution
for a national government. With this result some were satis-
fied, and some were dissatisfied; but all admitted that the thing
had been done. In none of these various productions and pub-
lications did any one intimate that the new Constitution was
but another compact between States in their sovereign capari-
ties. I do not find such an opinion advanced in a single in-
stance. Everywhere, the people were told that the old Confed-
cration was to be abandoned, and a new system to be tried;
that 4 proper government was proposed, to be founded in the
name of the people, and to have a regular organization of its
own. Everywhere, the people were told that it was to be a gove
ernment with direct powers to make laws over individuals, and

BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 477

of expressicn, meant merely to say, that the people of the United
States had, by the blessing of Providence, enjoyed the oppor
tunity of establishing a new Constitution, founded ia the consent
of the people, This consent of the people has been called, by
European writers, the social compact ; and, in conformity to thie
common mode of expression, these conventions speak cf that
assent, on which the new Constitution was to rest, as an ex-
plicit and solemn compact, not which the States had entered
into with each other, but which the people of the United States
had entered into,

Finally, Sir, how can any man get over the words of the
Constitution itself? —“ We, rae propte op Tae Unrren Starrs,
DO ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH THIS ConstITuTION.” These words
aust cease to be a part of the Constitution, they must be oblit-
erated from the parchment on which they are written, before
any human ingenuity or human argument ean remove the pop-
ular basis on which that Constitution rests, and turn the instru-
ment into a mere compact between sovereign States.

‘The second proposition, Sir, which I propose to maintain, is,
that no State authority can dissolve the relations subsisting be-
tween the goverament of the United States and individuals;
that nothing can dissolve these relations but revolution; and
that, therefore, there ean be no such thing as secession without
revolution. All this follows, as it seems to me, a8 2 just conse
quence, if it be first proved that the Constitution of the United
States is. a government proper, owing protection to individuals,
and entitled to their obedience.

The people, Sir, in every State, live under two governments.
They owe obedience to both. These governments, though dis-
tinct, mre not adverse. Each has its separate sphere, and its
peculiar powers and duties. Itis not a contest between two
sovereigns for the same power, like the wars of the rival houses
in England; nor is it a dispute between a government de facto
and a government de jure. It is the case of a division of pow-
ers between two governments, made by the people, to whom
both are responsible, Neither ean dispense with the duty which
individuals owe to the other; neither can call itself master of
the other: the people are masters of both, This division of
power, it is true, is in a great measure unknown in Europe. It

7

BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES i)

preme law of the land, consisting of the Constitution, acts of
Congress passed in pursuance of it, and the public treaties
‘This will not be denied, because such are the very words of the
Constitution. But I contend, farther, that it rightfully belongs
to Congress, and to the courts of the United States, to settle the
construction of this supreme law, in doubtful cases. This is
denied; and here arises the great practical question, Who ts ¢o
construe finally the Constitution of the United States? We all
agree that the Constitution is the supreme law; but who shall
interpret that law? In our system of the division of powers be-
tween different governments, controversies will necessarily some-
times arise, respecting the extent of the powdrs of each. Who
shall decide these controversies? Does it rest with the general
government, in all or any of its departments, to exercise the
office of final interpreter? Or may cach of the States, as well
as the general government, claim this right of ultimate decision?
The practical result of this whole debate turns on this point.
The gentleman contends that each State may judge for itself
of any alleged violation of the Constitution, and may finally
decide for itself, and may execute its own decisions by its own
power, All the recent proceedings in South Carolina are found-
ed on this claim of right. Her convention has pronounced the
revenue laws of the United States unconstitutional; and this
decision she does not allow any authority of the United States
to overrule or reverse. Of course she rejects the authority of
Congress, because the very object of the ordinance is to reverse
the decision of Congress; and she rejects, too, the authority of
the courts of the United States, becanse she expressly prohibits
all appeal to those courts. It is in order to sustain this asserted
rigat of being her own judge, that she pronounces the Constitu-
tion of the United States to be but a compact, to which she is a
party, and a sovereign party. If thie be established, then the in-
ference is supposed to follow, that, being sovereign, there is no
power to control her decision; and her own judgment on her
own compact is, and must be, conclusive.

L have already endeavored, Sir, to point out the practical con-
sequences of this doctrine, and to show how utterly inconsistent
it is with all ideas of regular government, and how soon its
adoption would involve the whole country in revolution and ab-
solute anarchy. I hope it is easy now to show, Sir, thata doe

BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 41

tion is a government existing over all the States, though with
limited powers, it necessarily follows that, to the extent of those
powers, it must be supreme. If it be not snperior to the author
ity of a particular State, it is not a national government. But
as it is a government, as it has a legislative power of its own,
and a judicial power coextensive with the legislntive, the inler-
ence is irresistible that this government, thus created by the
whole and for the whole, must have an authority superior to
that of the particular government of any one part. Congress ir
the legislature of all the people of the United States; the judi-
ciary of the general government is the judiciary of all the people
of the United States, To hold, therefore, that this legislature
and this judiciary are subordinate in authority to the legislature
and judiciary of a single State, ix doing violence to al! common
sense, and overturning all established principles. Congress must
judge of the extent of its own powers so often as it is called on
to exercise them, or it cannot act at all; and it must also act
independent of State control, or it cannot act at all.

‘The right of State interposition strikes at the very foundation
of the legislative power of Congress. It possesses no effective
legislative power, if such right of State interposition exists; be«
cause it can pass no law not subject to abrogation. It cannot
make laws for the Union, if any part of the Union may pro-
nounee its enactments void and of no effect. Its forms of legis-
lation would be an idle ceremony, if, after all, any one of four-
and-twenty States might bid defiance to its authority. Without
express provision in the Constitution, therefore, Sir, this whole
question is necessnrily decided by those provisions which create
a legislative power and a judicial power, If these exist in a
government intended for the whole, the inevitable consequence
is, that the laws of thie legielative power and the decisions of
this judicial power must be binding on and over the whole. No
man can form the conception of a government existing over
four-and-twenty States, with a regular legislative and judicial
power, and of the existence at the same time of an authority,
residing elsewhere, to resist, at pleasure or discretion, the enuct-
ments and the decisions of such a government. I maintain,
therefore, Sir, that, from the nature of the case, and a3 an infer.
ence wholly unavoidable, the acts of Congress and the decisions
of the national courts must be of higher authority than State

vou iL Al

Ta

BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 483

nue, and questions which involre the national peace and har-
mony.” Now, Sir, this either had no sensible meaning at all, or
tlse it meant that the jurisdiction of the national judiciary should
extend to these questions, with @ paramount authority, It is not
to be supposed that the Convention intended that the power
of the national judiciary should extend to these questions, and
that the power of the judicatures of the States should also extend
to them, with equal power of final decision. This would be to
defeat the whole object of the provision. There were thirteen
judicatures already in existence. The evil complained of, or the
danger to be gnarded against, was contradiction and repugnanee
in the decisions of these judicatures. If the framers of the Con-
stitution meant to create a fourteenth, and yet not to give it
power to revise and control the decisions of the existing thirteen,
then they only intended to augment the existing evil and the
apprehended danger by increasing still further the chances of
discordant judgments, Why, Sir, has it become a acttled
axiom in politics that every government must have a judicial
power coextensive with its legislative power? Certainly, there
is only this reason, namely, that the laws may receive a uniform
interpretation and a uniform execution. This object cannot be
otherwise attained. A statute is what it is judicially interpret-
ed to be; and if it be constraed one way in New Hampshire,
and another way in Georgia, there is no uniform Inw. One su-
preme conrt, with appellate and final jurisdiction, is the natural
and only adequate means, in any government, to secure this uni-
formity. ‘The Convention saw all this clearly; and the resolu-
tion which I have quoted, never afterwards rescinded, paseed
through various modifications, till it finally received the form
whieh the article now bears in the Constitution.

It is undeniably true, then, that the framers of the Constitn-
tion intended to create a national jndicial power, which should
be paramount on national subjects, And after the Constitution
was framed, and while the whole country was engaged in dis
enssing its merits, one of its most distinguished advocates, Mr
Madison, told the people that it was true, that, in controversies
relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribu-
nal which is ultimately to decide is to be established under the gen
eral government. Mr. Martin, who had been a member of the
Convention, asserted the same thing to the legislature of Marv.

BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 485

Mime St possible Kone gomacnonea eae a ie
I-twenty interpreters of its laws and powers? Gentlemen
eee nian ace ue Baten
right, and the general government always wrong. But sup-
pose the reverse; suppose the State wrong (and, since they dif-
fer, some of them must be wrong); are the most important and
essential operations of the government to be embarmssed and
arrested, because one State holds the contrary opinion? Mr.
President, every argument which refers the constitutionality of
acts of Congress to State decision appeals from the majority to
the minority; it appeals from the common interest to a partic-
ular interest; from the counsels of all to the counsel of one;
and endeavors to supersede the judgment of the whole by the
judgment of a part.
I think it is clear, Sir, that the Constitution, by express pro-
vision, by definite and unequivocal words, as well as by neces-
sary implication, has constituted the Supreme Court of the
Tulted Staton the sppelata tribunal in all eases of a constitu:
tional nature which assume the shape of a suit, in law or equity.
And I think I cannot do better than to leave this part of the
subject by reading the remarks made upon it in the convention
of Connecticut, by Mr. Ellsworth; a gentleman, Sir, who has
Jeft behind him, on the records of the government of his country,
proofs of the clearest intelligence and of the deepest sagacity, as
well as of the utmost purity and integrity of chamoter. “This
Constitution,” says be, “ defines the extent of the powers of the
general government. If the general legislature should, at any
time, overleap their limits, the judicial department is a constita-
tional check. If the United States go beyond their powers, if
they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize,
it is void; and the judiciary power, the national judges, who, to
secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will de-
clare it to be void. On the other hand, if the Stutes go beyond
their limits, if they make a law which is a usurpation npow
the general government, the law is void; and upright, inde
pendent judges will declare it to be so.” Nor did this remain
merely matter of private opinion. In the very first session
of the first Congress, with all these well-know: objects, both
of the Convention and the people, full and fresh in his mind,
Mr. Ellsworth, as is generally understood, reported the bill for
4°

BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 47

ideas, As far as I understand it, it would teach us that the
absolute majority may be found in Congress, but the majority
concurrent must be looked for in the States; that is to say, Sir,
stripping the matter of this novelty of phrase, that the dissent
of one or more Statesyas States, renders void the decision of
a majority of Congress, so far as that State is concerned. And
0 this doctrine, running but a short career, like other dogmas
of the day, terminates in nullification.

If this vehement invective against majorities meant no more
than that, in the construction of government, it is wise to pro-
vide checks and balances, so that there should b> various limi-
tations on the power of the mero majority, it would only mean
what the Constitution of the United States has already abun-
dantly provided. Tt is fall of such checks and balances. In its
very organization, it adopts a broad and most effective principle
in reatraint of the power of mere majorities. A majority of
the people elects the House of Representatives, but it does not
elect the Senate. The Senate is elected by the States, each
State having, in this respect, an equal power. No law, theres
fore, can pass, without the assent of the representatives of the
people, and a majority of the szepresentatives of the States also,
A majority of the representatives of the people must concur,
and a majority of the States must concur, in every act of Con-
gres; and the President is elected on a plan compounded of both
these principles. But having composed one honse of repre-
sentatives chosen by the people in cach State, according to their
numbers, and the other of an equal number of members from
every State, whether larger of emaller, the Constitution gives to
majorities in these houses thus constituted the full and entire
power of passing laws, subject always to the constitutional ree
strictions and to the approval of the President. To subject
them to any other power is clear usurpation. The majority of
one house muy be controlled by the majority of the other; and
both may be restrained by the President's negative. These
are cheeks and balanees provided by the Constitution, existing
in the government itself, and wisely intended to secure delibera-
tiun and caution in legislative proceedings. But to resist the
will of the majority in both houses, thus constitutionally exer
cised ; to insist on the lawfulness of interposition by an extra-
neous power; to claim the right of defeating the will af Congress,

=

BETWEEN SOVEREION Si ATES, 489

ings of the State must ultimately reflect discredit upon her.
How is this minority, how are these men, regarded? They ure
enthralled and disfranchised by ordinances and acts of legisla-
tion ; subjected to tests and oaths, incompatible, as they conaci-
entiously think, with oaths already taken, and obligations already
assumed, they are proscribed and denounced, as reereants to
duty and patriotism, and slaves to a foreign power. Both the

all precedént within my knowledge, except in periods of pro-
fegsed revolution.

It is not, Sir, one would think, for those who ‘epprove these)
proceedings to complain of the power of majorities. Y
Mr. President, all popular governments rest on two principles,

or two assumptions :—

First, That there is so far a common interest among those
over whom the government extends, ax that it may provide for
the defence, protection, and good government of the whole,
without injustice or oppression to parts; and

Sccondly, That the representatives of the people, and eape-
tially the people themselves, are secure against gencral corrup-
don, and may be trusted, therefore, with the exercise of power.

Whoever argues against these principles argues against the
practicability of all free governments. And whoever admits
these, must admit, or cannot deny, that power is as safe in the
hands of Congrese as in thoge of other representative bodies,
Congress is not irresponsible. Its members are agents of the
people, elected by them, answerable to them, and liable to be
displaced or superseded, at their pleasure ; and they possess as
fair a claim to the confidence of the people, while they continue
to deverve it, a8 any other public political agente.

If, then, Sir, the manifest intention of the Convention, and
the contemporary admission of both friends and foes, prove any
thing; if the plain text of the instrument itself, as well as the
necessary implication from other provisions, prove any thing;
if the carly legislation of Congress, the course of judicial de- 5
cisions, acquiesced in by all the States for forty years, prove r
any thing,— then it is proved that there is a supreme law, and
4 final interpreter,

My fourth and last proposition, Mr. President, was, that any

BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 491

authority. It would not be in the government, and above the
government, at the same time. But though secession may be a
more respectable mode of attaining the object than nullification,
it is not more truly revolutionary. Each, and both, resist the
constitutional authorities; each, and both, would sever the
Union, and subyert the government. Le

Mr. President, having detained the Senate so long already, I »
will not now examine at length the ordinance and laws of
South Carolina, These papers are well drawn for their pur-
pose. Their authors understood their own objects. They are
called a peaceable remedy, and we bave been told that South
Carolina, after all, intends nothing but a lawsuit. A very few
words, Sir, will show the nature of this peaceable remedy, and |, J
of the lawsuit which South Carolina contemplates.

In the first place, the ordinance declares the law of last July,
und all other laws of the United States laying duties, to be abe
solutely null and void, and makes it unlawful for the constituted
authorities of the United States to enforce the payment of such
duties. It ia therefore, Sir, an indictable offence, at this mo
ment, in South Carolina, for any person to be concerned in cot
lecting revenue under the laws of the United States. It being
declared, by what is considered « fundarnental law of the State,
unlawful to collect these duties, an indictment lies, of course,
aguinst any one concerned in such collection; and he is, on
general principles, liable to be punished by fine and imprison-
ment. The terms, it is true, are, that it is unlawful “to enforce
the payment of duties”; but every custom-house officer enforces
payment while he detains the goods in order to obtain such
payment. The ordinance, therefore, reaches every body con-
cerned in the collection of the duties.

‘This is the first step in the prosecution of the peaccable rem-
edy. The second is more decisive, By the act commonly
called the replevin law, any person, whose goods are seized or
detained by the collector for the payment of duties, may sue
out a writ of replevin, and, by virtue of that writ, the goods are
to be restored to him. A writ of replevin is a writ which the
sheriff is bound to execute, and for the execution of which he
is bound to employ force, if necessary. He may call out the
vosse, and must do so, if resistance be made. ‘This posse may
be armed or unwrmed. It may come forth with military array,

BETWEEN SOVEREIUN STATES. 493

1._A forcible scizure of goods, before duties are paid or se-
cured, by the power of the State, civil and

2. The taking away, by the most effectual means in ber
power, of all legal redress in the courts of the United States;
the confining of judicial proceedings to her own State tribunals;
and the compelling of her judges and jurors of these her own
courts to take an oath, beforehand, that they will decide all
cases according to the ordinance, and the acts passed under it;
that is, that they will decide the canse one way. ‘They do not
swear to iry it, on its own merits; they only swear to decile
it as nullification requires,

‘The character, Sir, of these provisions defies comment.
‘Their object is a8 plain as their means are extraordinary. They
propose direct resistance, by the whole power of the State, to
laws of Congress, and cut off, by methods deemed adequate,
any redress by legal and jadicial authority. ‘They arrest legis-
tation, defy the executive, and banish the judicial power of this
government. They authorize and command acts to be done
und done by force, both of numbers and of arms, which, if
done, and done by force, are clearly acts of rebellion and trea-
son,

Such, Sir, are the laws of South Carolina; such, Sir, is the
peaceable remedy of nullification. Has not nullification reached,
Sir, even thus early, that point of direct and forcible resist-
ance to law to which I intimated, three years ago, it plainly
tended?

And now, Mr, President, what is the reason for passing laws
like these? What are the oppressions experienced under the
Union, calling for measures which thus threaten to sever and
destroy it? What invasions of public liberty, what rain to prie
vate happiness, what long list of rights violated, or wrongs un-
redressed, is to justify to the country, to posterity, and to the
world, this aseault upon the free Constitution of the United
States, this great and glorious work of our fathers? At this
very moment, Sir, the whole land smiles in peace, and rejoices
in plenty. A generl and a high prosperity pervades the coun-
try; and, judging by the common standard, by increase of pop-
ulation and wealth, or judging by the opinions of that portion
of her people not embarked in these dangerous and desperate
messures, this joe ise resenae ere ered herself.

vou. mt *

ee |

BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 495 |

that Congress has exceeded ite just power by laying duties op

imports, intended for the protection of manufactures. ‘This ix

the opinion of South Carolina; and on the strength of that opin+

jon she nullifies the laws. Yet has the rest of the country no

Tight to its opinion also? Is one State to sit sole arbitress?

‘She maintains that those laws are plain, deliberate, and palpa-

ble violations of the Constitution; that she has a sovereign right

to decide this matter; and that, having so decided, she is author- |
ized to resist their execution by her own sovereign power; and
she declares that she will resist it, though such resistance should
shatter the Union into atoms.

Mr. President, I do not intend to discnes the propriety of these
Jaws at large; but I will ask, How are they shown to be thus
plainly and palpably unconstitutional? Have they no counte-
nance at all in the Constitution itself? Are they quite new in
the history of tae government? Are they a sudden and violent
usurpation on the rights of the States? Sir, what will the civil-
ized world say, what will posterity say, when they learn that
similar laws have existed from the very foundation of the gov
emment, that for thirty years the power was never questioned,
and that no State in the Union has more freely and unequivo~
cally admitted it than South Carolina herself?

To lay and collect duties and imposts is an express power
granted by the Constitution to Congress. It is, also, an exclu
sive power; for the Constitution as expressly prohibits all the
States from exercising it themselves. This express and exelu-
sive power is nnlimited in the terms of the grant, but is attended
with two specific restrictions: first, that all duties and imposts
shall be equal in all the States; second, that no duties shall be
laid on exports. ‘The power, then, being granted, and being at-
tended with these two restrictions, and no more, who iz to im-
pose a third restriction on the general words of the grant? If
the power to Iny duties, as known nmong all other nations, and
as known in all our history, and as it was perfectly understood
when the Constitution was adopted, includes a right of discrim-
inating while exercising the power, and of laying some duties
heavier and eome lighter, for the eake of encouraging our own
domestic products, what authority is there for giving to the
words usel in the tution a new, narrow, and unusual
meaning? All the limitations which the Constitution intended.

BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 497

case, to protection. In other words, she denics the power of
piscrimiwaTion. She does not, and cannot, complain of exers-
sive taxation; on the contrary, she professes to be willing to pay
any amount for revenue, merely as revenue; and up to the pres-
ent moment there is no eurplus of revenue. Her grievance, then,
thet plain and palpable violation of the Constitution which sh»
insists has taken place, is simply the exercise of the power of
piscrammxation, Now, Sir, is the exercise of this power of dis-
crimination plainly and palpably unconstitutional ?

I have already said, the power to Jay duties is given by the
Constitution in broad and general terms, There is also con
ferred on Congress the whole power of regulating commerce, in
another distinct provision, Is it clear and palpable, Sir, can any
man say it is a case beyond doubt, that, under these two pow-
ers, Congress may not justly discriminate, in laying duties, for
the purpose of countervailing the policy of foreign nations, or of fa-
voring our own home productions? Sir, what ought to conclude
this question for ever, as it would seem to me, ix, that the regue
lation of commerce and the imposition of duties are, in all com-
mercial nations, powers avowedly and constantly exercised for
this very end. ‘That undeniable truth ought to settle the ques-
tion; because the Constitution ought to be considered, when it
uses well-known language, as using it in its well-known sense.
But it is equally undeniable, that it has been, from the very first,
fally believed that this power of discrimination was conferred on
Congress; and the Constitution was itself recommended, urged
upon the people, and enthusiastically inaisted on in some of the
States, for that very reason. Not that, at that time, the coun-
try was extensively engaged in manufactures, especially of the
kinds now existing. But the trades and crafts of the seaport
towns, the business of the artisans and manual laborers, —those
employments, the work in which supplies so great a portion of
the daily wants of all classes,—all these looked to the new
Constitution ax a source of relief from the severe distress whick
followed the war. It would, Sir, be unpardonable, at so late an
hour, to go into details on this point; but the trath is as Ihave
stated. ‘The papers of the day, the resolutions of public meet-
ings, the debates in the conventions, all that we open our eyes
upon in the history of the times, prove it.

Sir, the honorable gentleman from South Carolina has re

42°

expressed
Fewaida; ‘and inimunities, for the promotion of 7

‘merce, trades, and manufactures,” The
Bert om thie or varlous oltier jropoellnen telliat
the only inference from this omission is, that nei
tee nor the Convention thought it proper to at
“to establish public institutions, rewards, and imn
promotion of mannfactures, and other interests.
supposed it had done cnough,—at any rate, it h
intended, — when it had given to Congress, in get
power to lay imposts and the power to regulate |
to be argued, from its omission to give more,
take back what it had already given. It had gi
power; it had given the regulation of trade;
deem it necessary to give the further and distin
tablishing public institutions.

bidet beinalainrty atic
Tarstion of Mr. Martin to the N
einen ter sce Mes Mata oan g
stitution, that it did not contain the power of pre
if the gentleman will look again at what Mr, |
will find, I think, that what Mr. Martin complained +

BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES, 499

the Conatitution, by ita prohibitions on the States, had taken
away from the States themselves the power of protecting their
own manufactures by daties on imports. This is undoubtedly
trae; but T find no expression of Mr. Martin intimating that the
Constitution had not conferred on Congress the same power
which it had thus taken from the States. “

But, Sir, let us go to the first Congress; let ns look in upon |
this and the other house, at the first session of their organiza-/
tion.

We see, in both houses, men distinguished among the fram-
ers, friends, and advocates of the Constitution, We see in
both, those who had drawn, discussed, and matured the instra-
ment in the Convention, explained and defended it before the
people, and were now elected members of Congress, to put the
new government into motion, and to carry the powers of the
Constitution into beneficial execution. At the head of the gov-
emment was Wasnineron himself, who had been President of
the Convention; and in his cabinet were others most thoroughly
nequainted with the history of the Constitution, and distin-
guished for the part taken in its discussion. If these persons
were not acquainted with the meaning of the Constitation, if
they did not understand the work of their own hands, who can
understand it, or who shall now interpret it to us?

Sir, the volame which records the proceedings and debates of
the first session of the Honse of Representatives lies before me.
1 open it, and I find that, having provided for the administration
of the necessary oaths, the very first measure proposed for con
sideration ig, the laying of imposts; and in the very first com
mittee of the whole into which the House of Representativer
ever resolved itself, on this its earliest subject, and in this ite
very first debate, the duty of so laying the imposts as to encour
age manufactures was advanced and enlarged upon by almost
every speaker, and doubted or denied by none, The first gen-
tleman who suggests this as the clear duty of Congress, and a8
fan object necessary to be attended to, is Mr. Fitzsimons, of
Pennsylvanian; the second, Mr. White, of Vixorta; the third,
Mr. Tucker, of Sovrn Canontxa.

Bot the great leader, Sir, on this occasion, was Mr. Madison.
Was he likely to know the intentions of the Convention and the
people? Was fe likely to understand the Constitution? At

|

BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. UL

In the same debate, Sir, Mr. Burk, from Sovre Canontna,
supported a duty on hemp, for the express purpose of encourag-
ing its growth on the strong lands of South Carolina. “ Cote
ton," he said, “was also in contemplation among them, and, if
good seed could be procured, he hoped might succeed.” After-
wards, Sir, the cotton was obtained, ita at ee ees
and it did succeed, Mr. Smith, a very
from the same Srave, observed: “Tt has been ria asia fe iy,
that the States which adopted this Constitution
ministration would be conducted with # favorable hand. a
manufacturing States wished the encouragement of manufac
tures, the maritime States the encouragement of ship-building,
and the agricultural States the encouragement of agriculture.”

Sir, I will detain the Senate by reading no more extracts from
these debates. T have already shown a majority of the members
of Sovrn Canouta, in this very first session, acknowledging
this power of protection, voting for its exercise, and proposing
its extenzion to their own products. Similar propositions came
from Virginia; und, indeed, Sir, in the whole debate, at whnt-
tver page you open the volume, you find the power admit.
ted, and you find it upplied to the protection of particular ar
ticles, or not applied, according to the discretion of Congress.
No man denied the power, no man doubted it; the only ques-
tions were, in regard to the several articles proposed to be taxed,
whether they were fit subjects for protection, and what the
amount of that protection onght to be, Will gentlemen, Sir,
now answer the argument drawn from these proceedings of the
first Congress? Will they undertake to deny that that Con-
gress did act on the avowed principle of protection? Or, if they
admit it, will they tell us how those who framed the Conatitu-
tion fell, thus early, into this great mistake about its meaning?
‘Will they tell us how it should happen that they had so soon
forgotten their own sentiments and their own purposes? T con-
fess have seen no answer to this argument, nor any respect
able attempt to answer it, And, Sir, how did this debate ter-
minate? What law was passed? There it stands, Sir, arnong
the atatates, the second law in the book. It has a preamble,
and that preamble expressly recites, tht the duties which it im-
poses are laid “for the support of government, for the discharge
of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and pro-

BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 500
cent. Something beside revenue, certainly, was intended in
this; and, in fact, the law cut up our whole commerce with
India in that article.

It is, Sir, only within a few years that Carolina has denied

the constitutionality of these protective laws ‘The gentleman
himself has narrated to us the trae history of her proceedings on
this point, He says, that, after the passing of the law of 1528,
despairing then of being able to abolish the system of protec-
tion, political men went forth among the people, and set up the
doctrine that the system was unconstitutional. “ And the peo-
ple," says the honorable gentleman, “received the doctrine.”
This, I believe, is true, Sir. The people did then receive the
doctrine; they had never entertained it before. Down to that
period, the constitationality of these laws had been no more
doubted in South Carolina than elsewhere. And I suspect it is
true, Sir, and I deem it a great misfortune, that, to the present
moment, a great portion of the people of the State have never
yet seen more than one side of the argument. 1 believe that
thousands of honest men are involved in scenes now passing,
led away by one-sided views of the question, and following
their leaders by the impulses of an unlimited confidence. De-
pend upon it, Sir, if we can avoid the shock of arms, a day for
reconsideration and reflection will come; trath and reason will
act with their accustomed force, and the public opinion of South
Carolina will be restored to its usual constitutional and patriotic
tone.
But, Sir, Thold South Carolina to her ancient, her cool, her
uninfluenced, her deliberate opinions. I hold her to her own
admissions, nay, to her own claims and pretensions, in 1789, in
the first Congress, and to her acknowledgments and avowed sen-
timents through a long series of succeeding years. 1 hold her
to the principles on which she led Congress to act in 1816; or,
if she have changed her own opinions, I claim some respect for
those who atill retain the same opinions, I say she is precluded
from asserting that doctrines, which she has herself so long and
20 ably sustained, are plain, palpable, and dangerous violations
of the Constitution,

Mr. President, if the friends of nullification should be able to
propagate their opinions, and give them practical effect, they
would, in my judgment, prove themeelves the most eki}fal “ar

BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 505

rolving on me, here or elsewhere, in attempting to maintain the
cause. Iam bound to it by indissoluble ties of affection and
duty, and I shall cheerfully partake in its fortunes and its fate
I am ready to perform my own appropriate part, whenever and
wherever the occasion may call on me, and to take my chance
among those upon whom blows may fall first and fall thickest.
I shall exert every faculty I possess in aiding to prevent the
Constitution from being nullified, destroyed, or impaired; and
even should I see it fall, I will still, with a voice feeble, perhaps,
but earnest as ever issued from human lips, and with fidelity
and zeal which nothing shall extinguish, call on the PEOPLE
to come to its rescue.

‘VOL. 111. 4g

‘THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 207

of resolutions adopted at a public meeting in Boston, of a remarkably
temperate and argumentative chametor, in which the prevailing distress
was traced mainly to the removal of the deposits, and the restoration of
the friendly relations between the government and the Bank of the Unit.
od Stace was mentioned as tho only meunure of roliof likely to prove
effectual, Tt was stated in one of the resolutions, that the meeting con.
sisted of persons “of all classes and professions, entertaining various
and opposite opinions upon the question of rechartering the oxisting na-
tional bank or of chartering a new one, and that few of them have any
pecuniasy interest involved in the fate of that institution.”

‘The resolutions having been read, Mr. Webster addressed the Senate
ws follows: —

Mx. Paxsionnt,—I wish to bear unequivocal and decided tes-
timony to the respectability, intelligence, and disinterestedness
of the long list of gentlemen at whose instance this mecting
was assembled. The meeting, Sir, was connected with no party
purpose whatever, It had an object more sober, more cogent,
more interesting to the whole community, than mere party
questions. The Senate will perceive in the tone of these ress
olutions no intent to exaggerate or inflame; no disposition to
get up excitement or to spread alarm. I hope the restrained
and serious manner, the moderation of temper, and the exem-
plary candor of these resolutions, in connection with the plain
traths which they contain, will give them just weight with the
Senate. Tassure you, Sir, the members composing this meet-
ing were neither capitalists, nor speculators, nor alurmists,
‘They are merchants, traders, mechanics, artisans, and others en-
gaged in the active business of life. They are of the muscular
portion of society; and they desire to lay before Congress an
evil which they feel to prees sorely on their occupations, their
eurings, their labor, and their property; und to express their
conscientious conviction of the causes of that evil. If intelli-
gence, if pure intention, if decp and wide-spread connection
with business in its various branches, if thorough practical
knowledge and experience, if inseparable union between their
own prosperity and the prosperity of the whole country, au-
thorize men to speak, and give them a right to be heard,
the sentiments of this meeting ought to make an impression.
For one, Sir, I entirely concur in all their opinions. 1 adopt
theii first fourteen resolutions, without alteration or qualifica-

‘THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 509

In the next place, Sir, 1 agree entirely with the eleventh Bos
ton resolution, as to the causes of this embarrassment. We
were in a state of high prosperity, commercial and
Every branch of business was pushed far, and the credit as well
aa the capital of the country employed nearly to ite utmost lim-
its. In this state of affairs, some degree of over-trading doubtless
took place, which, however, if nothing else had oceurred, would
have been seasonably corrected by the ordinary und necessary
operation of things. But on this palmy state of business the late
measure of the Secretary fell, and has acted on it with powerful
and lamentable effect. I am of opinion, that euch a cause is
entirely adequate to produce the effect, that it is wholly natural,
and that it ought to have been foreseen that it would produce
exactly such consequences. Those must have looked at the
surface of things only, as it seems to me, who thought other
wise, and who expected that such an operation could be gone
through with without producing a very serious shock.

‘The treasury in a very short time has withdrawn from the
bank eight millions of dollars, within a fraction. This call, of
course, the bank has been obliged to provide for, and could not
provide for without more or less ineonveriience to the public,
‘The mere withdrawal of eo large a sum from hands
holding and using it, and the transfer of it, through the bank
collecting, and through another bank loaning it, if it can loan it,
into other hands, is itself an operation which, if conducted
denly, must produce considerable inconvenience. And this is
all that the Secretary seems to have anticipated, But this is
but the smallest part of the whole evil. The great evil arises
from the new attitude in which the government places itself
towards the bank. Every thing is now in a false position.
‘The government, the Bank of the United States, and the State
banks, are all out of place. They are deranged, and separated,
and jostling against each other. Instead of amity, reliance, and
mutual succor, relations of jealousy, of distrust, of hostility even,
are springing up between these parties. All act on the defer
sive; each looks out for itself; and the public interest is crushed
between the upper and the nether millstone. All this should
have been foreseen. It is idle to aay that these evils might have
been prevented by the bank, if it had exerted itself to prevent
them, That isa mere matter of opinion: it may be true, or ir

43°

THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. on

those to whom it is shipped; and these bills arc bought and
discounted, or cashed by the bank. When the bank shall cease
to buy, as it must cease, consequences cannot but be felt much
severer even than those now experienced. This is inevitable.
But, Six, I go no farther into particular statements. My opin«
ion, I repeat, is, that the present distress is immediately occa-
sioned, beyond all doubt, by the removal of the deposits; and
that jast such consequences might have been, and ought to have
been, foreseen from that mensure, as we do now perceive and
feel around us.

Sir, 1 do not believe, nevertheless, that these consequences
were foreseen, With such foresight, the deposits, I think, would
not have been touched. The measure has operated more deeply
and more widely than was expected. We all may find proof of
this in the conversations of every hour. No one, who seeks to
acquaint himself with the opinions of men, in and out of Con-
gress, can doubt, that, if the act were now proposed, it would
receive very little encouragement or support.

Being of opinion that the removal of the deposits has pro-
duced the pressure as its immediate effect, not so much by with-
drawing a large sum of money from circulation, as by alarming
the confidence of the community, by breaking in on the well-
adjusted relations of the government and the bank, I agree
again with the Boston resolutions, that the natural remedy is a
restoration of the relation in which the bank has heretofore
stood to the government, I agree, Sir, that this question ought
to be settled, and to be settled soon. And yet, if it be decided
that the present state of things shall exiat, if it be the determi-
nation of Congress to do nothing in order to put an end to the
unnatural, distrastful, half-belligerent relation between the gov-
ernment and the bank, Ido not look for any great relief to the
community, or any early quieting of the public agitation. On
the contrary, I expect increased difficulty and incrensed disquict.

‘The public moneys are now out of the Bank of the United
States. There is no law regulating their custody or fixing
their place, ‘They are at the disposal of the Secretary of the
Treasury, to be kept where he pleases, as he pleases, and the
places of their custody to be changed as often as he pleases.

1 do not think that this is a state of things in which the coun-
ty is likely to acquiesce,

‘THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 51s

ble, I regara its attainment as utterly impracticable and hope-
tess, I lay that scheme, therefore, out of my contemplation.

There is, then, Sir, the rechartering of the present bank; and,
lastly, there is the establishment of a new bank, The first of
these received the sanction of the last Congress, but the meas-
ure was negatived by the President. The other, the creation of
a new bank, has not been bronght forward in Congress, but it
has excited attention out of doors, and has been proposed in
some of the State legislatures. observe, Sir, that a proposition
has been submitted for consideration, by a very intelligent gen-
tleman in the legislature of Massachusetts, recommending the
establishment of a new bank, with the following provisions :—

“1, The capital stock to be fifty millions of dollars,

“2. Tho stockholders of the present United Stntos Bank to be per-
mitted to subscribe an amount equal to the stock they now hold.

“8. The United States to be stockholders to the same extent they now:
are, and to appoint the same number of directors.

“4. The subscription to the remaining fifteen millions to be distribut.
ed to the several Stntes in proportion to federal numbers, or in some
other just and equal ratio; the instalments payable either in eash or in
funded stock of the Stnte, bearing interest at five per cent.

“5. No branch of the bank to be established in any State, unloss by
permission of its legislaturc.

“6. The branches of the bank established in the several States to be
liable to taxation by those States, respectively, in the same manner and
to the same extent only with their own banks,

“7. Such States as may become subscribers to the stock to have the
right of appointing a certain number, not exceeding one third, of the di-
rectors in the branch of their own State,

“8, Stock not subscribed for under the foregoing provisians to be
open to subscription by individual citizens.”

A project not altogether dissimilar has been started in the
legislature of Pennsylvania. These proceedings show, at least,
# conviction of the necessity of some bank created by Congress.
Mr. President, on this subject [ have no doubt whatever. 1
think a national bank proper and necessary. | believe it to be
the only practicable remedy for the evils we feel, and the only
effectual security against the greater evils which we fear. Not,
Sir, that there is any magic in the name of a bank; nor that a
national bank works by any miracle or mystery. But, looking

THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS, 75

observe, that, while it may well be inferred, from my known sen-
timents, that I should not myself deem any alterations in tae
charter beyond those proposed by the bill of 1852 highly essen-
tial, yet it is a case in which, I am aware, nothing can be effected
for the good of the country without making some approaches to
unity of opinion. I think, therefore, that, in the hope of accom-
plishing an object of so much importance, liberal concessions
should be made. T lay out of the case all consideration of any
especial claim, or any legal right, of the present stockholders to
a renewal of their charter. No such right can be pretended;
doubtless none such is pretended. ‘The stockholders must stand
like other individuals, and their interest must be regarded so far,
and so far only, a8 may be judged for the public good. Mod-
ifications of the present charter should, T think, be proposed, sueh
as may remove all reasonable grounds of jealousy in all quar-
ters, whether in States, in other institutions, or in individuals;
such, too, as may tend to reconcile the intcrests of the great city
where the bank is with those of another great city; and, in short,
the question should be met with a sincere disposition to aceom-
plish, by united and friendly counsels, a measure which shall
allay fears and promote confidence, at the same time that it se-
cures to the country « sound, creditable, uniform currency, and
to the government a safe deposit for the public treasure, and an
important auxiliary in its financial operations.

I repeat, then, Sir, that T am in favor of renewing the charter
of the present bank, with such alterations as may be expected to
meet the srenerul sense of the country.

And now, Mr. President, to avoid all unfounded inferences, 7
wish to say, that these suggestions are to be regarded as wholly
my own. They are made without the knowledge of the bank,
and with no understanding or concert with any of its friends, 1
have not understood, indeed, that the bank itself proposes to ap-
ply, at present, for a renewal of its charter. Whether it does au
or not, my suggestions are connected with no such purpose of
the bank, nor with any other purpose which it may be supposed
to entertain. I take up the subject on public grounds, purely
and exclusively.

And, Sir, in order to repel all inferences of another sort, 1 wish
to state, with equal distinctness, that Ido not undertake to speak
the sentiments of any individual heretofore opposed to the bank,

‘THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 517

I cannot consent to let the opportunity pass, without a few
obeervations upon what we have now heard. Sir, the remarks
of the honorable member from New York are full of the most
portentous import. They are words, not of cheering or con-
solation, but of ill-boding signification; and, as they spread far
and wide, in their progress from the capital through the country,
they will carry with them, if I mistake not, gloom, apprehen-
sion, and dismay. I consider the declarations which the honor-
able member has now made, as expressing the settled purpose
of the administration on the great question which so much agi«
tates the country.

Here Mr. Wright rose, and said that he had given his opinion as am
individual, and that he had no authority to speak for the administration.
Mr. Webster continued: —

I perfectly well understand, Sir, all the gentleman's disclaim
ers and dermurrers, He speaks, to be sure, in his own name
only; but, from his political connections, his station, and his re-
lations, 1 know full well that he has not, on this occasion, spoken
one word which has not been deliberately weighed and eonsid-
ered by others as well as himself.

He has wnnounced, therefore, to the country, two things clearly
and intelligibly: —

First, that the present system (if system it is to be culled) is
to remain unaltered. The public moneys are to remain, as they
now are, in the State banks, and the whole public revenue is
hereafter to be collected through the agency of such hanks.
‘This is the first point. The gentleman has declared his full
and fixed intention to support the administration in this course,
and therefore it cannot be doubted that this course has been
determined on by the administration. No plan is to be laid be-
fore Congress; no system is to be adopted by authority of law.
‘The effect of a law would be to place the public deposits beyond
the power of daily change, and beyond the absolute control of
the executive. But no such fixed arrangement is to take place:
‘The whole is to be left completely at the pleasure of the Seere«
tary of the Treasury, who may change the public moneys from
place to place, and from bank to bank, a# often as he pleases,

‘The second thing now clearly made known, and of which, ine
deed, there have been many previous intimations, is, Sir, that «

VOLs thle ad

THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSrTS. 519

grees cannot create it, but must take such as is or may be already
created. Ido not agree to the soundness of this reasoning. Sup-
pose there were no State banks; ay the gentleman admits the
necessity of a bank in that case, how can he hold such discordant
opinions as to assert that Congress could not, in that case, cre-
ate one? The agency of a bank is necessary ; and, because it
is necessary, we may ose it, provided others will make a bank
for us; but if they will not, we cannot make one for ourselves,
however necessary! ‘This is the proposition,

For myself, I must confess that 1am too obtuse to ace the
distinction between the power of creating a bank for the use of
the government, and the power of taking into its use banks
already created. ‘To make and to use, or to make and to hire,
must require the same power in this case, and be either both
constitutional or both equally unconstitutional; except that
every consideration of propriety and expediency and conven-
jence requires that Congress should make a bank which will
suit its own purposes, answer its own ends, and be subject to
its own control, rather than use other banks, which were not
created for any such purpose, are not suited to it, and over which
Congress can exercise no supervision.

On one or two other points, Sir, I wish to say a word. The
gentleman differs from me as to the degree of pressure on the
country. He admits that, in some parts, there is some degree
of pressure; in large cities, he supposes there may be distress;
but he asserts that everywhere else the pressure is limited ; that
everywhere it is greatly exaggerated; and that it will soon be
over, Thia is mere matter of opinion. It is capable of no pre-
cise and absolute proof or disproof. The avenues of knowledge
ure equally open to all. But I can truly say, that 1 differ from
the gentleman on this point most materially and most widely.
From the information 1 have received during the last few weeks,
1 have every reason to believe that the pressure is very severe,
has become very general, and ia fast increasing; and I see no
chance of ite diminution, unless measures of relief shall be
adopted by the government.

But the gentleman has discovered, or thinks he has discov+
ered, motives for the complaints which arise on all sides. It is
all but an attempt to bring the administration into disfavor.
‘This alone is the reason why the removal of the deposits is so

THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. ‘S21

the gentleman from Pennsylvania indicative of an intention te
direct the hostility of the country against the bank, and to ase
cribe to the bank alone the existing public distress, But it was
the duty of the government to have foreseen the consequenves
of the removal of the deposits; and gentlemen have no right
first to attuck the bank, charge it with great offences, and thus
attempt to shake its credit, and then complain when the bank
undertakes to defend itself, and to avoid the great risk which
must threaten it from the hostility of the government to its prop-
erty and character. The government has placed itself in an ex-
traordinary relation, not only toward the banks, but toward the
business and currency of the country, by the removal of the depos+
its. ‘The bills of the bank are lawfal currency in all payments
to government; yet we see the executive warring on the credit
of this national currency. We have geen the institution as-
sailed, which, by law, was provided to supply the revenue. Is
not this a new course? Does the recollection of the gentleman
furnish any such instance? What other institation could stand
against such hostility? The Bank of England could not stand
against ita single how. The Bank of France would perish at
the first breath of such hostility. But the Bank of the United
States has snstained its credit under every disadvantage, and
has ample means to sustain it to the end, Its credit is in no
degree shaken, though its operations are necessarily curtailed,
What has the bank done? The gentleman from New York
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania have alleged that it is not
because of the removal of the deposits that there is pressure in
the country, but because of the conduct of the bank. The latter
gentleman, especially, alleges that the bank began to curtail its
discounts before the removal of the deposits, and at a time when
it was only expected that they would be removed. Indeed! and
did not the bank, by taking this course, prove that it foresaw
correctly what waa to take place? and because it adopted a
course of preparation, in order to break the blow which was
abont to fall upon it, this also is to be added to the grave cata-
logue of its offences. The bank, it seers, has curtailed to the
amount of nine millions. Has she, indeed? And is not that
exactly the amount of deposits which the government has with:
drawn? The bank, then, has curtailed precisely so much as the
government has drawn away from it. No other bank in the
44°

THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 523

fathers did in the time of the Revolution, and bas called on the
people to rise and put down this money power, as our ancestors
put down the oppressive rule of Great Britain! All this is well
calculated to produce the effect which is intended; und all this,
too, helps further to shake confidence. It all injures the bank, it
all compels it to curtail more and more.

Sir, I venture to predict that the longer gentlemen pursue the
experiment which they have devised, of collecting the public
revenue by State banks, the more perfectly will they be satisfied
that it cannot succeed. The gentleman has suffered himself to
be led away by false analogies. He says, that when the preaent
bank expires, there will be the same laws in existence as when the
old bank expired. Now, would it not be the inference of every
wise mun, that there will also be the same inconveniences as were
then felt? It would be useful to remember the state of things
which existed when the first bank was created, in 1791; and
that a high degree of convenience, which amounted to political
necessity, compelled Congress thus early to create a national
bank. Its charter expired in 1811, and the war came on the
next year. The State banks Immediately stopped payment;
and, before the war had continued twelve months, there was a

* proposition for another United States Bank; and this proposal
was renewed from year to year, and from session to session,
Who supported this proposition? The very individuals who
had opposed the former bank, and who had now become con-
vineed of the indispensable necessity of such an institution. It
has been verified by experience, that the bank is as necessary in
time of peace as in time of war; and perhaps more necessary,
for the purpose of facilitating the commercial operations of the
country, collecting the revenue, and sustaining the currency. It
has been alleged, that we are to be left in the same condition
as when the old bank expired, and, of course, we are to be sub-
jected to the same inconveniences. Sir, why should we thus
suffer all experience to be lost upon us? For the convenience
of the government and of the country, there rust be some bank,
at least I think 80; and I should wish to hear the views of | ¢
administration 2s to this point,

The notes and bills of the Bank of the United States have
heretofore been circulated everywhere; they meet the wants of
every one; they have furnished a safe and most convenient cur

THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 525

not tringuillize the country and give it repose. The question is
before the country; all agree that it must be settled by that coun-

tion which may prevent it from being submitted to the calin
judgment of the people. Yet I have not lost faith in public sen-
timent. Events are occurring daily, which will make the people
think for themselves. The industrious, the enterprising, will see
the danger which surrounds them, and will awake. If the ma-
jority of the people shall then say there is no necessity for a con-
tinuance of this sound and universal currency, I will acquiesce
in their judgment, because I enn do no otherwise than acquiesce.
If the gentleman from New York is right in his reading of the
prognostics, and public opinion shall settle down in the way
which he desires; and if it be determined here that the public
money is to be placed at the disposal of the executive, with
absolute power over the whole subject of its custody and gnar-
dinnship, and that the general currency is to be left to the con-
trol of banks created by twenty-four States;—then I say, that,
in my judgment, one strong bond of our social and political
Union is severed, and one great: pillar of our prosperity is broken
and prostrate,

Mr. Tallmadge of New York spoke in roply to Mr. Webster, and de-
nied the constitutional power of Congress to create a bank, although he
maintained the power of the Secretary to make use of the State banks.

‘Tho subject being resumed the next day, January 31, Mr. Webster

It is not to be denied, Sir, that the financial affnirs of the
country have come, at last, to such a state, that every man can
see plainly the question which is presented for the decision of
Congress. We have, unquestionably, before us, now, the views
of the executive, as to the nature and extent of the evils alleged
to exist; and its notions, also, as to the proper remedy for such
evils, That remedy is short, It is, simply, the aystem of ad-
ministration already adopted by the Secretary of the Treasury,
and which is nothing but this, that, whenever he shall think
proper fo remove the public moneys from the Bank of the United
‘States, and place them wherever else he pleases, this act shall
stand as the settled policy and system of the country; and this
system shall rest upon the authority of the executive alone,

THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS 527

they both deny the power of Congress to establish a bank.
Now, Sir, 1 shall not argue the question ut this time; but I will
repeat what I said yesterday. [t does appear to me, that the
late measures of the administration prove incontestably, and by
a very short course of reasoning, the constitutionality of the
bank, What J snid yesterday, and what I say to-day, is, that,
since the Secretary, and all who agree with the Secretary, admit
the necessity of the agency of some bank to carry on the affairs
of government, [ am at a loss to see where they could find
power to use a State bank, and yet find no power to create a
Bunk of the United States. ‘The gentleman's perception may
be sharp enough to see a distinction between these two
cases; but it is too minute for my grasp, It is not said, in
terme, in the Constitution, that Congress may create a bank;
nor is it eaid, in terms, that Congres may use a bank created
by a State. How, then, does it get authority to do either? No
otherwise, certainly, than as it possesses power to pase all
laws necessary and proper for carying its enumerated powers
into effect, If a law were now before us for confirming the ar-
rangement of the Sceretary, and adopting twenty State banks
into the service of the United States, as fiscal agents of the
government, where would the honorable gentleman find author
ity for passing soch a law? Nowhere but in that clause of the
Constitution to which 1 have referred; that is to say, the chiuse
which authorizes Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper
for carrying its granted powers into effect, If such a law were
before us, and the honorable member proposed to vote for it, he
would be obliged to prove that the ageney of a bank ix a thing
both necessary and proper for carrying on the government. Ii
he conld not make this ont, the law would be unconstitutional.
We see the Secretary admits the necessity of this bank agency;
the gentleman himself admits it, nay, contends for it, A bank
agency is his main reliance. All the hopes expreased by himself
or his colleague, of being able to get on with the prezent state of
things, rest on the expected efficiency of a bank agency.

A bank, then, or some bank, being admitted to be both ne+
cessary and proper for carrying on the government, and the Sec-
retary proposing, cn that very ground, and no other, to cm-
ploy the State banks, how does he make out a distinction be-
tween passing a law for using a necessary agent, already created,

‘THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 520

of credit, or make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in

payment of debts." Congress, then, and Congress only, can
coin money, and regulate the value thereof. Now, Sir, Ttake it
to be a truth, which has grown into an admitted maxim with all
the best writers and the best informed public men, that those
whose daty it is to protect the community against the evils of a
debaged coin, are bound also to protect it againat the stili greater
evils of excessive issues of paper,

If the public require protection, says Mr, Ricardo, against ba:
money, which might be imposed on them by an undue mixture
of alloy, how much more necessary is such protection when
paper moncy forms almost the whole of the circulating medium
of the country!

It is not to be doubted, Sir, that the Constitution intended
that Congress should exercise a regulating power, a power both
necessary and salutary, over that which should constitute the
actual money of the country, whether that money were coin or
the representative of coin, So if has always been considered:
80 Mr. Madison considered it, as may be seen in his message
of the 3d of December, 1816. He there says: —

“ Upon this general view of the subject, it is obvious that there is only
wanting to the fiscal prosperity of the government the restoration of
uniform medium of exchange. The resources and the faith of the
nation, displayed in the system which Congross has established, insure
respect and confidence both at home and abroad, The local accumola.
tions cf the revenue have already enabled the treasury to meet the
public engagements in the local currency of most of the States; and it
# expected that the same cause will produce the same effect throughout
the Union. But for the intorests of the community at large, as well as
for the purposes of the treasury, it ix exential that the nation should
possess a currency of equal value, credit, and use, wherever it may
circulate, The Constitution has intrusted Congress exclusively with the
power of creating and regulating a currency of that description; and
the measures which were taken during the Inst session, in execution of
the power, give every promise of success. The Bank of the United
States has been organized under auspices the most favorable, and oan-
not fail to be un important auxiliary to those measures.”

The State banks put forth paper as representing coin. As
such representative, it obtains cireulation; it becomes the money
of the country; but its amount depends on the will of four han-

You. Mm. 45

‘THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. ‘531

strange that the gentleman did not draw an exactly opposite in-
ference from bis own premises. He says he sees the Northern
friends of the bank and the Southern opposers of the bank
agreeing for the restoration of the deposits, This is tne; and
does not this prove that the question is a separate one? On the
one question, the North and the South are together; on the
other, they separate. Either their apprehensions are obtnse, or
else this very statement shows the questions to be distinct.

Sir, since the gentleman has referred to the North and the
South, I will venture to ask him if he sees nothing important in
the aspect which the South presents? On this question of the
deposits, does he not behold almost an entire unanimity in the
South? How many from the Potomac to the Gulf of Mexico
defend the removal? For myself, I declare that I have not
heard a member of Congress from beyond the Potomac eay,
either in or ont of his seat, that he approved the measure. Can
the gentleman see nothing in this but proof that the deposit
question and the question of recharter are the same? Sir, gen-
tlemen must judge for themselves; but it appears plain enough
to me that the President has lost more friends at the South by
this interference with the public deposits than by any or all
other measures, :

I must be allowed now, Sir, to advert to a remark in the
speech of the honorable member from New York on the left of
the Chair,* as I find it in a morning paper. It is this: —

“Be assured, Sir, whatever nico distinctions may be drawn here ar
to the show of influence which expressions of the popular will upon such
a subject are entitled to from us, it is possible for that will to assume a
constitutional shape, which the Senate cannot misunderstand, and, un-
derstanding, will not unwisely resist,"

Mr. Wright said, it should have been share of influence. Mr, Web-
ster continued: —

‘That does not alter the sense. Mr. President, 1 wish to keep
the avenues of public opinion, from the whole country to the
Capitol, all open, broad, and straight. I desire always to know
the state of that opinion on great and important subjects. From
me, that opinion always haz received, and always will receive,
the most respectful attention and conrideration, And whether

* Me. Wright

Sit, I sce, in those vehicles which carry to the people senti-
ments from high places, plain declarations that the present con
troversy is but a strife between one part of the community and
another. [ hear it boasted as the unfailing security, the solid
ground, never to be shaken, on which recent measures reol, “hat
the poor naturally hale the rich. 1 know that, under the cover
of the roofs of the Capitol, within the last twenty-four hours,
among men sent here to devise means for the public safety and
the public good, it has been vaunted forth, as matter of boast
and triamph, that one cause existed powerful enough to sup-
port every thing and to defend every thing; and that waa, the
natural hatred of the poor to the rich.

Sir, I pronounce the author of euch eentiments to be guilty
of attempting 1 detestable fraud on the community; a double
frand; a frand which is to cheat men out of their property. and
out of the carmings of their labor, by first cheating them out of
their understandings,

“The natural hatred of the poor to the rich!” Sir, it shall
not be till the last moment of my existence, — it shall be only
when Tam drawn to the verge of oblivion, when I shall cease
to have respect or affection for any thing on earth,— that T will
believe the people of the United States capable of being eflecta-
ally deluded, cajoled, and driven about in herds, by such abom=
inable frauds as this, If they shall sink to that point, if they
so far cease to be men, thinking men, intelligent men, as to
yield to such pretences and such elimor, they will be slaves
already; slaves to their own passions, slaves to the fraud and
knavery of pretended friends, They will deserve to be blotted
out of all the records of freedom; they ought not to dishonor
the cause of self-government, by attempting any longer to exer-
else it; they ought to keep their unworthy hands entirely off
from the cause of republican liberty, if they are capable of being
the victims of artifices so shallow, of tricks so stale, so thread
bare, so often practised, 4o much worn out, on serfs and slaves.

“The natural hatred of the poor against the rich!” “The
danger of a moneyed aristocracy!” “A power as great and
dangerous as that resisted by the Revolution!” A call tox
new declaration of independence!” Sur, 1 admonish the people
against the object of onteries like these. 1 admonish every ine
dustrious laborer in the country to be on his guard against such

45°

|

THE REMOVAL OF THE DEP ISITS, 535

The herd of hungry wolves who live on other men's earnings
will rejoice in such a state of things A system which absorbs
into their pockets the fruits of other en's industry is the very
system for them. A government that produces or counte-
nances uncertainty, fuctuations, violent risings and fallings in
prices, and, finally, paper money, is a government exactly af-
ter their own heart. Hence these men are always for change.
They will never let well enough alone. A condition of public
affairs in which property is safe, industry certain of its reward,
and every man secure in his own hard-camed gains, is no para~
dise forthe. Give them just the reverse of this state of things;
bring on change, and change after change; let it not be known
to-day what will be the value of property to-morrow; let no
man be able to say whether the money in his pockets at night
will be money or worthless rags in the moming; and depress
labor till double work ehall earn but half a living,—give them
this state of things, and you give them the consummation of
their earthly bliss.

Sir, the great interest of this great country, the prodacing
cause of all its prosperity, is labor! labor! labor! We area
laboring community. A vast majority of us all live by indns-
try and actual employment in some of their forms. ‘I'he Consti-
tution was made to protect this industry, to give it both encour-
agement and security; but, above all, security, ‘To that very
end, with that precise object in view, power was given to Con-
gress over the currency, and over the money system of the coun-
try. In forty years’ experience, we have found nothing at all
adequate to the beneficial execution of this trast but a well-
conducted national bank. That has been tried, returned to,
tried again, and always found successful. If it be not the proper
thing for us, let it be soberly argued against; let something better
be proposed; let the country examine the matter coolly, and de
cide for itself, But whoever shall attempt to carry a question of
this kind by clamor, and violence, and prejudice; whoever would
rouse the people by appeals, false and fraudulent appeals, to their
love of independence, to resist the establishment of a useful in-
stitution, because it is a bank, and deals in money, and who
artfully urges these appeals wherever he thinks there is more of
honest feeling than of enlightened judgment,—imeans nothing
butideception And whoever has the wickedness to conceive, ane

ay

‘THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 637

ns a substitute for the Bank of the United States; and then by
dispensing with the use of the State banks themselves.

‘This, Sir, is the experiment. I thank the gentleman for thus
stating its character. He has done his duty, and dealt fairly
with the people, by this exhibition of what the views of the
executive government are, at this interesting moment, It is cer-
tainly most proper that the people should see distinctly to what
end or for what object it is that so much suffering is already
upon them, and so much more already in visible and near pros-

pect.

And now, Sir, is it possible, —is it possible that twelve mil-
lions of intelligent people can be expected voluntarily to subject
thernselves to severe distress, of unknown duration, for the purpose
of making trial of an experiment like this? Will a nation that
is intelligent, well informed of its own intercat, enlightened, and
capable of self-government, submit to suffer embarrasement in
all its pursuits, loss of capital, loss of employment, and a sudden
and dead stop in its onward movement in the path of prosperity
and wealth, until it shall be ascertained whether this newe
hatched theory shall answer the hopes of those who haye devised
it? Is the country to be persuaded to bear every thing, and bear
patiently, until the operation of such an experiment, adopted
for such an avowed object, and adopted, too, without the co-
operation or consent of Congress, and by the executive power
alone, shall exhibit its results?

In the name of the hundreds of thousands of our suffering
fellow-citizens, 1 ask, for what reasonable end is this experiment
to be tried? What great and good object, worth so much cost,
is it to accomplish? What enormous evil is to be remedied by
all this inconvenience and all this suffering? What great calam-
ity is to be averted? Have the people thronged our doors, and
loaded our tables with petitions for relief against the pressure of
some political mischief, some notorious misrule, which this ex-
periment is to redress? Has it been resorted to in an hour of
misfortune, calamity, or peril, to save the state? — Is it a meas
ure of remedy, yielded to the importunate cries of an agitated
and distressed nation? Far, Sir, very far from all this. ‘There
was no calamity, there was no suffering, there was no peril,
when these measures began, At the moment when this ex-
periment was entered upon, these twelve millions of people

‘THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 639

Bat we are now debating about an exrlusive specie currency,
and T deny that an exclosive specie currency is the best currency
for any highly commercial country; and 1 deay, especially, that
such a currency would be best suited to the condition and cir.
cumstances of the United States. With the enlightened writerr
and practical statesmen of all commercial communities in mod«
ern times, I have supposed it to be admitted that a well regulai
ed, properly restrained, safely limited paper currency, circulating
on an adequate specie basis, was a thing to be desired, a political
public advantage to be obtained, if it might be obtained; and,
more especially, J have supposed that in a new country, with
resources not yet half developed, with a rapidly increasing popus
lation and a constant demand for more and more capital, —that
is to say, in just such a country as the United States are, I have
supposed that it was admitted that there are particular and
extraordinary advantages in a safe and well regulated paper
currency; because in such a country well regulated bank paper
not only supplies 2 convenient medium of payments and of ex:
change, but also, by the expansion of that medium in a reason-
able and safe degree, the amount of circulation is kept more
nearly commensurate with the constantly increasing amount of
property ; and an extended capital, in the shape of credit, comes
to the aid of the enterprising and the industrious, It is precisely
on this credit, created by rensonable expansion of the currency
in a new country, that men of small capital carry on their
business, It is exactly by means of this, that industry and
enterprise are stimulated. If we were driven back to an exclu-
sively metallic currency, the necessary and inevitable conse+
quence would be, that all trade would fall into the hands of
large capitalists. ‘This is so plain, that no man of reflection
can doubt it. 1 know not, therefore, in what words to express
my astonishment, when I hear it said that the present measures
of government are intended for the good of the many instead of
the few, for the benefit of the poor, and against the rich; and
when I hear it proposed, at the same moment, to do away with
the whole system of credit, and place all trade and commerce,
therefore, in the hands of those who have adequate capital to
carry them on without the use of any credit at all, ‘This, Sir,
would be dividing society, by a precise, distinct, and well
defined line, into two classes; first, the small class, who bave

~—]

‘THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. oi

guarded and properly restrained; and it may be so guarded and
restrained. We need not give up the good which belongs to
it, through fear of the evils which may follow from its abuse.
We have the power to take security against these evils. It
is our business, as statesmen, to adopt that security; it is our
business, not to prostrate, or attempt to prostrate, the system,
but to nse those means of precaution, restraint, and correction,
which experience has sanctioned, and which are ready at our
hands,

It would be to our everlasting reproach, it would be placing
us below the general level of the intelligence of civilized states,
to admit that we cannot contrive means to enjoy the benctits of
bank cireulation, and of avoiding, at the same time, its dangers.
Indeed, Sir, no contrivance is necessary. It is contrivance, and
the love of contrivance, that spoil all, We are destroying our-
selves by a remedy which no evil called for, We are ruining
perfect health by noatrums and quackery. We have lived bith-
erto under a well constructed, practical, and beneficial system;
a system not surpassed by any in the world; and it seems to me
to be presuming largely, largely indeed, on the credulity and
self-denial of the people, to rash with such sudden and impetn-
ous haste into new schemes and new theories, to overturn and
annihilate all that we have so long found useful.

Onr system has hitherto been one in which paper has been
circulating on the strength of a specie basis; thnt is to say, when
every bank-note was convertible into specie at the will of the
holder. This bas been our guard against excess. While banks
tre bound to redeem their bills by paying gold and silver on
demand, and are at all times able to do this, the currency is safe
and convenient. Such a currency is not paper money, in its
odious sense. Ft is not like the Continental paper of Revolution
ary times; it is not like the worthless bills of banks which have
suspended specie payments, On the contrary, it ie the represent-
ative of gold and silver, and convertible into gold and silver on
demand, and therefore answers the purposes of gold and silver;
and so long as its credit is in this way sustained, it is the cheap-
est, the best, and the most convenient circulating medium 1
have already endeavored to warn the country against irredeem-
able paper; against the paper of banks which do not pay specie
for their own notes; aguinst that miserable, abomiuable, and

vou. ut 46

|

‘THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS 3

to New Orleans, and from New Orleans back to New York?
Should we encumber the turnpikes, the railroads, and the steam-"
boats with it, whenever purchases and sales were to be made in
one place of articles to be transported to another? The carriage !
of the money would, in sore cases, cost half as mach as the ear-
riage of the goods, Sir, the very first day, under euch a state of
things, we should set ourselves about the creation of banks. This
would immediately become necessary and unavoidable. We
may assure ourselves, therefore, without. danger of ristake, that
the idea of an exclusively metallic currency is totally incompat-
ible, in the existing state of the world, with an active and exten-
sive commerce. It is inconsistent, too, with the greatest good
of the greatest number; and therefore I oppose it.

But, Sir, how are we to get through the first experiment, so
as to be able to try that which is to be final and ultimate, that
is to say, how are we to get rid of the State banks? How is
this to be accomplished? Of the Bank of the United States,
indeed, we may free ourselves readily; but how are we to anni-
hilate the State banks? We did not. spenk them into being;
‘we cannot speak them out of being. They did not originate in
any exercise of our power; nor do they owe their continuance
to our indulgence, They are responsible to the States; to us
they are irresponsible. We cannot act upon them; we ean only
act with them; and the expectation, as it would appear, is, that,
by zealously coliperating with the government in carrying into
operation its new theory, they may disprove the necessity of
their own existence, and fairly work themselves out of the world!
Sir, Fusk once more, Isa great and intelligent community to
endure patiently all sorts of suffering for fantasies like these?
How charmingly practicable, how delightfully probable, all this
looks!

I find it impossible, Mr. President, to believe that the removal
of the deposits arose in any sach purpose as is now avowed, 1
believe all this to be an after-thonght. The removal was re-
solved on as a strong mensure against the bank; and now that
it has been attended with consequences not at all apprehended
from it, instead of being promptly retracted, as it should have
been, it is to be justified on the ground of a grand experiment,
above the reach of common eagacity, and dropped down, as it

THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. b4b

Mr. President, this experiment will not amuse the people of
this country. They are quite too serious to be amused. Their
suffering is too intense to be sported with. Assuredly, Sir,
they will not be patient as bleeding Jnmbs under the deprivation
of great present good, and the menace of anbearable future
evils. They are not 20 unthinking, so stupid, 1 may almost say.
as to forego the rich blessings now in their actual enjoyment,
and trust the future to the contingencies and the chances whiel
may betide an unnecessary and a wild experiment. They wil!
not expose themselves at once to injury and to ridicule. ‘They
will not buy reproach and acom at so dear arate. They will
not purchase the pleasure of being laughed at by all mankind
at a price quite so enormous.

Mr. President, the objects avowed in this most extraordinary
measure are altogether undesirable. The end, if it could be
obtained, is an end fit to be strenuously avoided; and the prov
ceas adopted to carry on the experiment, and to reach that end
(which it can never attain, and which, in that respect, wholly
faile), does not fail; meantime, to spread far and wide a deep
and general distress, and to agitate the country beyond any
thing which has heretofore happened to us in a time of peace.

Sir, the people, in my opinion, will not support this experi-
ment. They feel it to be afflictive, and they see it to be ridicn-
lous; and ere long, I verily believe, they will sweep it away
with the resistlees breath of their own voice, and bury it up with
the great mass of the detected delusions and rejected follies of
other times. [ seek, Sir, to shun all exaggeration. I avoid
studiously all inflammatory over-statement, and all emblazoning-
But I beseech gentlemen to open their eyes and their ears ta
what is passing in the country, and not to deceive themselves
with the hope that things can long remain as they are, or that
any beneficial change will come until the present policy ehall be
totally abandoned. J attempted, Sir, the other day, to describe
shortly the progress of the public distress. Its first symptom
‘was spasm, contraction, agony. It seized first the commercial
and trading classes, Some survive it, and some do not But
those who, with whatever loss, effort, and sacrifice, get through
the crisis without absolute bankraptey, take good care to make
no new engagements till there shall be a change of times.
‘They abstain from all farther undertakings; and thiv brings the

46°

—

THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 5a

yet been formally announced, I hope they will not be. I think
the country demands a revision of any opinions which may have
been formed on this matter, and requires, in its own name, and
for the sake of the suffering people, that one man's opinion,
however elevated, may not oppose the general judgment. No
man in this country should say, in relation to a subject of such
immense interest, that his single will shall be the law.

It docs not become any man, in a government like this, to
stand proudly on his own opinion, against the whole country,
1 shall not believe, until it shall be #0 proved, that the executive
will sa stand. He has himself more than once recommended
the subject to the consideration of the people, as a subject to be
discussed, reasoned on, and decided. And if the public will,
manifested through its regular organs, the houses of Congress,
shall demand a recharter for a longer or a shorter time, with
modifications to remove reasonable and even plausible objec-
tions, | um not prepared to believe that the decision of the two
houses, thus acting in conformity to the known will of the
people, will mect a Ant negative. I shall not credit that, till I
see it, I certainly shell propose, ere long, if no change or no
other acceptable proposition be made, to make the trial, As J
see no other practical mode of relief, Iam for putting this to the
test. The first thing to be done is to approve or disapprove the
Secretary's reasons. Let us come to the vote, and dispose of
those reasons, In the mean time, public opinion is manifesting
iteelf, It appears to me to grow daily stronger and etronger.
The moment must shortly come when it will be no longer doubt~
ful whether the general public opinion does call for a recharter
of the bank. When that moment comes, I am for passing the
ineasure, and shall propose it. 1 believe it will pass this house;
1 believe it cannot be, und will not be, defeated in the other, un-
Joss relief appears in some other form.

Public opinion will have its way in the houses of legislation
and elsewhere. The people are sovereign; and whatever they
determine to obtain must be yielded to them. ‘This is my be-
lief, and thia is my hope. I am fora bank as a measure of ex-
pediency, and, under our present cireumstances, a measure of
necessity. 1 yield to no new-fangled opinions, to no fantastical
experiments. I stand by the tried policy of the country. I go
for the safety of property, for the protection of industry, for the

THE REMOVAL OF YHE DEPOSITS. a9

house. Shoald it be rejected elsewhere, the consequences will
not lie at our door. But I have the most entire belief, that, from
absolute necessity, and from the imperative dictate of the public
will, a proper measure must pass, and will pass, into the form
of law.

The honorable gentleman, like others, always takes it tor
granted, as a settled point, that the people of the United States
have decided that the present bank shall not be renewed. I be-
lieve no such thing. 1 see no evidence of any such decisicn. It
is easy te oesume all this. The Secretary assumed it, and gen-
tleren foilow his example, and assume it themselves. Six, J
think the lapse of a few months will correct the mistake, both
of the Secretary and of the gentlemen.

The honorable member has suggested another idea, calcu-
lated, perhaps, to produce a momentary impression, which has
been urged in other quarters. It is, that, if the bank charter
be renewed now, it will necessarily become perpetual. Sir, if
the gentleman only means that, if we now admit the necessity
or utility of @ national bank, we must always, for similar rea-
sons, have one hereafter, I say with frankuess, that, in my opine
ion, until some great change of circumstances shall take place,
8 national institution of that kind will always be found useful.
But if he desires to produce a belief that a renewal of its charter
now would make ¢his bank perpetual, under its present form, or
under any form, Ido not at all concur in his opinion. Sir, no+
body proposes to renew the bank, exeept for a limited period.
At the expiration of that period, it will be in the power of Con-
gress, just as fully as it is now, to continue its charter still further,
or to amend it, or let it altogether expire. And what harm or
danger is there in this? The charter of the Bank of England,
always granted for limited periods, has been often renewed, with
various conditions and alterations, and bas now existed, 1 think,
under these renewals, nearly one hundred and fifty years. Its
last term of years was about expiring recently, and the Reform
Parliament have seen no wiser way of proceeding than to incor
porate into it sach amendments as experience had shown neces
sary, and to give it a new lease. And this, us it appears to me,
is precisely the cours which the interest of the people of the
United States requires in regard to our own bank. The danger
of perpetuity is wholly unfounded, and all alarm on that score

THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. ‘551

dress. That which has been unwisely done will be wisely un-
done; and this is the way, Sir, in which an enlightened and ins
dependent people live through their dificulties. And, Sir, I look
to no other source for relief; but I look confidently to this. I
dare not, indeed, under present appearances, predict an immedi-
ate termination of present trouble; that would be msh. It may
take time for the people to understand one another in different
parts of the country, and to unite in their objects and in their
means, Circumstances may delay this union of purpose and
union of effort. J know there arc powerful causes, now in full
activity, which may not only prolong, but increase, the commo-
tion of the political elements, I see indications that a storm is
on the wing. Iam not ignorant of the probable approach of a
crisis in which contending parties, and contending passions, are
to be intensely excited; in which the great interests of the coun-
try are all to be deeply convulved; and which, in itn consequen-
ces, may even touch the action of the ,overnment itself. In
preparing to meet such a crisis, should it come, I found myself
on those great traths which our own experience and the experi-
ence of all other nations have established. I yield to no new-
fangled theories, to no wild and rash experiments, I stand, too,
upon those high duties which the Conetitution of the country
has devolved upon ns; and thus holding on, and holding fast,
by acknowledged trath and manifest doty, I shall take events as
they come; and although these black and portentous clouds
may break on our heads, and the tempest overpower us for a
while, still that can never be for ever overwhelmed, that can never
g0 finally to the bottom, which trath and duty bear up.

END OF VOLUME THIRD.